Ultradave
-
Posts
3,804 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Posts posted by Ultradave
-
-
2 hours ago, Haiduk said:
No internatinal indignation and will not be
Oh, there will be, for sure. Maybe not 5 minutes after it happened.
This video post is the first I saw this (partly because I've been driving around a good part of the day). In the US, there is a broad antipathy to the policies of the Israeli government and that has been so for years. But there is also very strong support for them as well. What there also is is VERY widespread support for the Israeli people.
Most people can separate governmental policy from the people. Others will unfairly malign the critics as lacking support for Israel. It's complicated
Dave
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
There was definitely speculation that Trump getting booted from office was part of Putin's calculation that non-kinetic solutions weren't going to work. With Trump in office for another 4 years NATO might have been wrecked. With Biden (or pretty much anybody else) it was likely to regain some of the strength Trump had taken from it. Better to strike while the alliance is at its weakest point ever vs. waiting and having it be stronger..
Just my own opinion, but I think this is the most likely argument. If Trump had won, Putin could have waited. Ukraine would not have gotten aide from the US and without that the rest of NATO would be less likely to go it alone. With Biden in office, he knew that Biden would build up unified opposition and a good case for aide, so the sooner the better (or in reality, the sooner the less bad
)
Interesting how the disinformation campaigns take root and are hard to weed out. My cousin stopped overnight on his way back from a business trip a few weeks ago. My wife was out of town so we went out to dinner at a local Irish pub and he brought up some of the issues in Ukraine. First on his list was the "secret US run bio warfare labs that the Russians had liberated". Ugh. I thought that was put to bed long ago. He recommended that I not listen to the "mainstream media" and instead go to "trusted sources". He named a few - all of them completely unreliable rumor mills. I won't bother to give them any print here. Now this is a guy, middle aged (mid 50s), who is well educated (University of Florida, then Oxford), in economics, has worked in oil and gas futures and resource evaluation for a couple decades. He's no dummy. But he's been led astray by all the BS that is spread. I explained the "bio-labs" and how the US has been for years helping Ukraine and others better secure facilities, and that rather than following his sources, he should actually read the state department agreement that details exactly what has been done over the years. Slack jaw. There was more - Ukraine and the US started everything. There was a treaty that the US would not expand NATO at all after the USSR fell. There was no guarantee of Ukraine's integrity, yada, yada, yada.
I love him to death. I only have 2 cousins and with my parents and my younger brother all dead, 1) I'm the oldest in the family, and 2) he and his sister are the only peer family I have left (we all have "kids"), but ugh, we agreed to talk about other stuff.
Dave
-
39 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
If the moderates on both sides would work together and sideline the far left and far right extremists the world would be a better place.
Well, that was the bipartisan budget deal that was ALREADY made to get the debt ceiling passed. It already existed. McCarthy reneged on it in an attempt to placate the far-right group. What good did that do?
Dave
-
1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:
He did say the Democrats tried to obstruct the passage of the continuing resolution bill. He went on to provide examples of how the Democrats attempted to obstruct.
They delayed things long enough that they could actually READ what was in the bill, instead of immediately voting on an unseen bill. Either that or trust McCarthy, and they already have experience at that.
That's not obstructing the passage. Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close.
The fire alarm thing? One guy. One idiot.
Ukraine aid is going to be a tough balancing act. The next Speaker is going to have to promise the 8 to 20 rebels that there won't be any, and yet, if they try to NOT include Ukraine aid, it won't pass, because no one is going to trust a new Speaker to push a separate Ukraine aid bill after the budget, and not renege on the promise. They could, I suppose, propose both at once, so the bills are all on the docket to vote for - not sure of the exact mechanisms for all that. Basically the Speaker and his minions control what actually gets done in the House.
The end result is that I have NO idea why anyone would even run for the job at this point. What a mess.
Dave
-
45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yup. Apparently the only two powers vested into this temporary position are to facilitate the vote for a new Speaker and to take Nancy Pelosi's office for his own. Now that he's accomplished the most important priority (taking Pelosi's office), it's time for him to get to the less important stuff like restarting government.
