Ultradave

https://wapo.st/3M5cxQv
You should be able to read this. I have a subscription and can gift 10 articles a month. There is a running update so you should be able to come back to this posting, click on it, and see newer updates. If you scroll on down a fair bit, there is a very short video of the rocket/missile hit, said to be verified by WaPo. Sounds like the zzzipp of a rocket (of some kind) passing close by the video taker, and then hitting. The article lists chronologically the conflicting claims and news updates.
Take it for what it's worth. Doesn't prove anything, but *to me* it sounds like a rocket, and not an air to ground missile with a large warhead. Could be a Hamas rocket, could be an aircraft fired rocket. Whoever fired it, the rocket might have hit something explosive.
I agree it would be supremely stupid to do something like this right before Pres. Biden gets there. Doesn't mean mistakes or misfires on either side don't happen. We have enough evidence of that from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dave

https://wapo.st/3M5cxQv
You should be able to read this. I have a subscription and can gift 10 articles a month. There is a running update so you should be able to come back to this posting, click on it, and see newer updates. If you scroll on down a fair bit, there is a very short video of the rocket/missile hit, said to be verified by WaPo. Sounds like the zzzipp of a rocket (of some kind) passing close by the video taker, and then hitting. The article lists chronologically the conflicting claims and news updates.
Take it for what it's worth. Doesn't prove anything, but *to me* it sounds like a rocket, and not an air to ground missile with a large warhead. Could be a Hamas rocket, could be an aircraft fired rocket. Whoever fired it, the rocket might have hit something explosive.
I agree it would be supremely stupid to do something like this right before Pres. Biden gets there. Doesn't mean mistakes or misfires on either side don't happen. We have enough evidence of that from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dave

https://wapo.st/3M5cxQv
You should be able to read this. I have a subscription and can gift 10 articles a month. There is a running update so you should be able to come back to this posting, click on it, and see newer updates. If you scroll on down a fair bit, there is a very short video of the rocket/missile hit, said to be verified by WaPo. Sounds like the zzzipp of a rocket (of some kind) passing close by the video taker, and then hitting. The article lists chronologically the conflicting claims and news updates.
Take it for what it's worth. Doesn't prove anything, but *to me* it sounds like a rocket, and not an air to ground missile with a large warhead. Could be a Hamas rocket, could be an aircraft fired rocket. Whoever fired it, the rocket might have hit something explosive.
I agree it would be supremely stupid to do something like this right before Pres. Biden gets there. Doesn't mean mistakes or misfires on either side don't happen. We have enough evidence of that from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dave

Israel says it was a Hamas rocket that fell short, as 30-40% do, so I'm told.  As they are somewhat home made, it's a credible number.
So maybe best to reserve judgement for a bit.
Hi did.  He also noted the "... myth of six million dead jews in WW2 ...."  So, not a serious person.  Blocked him some time ago.

Pretty dumb plan then, because a limited Russian counterattack that got absolutely NO coverage anywhere except obscure sites that chronicle day-to-day Ukraine activity (I include this forum in that description), compared to a horrendous terror attack that outraged the entire world, with a couple of notable exceptions. 
I'm not buying it. They are not even remotely close in impact, making it not a diversion, not a multiplier, not really anything.
Dave

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

Pretty dumb plan then, because a limited Russian counterattack that got absolutely NO coverage anywhere except obscure sites that chronicle day-to-day Ukraine activity (I include this forum in that description), compared to a horrendous terror attack that outraged the entire world, with a couple of notable exceptions. 
I'm not buying it. They are not even remotely close in impact, making it not a diversion, not a multiplier, not really anything.
Dave

Pretty dumb plan then, because a limited Russian counterattack that got absolutely NO coverage anywhere except obscure sites that chronicle day-to-day Ukraine activity (I include this forum in that description), compared to a horrendous terror attack that outraged the entire world, with a couple of notable exceptions. 
I'm not buying it. They are not even remotely close in impact, making it not a diversion, not a multiplier, not really anything.
Dave

Nobody can line up like this in Ukraine and live. The fact that the IDF can do it with impunity is why Hamas has bitten off more they can chew. 

We haven't advanced an inch, and we can't treat all the wounded really screams sucess doesnt it.

Doubling the population of the southern half of Gaza while Israel removes Hamas from the north, possibly followed in a couple weeks? by an evacuation order for the southern half of Gaza so they can remove Hamas from the souther half. So all 2 million people then displace back to the north? To Egypt? Build rafts? 
On top of the blockade, this has the makings of a humanitarian catastrophe.

Dave

Doubling the population of the southern half of Gaza while Israel removes Hamas from the north, possibly followed in a couple weeks? by an evacuation order for the southern half of Gaza so they can remove Hamas from the souther half. So all 2 million people then displace back to the north? To Egypt? Build rafts? 
On top of the blockade, this has the makings of a humanitarian catastrophe.

