How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[BlackMoria]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Anyway…”bad lies and statistics”, “written by the winners” etc etc.

I think the term my statistic professor used when introducing his first lecture.    "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"

Edited May 25, 2023 by BlackMoria

[kevinkin]

3 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Another common refrain among conservatives is that Reagan simply “outspent” the Soviets. But Soviet defense spending remained flat throughout the 1980s.

But the US increased defense spending compared to the Soviets, so differential was real even if SDI was pie in the sky at the time. I don't think many believe defense spending vs. the USSR was the sole reason for the evil empire's collapse. That's just political positioning. The command economy was 90+ of the reason. However, the case has been forwarded the increase in spending may have pushed the USSR over the edge faster than the command economy could alone.  

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

Flurschadengeschwader...

 

 

Looking at this I wonder how Russia hits anything it aims at with dumb bombs.  This was ideal circumstances... good weather, flat open terrain, VERY obvious target that could be spotted many miles away, and yet both of Russia's most advanced bombers missed their targets by a wide margin.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, kevinkin said:

But the US increased defense spending compared to the Soviets, so differential was real even if SDI was pie in the sky at the time. I don't think many believe defense spending vs. the USSR was the sole reason for the evil empire's collapse. That's just political positioning. The command economy was 90+ of the reason. However, the case has been forwarded the increase in spending may have pushed the USSR over the edge faster than the command economy could alone.  

Yes, that is the sensible argument I've seen.  It wasn't so much that defense spending caused a collapse on its own, it was just one of several factors that, in total, collapsed the SU's command economy.  The four I've seen mentioned are the cost of the Afghan War, the crash of oil prices, increasing problems with meeting domestic consumer needs, and defense spending.  If the Soviet Union stopped spending on its military the whole rotten thing would have collapsed anyway.

It should be remembered that while defense spending in the 1970s had tanked in the US, the same thing had happened for the Soviets and for similar reasons.  Large amounts of capital were expended on active military operations, therefore both the Soviets and the US were basically falling behind.  Reagan's push for increased defense spending meant that the Soviets either had to step up their gain or fall way behind.  The Soviet economy just couldn't handle an expansion.

Steve

[Centurian52]

20 hours ago, dan/california said:

There is a fundamental problem with the Constitution, the founders did not understand political parties very well

You need some sort of ranked choice or proportional voting system. Otherwise you will always trend towards two dominant political parties after enough election cycles. The problem is that you need access to modern political science in order to know that, which they didn't.

It doesn't seem like you can ever get rid of political parties entirely (at least we haven't figured out how to do it yet). But other countries manage to have a larger spectrum of political parties that better represent the views of their populations. There will still tend to be two parties that are larger than all the others, but they don't squeeze out the others completely.

[cesmonkey]

With Ukraine Set to Get Another Weapon from Its Wish List, Democrats Push for More
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/05/ukraine-set-get-another-weapon-its-wish-list-democrats-push-more/386798/

[Harmon Rabb]

The fellas at Orxy are getting tired of counting these things!

But where would we be without their superhuman efforts?

[Kinophile]

20 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

With Ukraine Set to Get Another Weapon from Its Wish List, Democrats Push for More
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/05/ukraine-set-get-another-weapon-its-wish-list-democrats-push-more/386798/

"When you're fighting for your own survival and survival of your children,” Crow said, “you tend not to tolerate malfeasance.” 

Well put. 

[kevinkin]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Reagan's push

I think Carter also deserves credit. In their old age, members of the Reagan administration acknowledged this. Projects that were in pure research moved into serious development. If I recall, the M1, modernized Tomahawks, and HARMs fall into that category. Another reason was the science and engineering in the US developed consumer and aspirational (Apollo) products that better served the economy. I remember being told never to trust a paper coming out of the USSR. The results could not be replicated. They did have good scientists and engineers, but the US had many more and they were far less affected by the state. Feeding from this is the the net revenue from refining oil into value added petrochemical products. For example polymers and structural plastics. So while the US was a net importer of oil for years, the chemical business produced more revenue down stream than the USSR could even dream. The US made money off of oil anyway. The US economy was less sensitive to fluctuations in oil prices despite all the hand wringing. So it's not so much about the price of oil as it is being dependent on it. Maybe one in the same. 