Steve
Very petty, that.
-
11 hours ago, MSBoxer said:
I am not sure that is true, the speaker pro tempor takes over immediately upon the speaker vacating the position to ensure that normal operations of the house continue.
Can't find any link to actual rules but this short article lays it out pretty clearly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/us/politics/kevin-mccarthy-house-speaker.html
-
24 minutes ago, dan/california said:
Dems need to get in a room with five or six sanest GOP guys, and have discussion about ambassadorships and pretty much any other job they might want in 14 months.
The dynamics of a Democratic House Speaker with a Republican House majority could be.... interesting. Basically nothing happens that the Speaker doesn't want to happen, and yet, he wouldn't have the majority votes without some help (which might be part of the bargain I suppose, if, and BIG if, you trust the agreement made to get there).
Plan? I don't think there is a plan. Has anyone heard any member of Congress say "once we get rid of McCarthy, we'll nominate Rep. XYZ for Speaker?" Hah, now that they have him out, getting someone else in is going to be tough. McCarthy only got in by the skin of his teeth as the candidate they could hold their noses and vote for after he promised them the Moon. Now what? Someone similar who will have to do the same thing.
Meanwhile the budget clock is ticking, and no Ukraine aid bill until there is a Speaker (for those not in the US, no business can be conducted until a Speaker is elected).
Dave -
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Our boss broke in and said straight-faced "We should think about a strategic nuclear weapon program." I think I peed my pants a little bit.
Well, with CANDU reactors, the nuclear material is not an issue, other than the NPT of course, and all the safeguards agreements and monitoring that have been agreed to.
Dave
-
5 hours ago, dan/california said:
A a rather large diffrence in what is killing tanks from more or less exactly fifty years ago.
I didn't realize it was that high, but not surprising, really, when you think about it. The ATGMs of the day that opposed the Israelis needed to be flown to the target by an operator. The defense against that was to spot the launch, and then hit it the position with suppressing fire immediately - MGs, tank rounds, whatever is handy. Artillery would be too slow. Standard tactics of the day, both there, and against any other Russian equipped force.
So it wasn't *too* hard to spoil the aim of the ATGM operator, while a tank round is roughly instantaneous.
Dave
-
15 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:
I don’t believe “resolved” is the best term though, since the House will not accept this Senate measure.
Good point. Resolved in the Senate negotiations anyway. There is broad support for Ukraine in the Senate, and I don't think that's going to change, even to placate the House crazies and get something passed.
Dave -
48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
This is an example of poor leadership. Country should always be above party and absolutely above personal power. He should be willing to "die on this hill" to make a stand against the extremists within his own party.
There are options, such as making a deal with the Dems and moderate Republicans to pass something that both sides agree to and the Dems cover McCarthy's butt by voting for him in the inevitable leadership challenge. It's easy to take the power away from the extremists if their votes no longer matter.
But I'm daydreaming here. McCarthy is not going to do the right thing even though, in the end, I don't see him surviving as Speaker because he chose to empower the extremists.
Steve
Yes, McCarthy is no leader. At all. And that is not a partisan remark. He just is not up to the job he's in. It's like the title of Speaker was his goal, but not performing the role of Speaker.
I gather from remarks made that Democrats are not eager to prop up McCarthy. It may come to that though, if the alternative is such chaos that Democrats feel they just have to in order to avoid a lot of damage to the public. I have to say I'd LOVE to see the sputtering and indignation from the "insurgents" if that happens. It will be epic!
As a general comment, there are a LOT of politicians that need to be reminded of their oath of office. Maybe they should recite THAT every day before business starts, rather than the pledge of allegiance.
To stay somewhat on topic, it seems that US aid to Ukraine is still safe for the foreseeable future. Whatever happens with the above, there appears to be plenty of pro-Ukraine aid sentiment to overcome any opposition.