Dave

Without a Speaker no business gets done. The Speaker Pro Tem's (the interim Speaker) one and only responsibility is to preside over the election of a new Speaker, after which they can get down to business. There's been some talk on voting to give him more responsibility in order to pass aid bills, but I can't really see that happening. Opening a can of worms unless it's very restrictively written.
The large aid package is unrelated to the Speaker election or lack of a Speaker. The one time large aid package is a proposal to avoid dickering about aid every 2 months with smaller appropriations bills, and just get enough aid to last until the election (next November). Biden can't do it himself. Both houses have to pass it, which they may do. There is still good support in both parties for aid to Ukraine, although recent news has showed lessening support among Republicans. But their majority is only 5 seats, so it would only take 6 Republicans and all the Democrats to pass a bill, or some similar combination. The big however to this might be getting it to the floor in the House to vote on, depending on who the next Speaker is. 
Hope that helps. My gut feeling is that sanity will prevail. Someone recently quoted the Churchill saying about Americans being counted on to do the right thing, once all the other possibilities are exhausted. Very perceptive, he was.

Dave

Without a Speaker no business gets done. The Speaker Pro Tem's (the interim Speaker) one and only responsibility is to preside over the election of a new Speaker, after which they can get down to business. There's been some talk on voting to give him more responsibility in order to pass aid bills, but I can't really see that happening. Opening a can of worms unless it's very restrictively written.
The large aid package is unrelated to the Speaker election or lack of a Speaker. The one time large aid package is a proposal to avoid dickering about aid every 2 months with smaller appropriations bills, and just get enough aid to last until the election (next November). Biden can't do it himself. Both houses have to pass it, which they may do. There is still good support in both parties for aid to Ukraine, although recent news has showed lessening support among Republicans. But their majority is only 5 seats, so it would only take 6 Republicans and all the Democrats to pass a bill, or some similar combination. The big however to this might be getting it to the floor in the House to vote on, depending on who the next Speaker is. 
Hope that helps. My gut feeling is that sanity will prevail. Someone recently quoted the Churchill saying about Americans being counted on to do the right thing, once all the other possibilities are exhausted. Very perceptive, he was.

Dave

Usually someone would also post a link to where this information came from, especially considering how large the claim is.  "Just heard" is kind of nebulous. 😀

Dave

Without a Speaker no business gets done. The Speaker Pro Tem's (the interim Speaker) one and only responsibility is to preside over the election of a new Speaker, after which they can get down to business. There's been some talk on voting to give him more responsibility in order to pass aid bills, but I can't really see that happening. Opening a can of worms unless it's very restrictively written.
The large aid package is unrelated to the Speaker election or lack of a Speaker. The one time large aid package is a proposal to avoid dickering about aid every 2 months with smaller appropriations bills, and just get enough aid to last until the election (next November). Biden can't do it himself. Both houses have to pass it, which they may do. There is still good support in both parties for aid to Ukraine, although recent news has showed lessening support among Republicans. But their majority is only 5 seats, so it would only take 6 Republicans and all the Democrats to pass a bill, or some similar combination. The big however to this might be getting it to the floor in the House to vote on, depending on who the next Speaker is. 
Hope that helps. My gut feeling is that sanity will prevail. Someone recently quoted the Churchill saying about Americans being counted on to do the right thing, once all the other possibilities are exhausted. Very perceptive, he was.

Dave

Without a Speaker no business gets done. The Speaker Pro Tem's (the interim Speaker) one and only responsibility is to preside over the election of a new Speaker, after which they can get down to business. There's been some talk on voting to give him more responsibility in order to pass aid bills, but I can't really see that happening. Opening a can of worms unless it's very restrictively written.
The large aid package is unrelated to the Speaker election or lack of a Speaker. The one time large aid package is a proposal to avoid dickering about aid every 2 months with smaller appropriations bills, and just get enough aid to last until the election (next November). Biden can't do it himself. Both houses have to pass it, which they may do. There is still good support in both parties for aid to Ukraine, although recent news has showed lessening support among Republicans. But their majority is only 5 seats, so it would only take 6 Republicans and all the Democrats to pass a bill, or some similar combination. The big however to this might be getting it to the floor in the House to vote on, depending on who the next Speaker is. 
Hope that helps. My gut feeling is that sanity will prevail. Someone recently quoted the Churchill saying about Americans being counted on to do the right thing, once all the other possibilities are exhausted. Very perceptive, he was.

Dave

Without a Speaker no business gets done. The Speaker Pro Tem's (the interim Speaker) one and only responsibility is to preside over the election of a new Speaker, after which they can get down to business. There's been some talk on voting to give him more responsibility in order to pass aid bills, but I can't really see that happening. Opening a can of worms unless it's very restrictively written.
The large aid package is unrelated to the Speaker election or lack of a Speaker. The one time large aid package is a proposal to avoid dickering about aid every 2 months with smaller appropriations bills, and just get enough aid to last until the election (next November). Biden can't do it himself. Both houses have to pass it, which they may do. There is still good support in both parties for aid to Ukraine, although recent news has showed lessening support among Republicans. But their majority is only 5 seats, so it would only take 6 Republicans and all the Democrats to pass a bill, or some similar combination. The big however to this might be getting it to the floor in the House to vote on, depending on who the next Speaker is. 
Hope that helps. My gut feeling is that sanity will prevail. Someone recently quoted the Churchill saying about Americans being counted on to do the right thing, once all the other possibilities are exhausted. Very perceptive, he was.

Dave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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