[Fenris]

Not what I was hoping when I first saw the clips in this thread - turns out to be a prisoner swap, poster thinks with wagner.  It's pretty interesting that prisoner swaps seem to be a thing in this conflict.  I'm not really aware of it happening in any other recent conflicts beyond the odd occasion - anyone have an idea why we're seeing them fairly often now?

There was an exchange from the Bakhmut direction, 8 officers and 98 sergeants and privates were released

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Fenris

[dan/california]

34 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

You need some sort of ranked choice or proportional voting system. Otherwise you will always trend towards two dominant political parties after enough election cycles. The problem is that you need access to modern political science in order to know that, which they didn't.

It doesn't seem like you can ever get rid of political parties entirely (at least we haven't figured out how to do it yet). But other countries manage to have a larger spectrum of political parties that better represent the views of their populations. There will still tend to be two parties that are larger than all the others, but they don't squeeze out the others completely.

And even then you have to tune the details just right. There are several countries that set their thresholds for getting sets in Parliament too low, and they wind up with tiny parties elected and run by crazy people playing kingmaker in weird coalitions.

[acrashb]

38 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

You need some sort of ranked choice or proportional voting system. 

[...]

It doesn't seem like you can ever get rid of political parties entirely (at least we haven't figured out how to do it yet).

I wanted to stay out of this, but here we go.

On the first part:

Numerous studies (no, I can't produce them, but someone better than me with google / waybackmachine may find the first one I am aware of done by the Pew Research Center) show proportional and related systems to have materially more waste and corruption.  The "why" seems to be that fringe parties - which proliferate in proportional systems - swing the balance of power and leverage this.  Also, in proportional one need not have "big tent" parties, so fringe and lunatic fringe and single-issue parties end up with representation.  And no, the 11% of people who believe Elvis is still alive don't deserve independent representation.

Also, first-past-the-post systems have greater longevity of the polity (fewer revolutions) and less overall political violence.  
For more: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-first-past-the-post-isnt-to-be-abandoned-lightly
If the US extirpates gerrymandering (which encourages extreme candidates) and somehow manages to reduce the grotesque amount of money in elections without impairing freedom of expression, it will have better results.
 

On the second, it will never happen.  People have a natural tendency to band together to protect their shared interests (e.g., trade unions), and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Most likely I'll go back to lurking and enjoying the interesting discussions popping up as the Ukrainian counter-offensive warms up.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, BlackMoria said:

I think the term my statistic professor used when introducing his first lecture.    "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"

To which I would add “…any Russian government based information”

[kevinkin]

Duplicated

Edited May 25, 2023 by kevinkin

[kevinkin]

How to Lie with Statistics (1954).

Even today, often part of the curriculum of business and poly sci students, not so much in the natural sciences.  

https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=1346902314368319&hvadid=84181466637534&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=58361&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-84181750878875%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=3232_10726221&keywords=book+how+to+lie+with+statistics&qid=1685054979&sr=8-1

[Pelican Pal]

3 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Frankly, I just don't understand why people still think it's a good aircraft.

I suspect its because it photographs well, flies slow, has a loud gun. Its a very visual aircraft that makes it easy to love.  Taking one out in DCS (or even Warthunder) ought to pretty quickly disabuse anyone of the notion that its good in a modern environment.  The only sustainable use I could possibly conceive is a brush fire war and while I can vaguely understand extending their lifespan during Iraq/Afghanistan I'm not entirely sure why they are in service today.  The only particularly interesting thing about them  is that the U.S. still, unfathomably, has 200+ in service.

But while its a real POS Ukraine essentially has no means of regenerating its air arm outside of donations and from what I've seen they've been at maybe replacement levels of Soviet-era craft. There appears to have been a request for 100 A-10s in March of 2022. So theoretically Ukraine could have its ~100 existing Soviet-era aircraft + 100 A-10s ready for whatever summer offensive they appear to be cooking up.  At this point they are no longer asking for A-10s and instead are requesting F-16s which is the right choice for May 2023 but these simple arguments about U.S. experience in the Gulf War aren't convincing when considering the A-10 in March of 2022.