Dave
-
18 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:
For those who doubt that a tiny minority of USA Congressional Representatives can disrupt aid to Ukraine, let alone shut down the government of the USA:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/us/politics/senate-shutdown-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Money for Ukraine at Center of Senate Bid to Avert ShutdownResolved. There is money in the Senate continuing resolution for Ukraine aid (and US disaster relief as well). Now, the real question is whether the House will even consider it for a vote that way.
I don't think there is much doubt that the Senate will continue to support Ukraine. And really the House as well, EXCEPT in the House, there are ~20 who will not under any circumstance, at least as yet, and that 20 of 435 can hold up everything, since there is only a 4 seat majority. In the past, dissenters had "permission" to vote against, to satisfy their constituents, because when the votes were counted there were sufficient without the dissenters. This isn't the case now, and 20 are dictating terms to the entire 222 majority. And Speaker McCarthy is in a bad situation, of his own making. If he tries to pass the Senate bill, it may pass with Democratic help, since the Senate bill was bipartisan, but he'll be voted out of the speakership because he will supposedly have reneged on the agreement made with the 20 to get to be Speaker. If he tries to put forward his own resolution, and includes ALL the demands of the 20, it *might* pass, but will NEVER pass the Senate. It might not even pass the House, because there are plenty of Republicans who don't support the positions that the vocal 20 member minority hold. I'm using 20 because it's *about* that many and fluctuates day to day - we all know who the MOST vocal minority of the minority are and they seem to hold the power, a pretty amazing spectacle for first term Congresscritters to display.
Been watching all this with a feeling of both interest and horror. Not that it hasn't happened before, but in the past no one was holding the Speaker's job hostage at the same time.
The Pentagon has stated that in a shutdown, aid to Ukraine would continue as a priority measure not to be interrupted. So that's good anyway.
Dave -
Apologies if this has already been covered but if so I missed it (not unlikely).
What we are seeing in Ukraine is pretty much the first widespread and numerous usage of drones, both for observation and for attack - sniping really, even if the sniping is dropping a grenade down a turret hatch, which is pretty impressive to me.
What we aren't seeing is the widespread deployment of drone countermeasures.... yet. Of course there are many types of drones, but most have some characteristics in common, such as optical sensors, a datalink, and an operator on the ground. And by their nature the smaller ones require the operator be reasonably close and not say, in Las Vegas, like some of the US UAVs.
Once a force devises and deploys some countermeasures on a wide scale, this drone effectiveness/tank replacement argument may well die down a lot, with drones becoming another complementary weapon system.
Could an autonomous system be developed to track and then laser blind small drones that could be mounted on a vehicle, or even small enough that individual AFVs could carry their own? A laser powerful enough to actually disable the drone might require a dedicated vehicle. Don't know - not up on my laser technology. EW capability that could scan for the drone signal (you know it's emitting VERY close to you), and jam it. And yeah, I know all about frequency hopping transmissions, but that doesn't mean there isn't an effort to follow or counteract that, at least enough to disrupt, if not negate the transmission.
Can Russia develop and deploy systems like this in the midst of this war, in enough concentration to be very effective? I'm very doubtful of that. Could other countries already be working on solutions like this for the next conflict? Probably.
Like tank and anti-tank weapons, it will become an another arms race, with more capable and resistant drones and more effective countermeasures against them.
There is a constant similar race in the submarine world (which I'm more familiar with). Sound detection capabilities get better and better, and noise silencing technology gets better and better in order to better hide. Silencing technology is the US submarine world's most closely guarded secrets.
Dave -
The nice thing about being FA is that we stay out of all that branch rancor because we know we just support. In fact our DIVARTY motto was "We Support."
I know on occasion moving with the barrel facing rear is as mentioned, protection from damage, especially maneuvering in close quarters like city or town streets where no enemy contact is expected. Hard to get around corners with that main gun leading the way. Hit something hard and your gun is toast. Hit something soft and the soft thing (wooden building) is toast. Let the gun follow and you can tweak the turret to follow around the corner and not swing into something.
Dave -
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
and b) they had enough margin of error for those who didn't sign off on something.
I think this is a key point about the situation. The majority (in both houses) is so tenuous, there isn't room for "permission" being given to vote against something to make the points of the extremists. They need every single vote or nothing will happen.
I'm not as optimistic that a shutdown will be averted, based on the inability to even get a defense budget to the House floor so far. And at that, I defense budget that probably won't pass the House, and definitely won't pass the Senate. There is little time left to pass a continuing resolution, as a minimum. And if McCarthy gets one passed, it will have to be with the help of Democrats in the House, and that will be the end of his speakership, causing even more chaos before a serious budget can be passed.
Ugh. Something tells me I'll be dipping into savings for expenses for a bit (even if we get it back eventually).
Good to hear though that aid to Ukraine will be considered essential by the Pentagon.
Dave -
12 minutes ago, Teufel said:
Privileged to be in company of specialists like yourself. Next case for expert opinion coming up (if true). This thing just got repurposed to be used as submarine.
Excellent! Although from Russia's standpoint, not an optimal operating mode for that asset.
Dave -
2 hours ago, Mindestens said:
Supposedly leaked photos of the submarine. This doesn't look good. Which is very good.
"Leaked"
Well, I am an expert with 38 years of submarine construction and testing, and as a subject matter expert I can say that that submarine is truly f-ed, FUBAR, SNAFU, scrap metal.
Aren't you glad I'm here to provide you with my expert opinions?
And kudos to Ukraine. Nice shot.
Dave
-
Just now, kohlenklau said:
The patch installation process placed the "activate New Products" icon on my desktop and I got all wigged out to try and find my license code.
But it seems I do not need it for a patch? It seems all good and shows 2.20 down in the lower right corner.
You shouldn't need a license code for a free patch, just for DLCs that are paid.
Dave -
Mac OS X: (I speak Mac
)
It's not the mods. In testing (yeah, I'm the tester it happens to) I've installed clean 1.07 full installer, ran the updates from 1.03 to 1.06 to 1.07, and started from 1.06 and updated to 1.07. Everything is fine until 1.07, no matter which way I do it. I have some mods and I moved them in and moved them back out - no difference. But in each case I started with a no mod clean install.
It's not my OS that's doing it either. I have Sonoma Beta and @JRC58 has 13.5.3 and it happened to both of us. Also, I just updated FI with no issues at all, with or without mods (of which I have a lot for FI). There's no reason it should behave differently for FI than CW. None that I can think of anyway.
The .brz file for 1.07 is indeed quite small, but that could be correct for Mac since there is no PBEM++ support for Macs, just a couple of minor graphics fixes.
There are some who get the glitch, and some who don't, even among the beta testers. So - a mystery so far. Perhaps Charles will spot something. Meanwhile, for myself, I kept an installation of 1.06 for now, which works fine. One thing I haven't tried though is whether a normal PBEM would be compatible with a Windows user on 1.07.
For those of you who have the glitch, I wouldn't knock yourself out trying a bunch of tricks, just reinstall 1.06 and you'll be fine. John can provide anyone with a link to it. And you should be able to put your mods back in 1.06 with no problems.
Dave
PS - For Windows users, just as general information, on Macs EVERYTHING is installed in the application directory - the app, saves, incoming/outgoing emails, mods, etc. There isn't anything at all in the user's home directory (except the license buried deep somewhere). Different looking installation than that for Windows.
-
12 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Was it Pathfinders?
No, don't think so. Pathfinders are Army and they also do that job. We had a Pathfinders school at Fort Liberty (nee Bragg). These guys were Air Force and jumped in as a team of 2 or 3 and set up the beacons and smoke pots on the DZ and established contact with the Air Force aircraft. It may be that in my day the Pathfinders did it for Army based Das and LZs and the USAF guys when it was AF transport. It's been a long time. The name has probably changed over the years..
When I had a biopsy the anaesthesiologist was one of those Air Force guys. We got on that subject because he asked about my Typhoid vaccine allergy (which I found out about in the Army). Usual conversation of where did you serve, etc. When he found out I was former 82d, he piped up about the advance team that he used to do. And I thought I was nuts being a paratrooper! Got nothing on those guys.
Dave
-
44 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
As we look forward we talk a lot about empowerment and giving troops more agency to act which is interestingly more in line with warrior methods. Further, one can play with idea that warriors handle uncertainty much better than soldiers because their mindset is designed to embrace chaos through retention of agency. This is more likely the reason why "warrior" has taken root in SOF than any bloodthirsty sentiment. SOF, by its nature, has very high levels of agency. To the point it may be considered a negative capability.
I will also admit to being partly guilty myself (and my friends) of some "elitism". I am a life member of the 82d Airborne Association. We have our annual picnic Saturday for the Greater Hartford (CT) Chapter. Everyone is a paratrooper, from WW2 veterans, of which we still have just a couple, to recent returnees from Afghanistan, and everyone in between. You are a paratrooper. None of us care when, where, or how, what job, enlisted, officer. You are a paratrooper.
It's differentiated between those who went to Airborne School and got their wings, which is certainly an accomplishment and something to be proud of, to those of us who served on "jump status" in a paratrooper unit. We have members male and female from the 82d, 101st, and 11th Abn Divisions and a couple of the independent brigades, plus Green Berets, plus even a couple Marine Force Recon guys. All paratroopers. Oh, and one USAF Close Combat Team guy (I think that's what they used to call it - the guys who jump in first and set up the drop zone for us - you want to talk about guys with big you know whats). Can't find what they call it now.
It's like someone mentioned about the Marines. You are a Marine. For us, you are a paratrooper. It's more a shared experience equalizer than anything.
Dave -
2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
It could make sense. Especially in countries which are not in a war for a long time, those with conscript and/or underfunded armies the popular view and self-image of soldiers can get low. I.e., poor underfed low IQ country boys easily intimidiated by anyone, mostly trying to survive until the end of their term. I remember stories in 1990s Poland of soldiers being slapped around by local gangsters or even hooligans at country discos. Since a soldier needs courage and initiative on the battlefield, it makes sense to try to psych him up and make him more aggressive, if you can get that by referring to him by a more aggresive name than just "soldier"- sure, go ahead.
By the way, surely it is evident for everyone the US army is not designed for self-protection but expeditionary warfare. POMCUS? REFORGER? The Marine Corps? Come on.
I did say "supposed", however, REFORGER? I'll say come on to that. That was to reinforce NATO (REinforce FORces in GERmany), in the case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Nothing else. It was practice for the supporting our allies part of what I said, and rehearsal for a defensive stand that thankfully never came.
Dave
-
15 hours ago, Baneman said:
Exhibit A : "while we empower the warrior to win the war in several weeks"
Pet peeve (and not at all aimed at you, or at Kevin, who you were quoting).
I really do not like the pervasive use of the terms "warriors" and "warfighters" that many, mostly in government or the military upper echelons, refer to service members. Statements like "We have to give our warfighters the tools to do their jobs" (which is another thing - sounds like we are talking about carpenters or plumbers).
It's like some macho thing to me. Maybe I'm an old fogie (I guess I am at this point!) Maybe it's just me and I'm the outlier, but it seems much too belligerent for a country that supposedly uses its military for self-protection, and the aid and support of other countries.
I have no idea if this is common in other countries, but I find it very grating.
Dave
-
11 hours ago, kevinkin said:
Enough - ever seen the stats on Ukrainian losses? American power should transcend administrations and name blaming. That is just dividing and counter productive. I was not saying Biden screwed up. I was trying to say American has lost it's strategic vision. We are being out maneuvered in the southern hemisphere. Russia and China might be using cannon fodder in Ukraine to keep the west distracted. Horrible. The US should know better.
To recover that "vision" and put it into effective action of some kind, the US Congress needs to take a deep breath and decide to work toward some common goals and agreements. They exist, and the Senate is better in this regard than the House. Anything substantive takes both houses, though. I'd say "the US" DOES know better but the current atmosphere is so partisan that bipartisan agreements just aren't happening, even though both parties essentially agree on something (and not just Ukraine, other topics as well).
Dave
Israel War Thread
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist.
Dave