And yea these theoretical A-10s would get knocked out but so what? Its a war and you can treat the airframes as consumables. Ukraine is taking north of 500+casualties daily, they are using Cold War era kit on the front line, one of their prime infantry carrying vehicles is the M113!

Edit: If anyone wants to continue this we can probably take it to another thread or PMs.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Pelican Pal

[Centurian52]

8 hours ago, DesertFox said:

I guess we will learn soon:

 

 

So between your post and Huba's it looks like there were at least two USV attacks on Russian ships recently. In at least one attack the USV struck the Russian ship. And in at least one attack the Russians were able to hit the USV with machine gun fire before it hit the ship.

[FancyCat]

28 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

And yea these theoretical A-10s would get knocked out but so what? Its a war and you can treat the airframes as consumables. Ukraine is taking north of 500+casualties daily, they are using Cold War era kit on the front line, one of their prime infantry carrying vehicles is the M113!

 

500+ pilots? Obviously, certainly not. And certainly while Ukraine asked for the barn house, they remain asking for Western, modern IFVs, APCs, and tanks, and airframes, and are singularly focused on the F-16, not A-10 and F-16 like in the past, Leopards and M1s, or Gepards and Patriots, it’s been singularly F-16, A-10, almost no talk of. Considering how one recalls the aspirations of prior Ukrainian requests, and the criticism they received at times, it’s particular to note A-10 is not mentioned at all by Ukraine. 

I’ve seen it stated that the A-10 was used in a long range, high altitude missile loitering role, if the cannon is useless, I surely think the missile role, unless it’s fine at low, low altitude as well is just as suicidal no?

[Pelican Pal]

1 minute ago, FancyCat said:

500+ pilots? Obviously, certainly not.

Casualties of all kinds. I don't think Ukraine has 500 aircraft in total.

 

Ukraine is rightly asking for F-16s now, and has been for a few months, as they appear to be looking towards their defense in a post-war environment. At least I suspect that by the time Ukraine could field F-16s the fighting will largely be over unless the war drags on for another 16 months. Retrofitting their existing Soviet stock to support western weaponry seems to be the battlefield expedient choice. But they did ask for A-10s the month after the invasion began and that timeline would probably give them enough time to have those flyable now.  So really we're looking at post-war sustainable choice and a crisis unsustainable one. 

7 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

is just as suicidal no?

There is a difference between the vehicle being lost at a high rate and the vehicle being suicidal. Sherman tank losses were high, for example, but being a crewmen in one was anything but suicidal. So you need to look past equipment losses into crew losses.

[NamEndedAllen]

2 hours ago, kevinkin said:

But the US increased defense spending compared to the Soviets, so differential was real even if SDI was pie in the sky at the time. I don't think many believe defense spending vs. the USSR was the sole reason for the evil empire's collapse. That's just political positioning. The command economy was 90+ of the reason. However, the case has been forwarded the increase in spending may have pushed the USSR over the edge faster than the command economy could alone.  

Good point about the differential. Still, it is commonplace to hear and read people saying that the USA spent the Soviets into collapse. We need to keep focused on the fact that *increased* Soviet spending did *not* happen, and a non-existent increase to “keep up” was therefore not the cause of the collapse. As Steve enumerated and you said, the collapse was in motion for a long time. The die was cast by insistence on ideological, command economy. Failure to acknowledge the market’s priority over ideology meant that unlike South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan’s market based economies that also suffered extreme degrees of defense spending, the Soviets could not withstand the various slings and arrows of real world economics. Reality caught up with them.

[JonS]

An AC-130 could do the direct fire role better than an A-10, at negligibly greater risk. An F-16 can do the missile and guided bomb role better.

[DesertFox]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

So between your post and Huba's it looks like there were at least two USV attacks on Russian ships recently. In at least one attack the USV struck the Russian ship. And in at least one attack the Russians were able to hit the USV with machine gun fire before it hit the ship.

It is the attack on the same ship with allegedely three naval drones. One got blown up by the orcs, one hit the ship and the third we dont know about. We know however that an US drone was surveilling the area. I guess the ship got hit hard by at least one drone impact (see vid) and we are now all eager to learn about the actual damage of the ship.

[danfrodo]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Looking at this I wonder how Russia hits anything it aims at with dumb bombs.  This was ideal circumstances... good weather, flat open terrain, VERY obvious target that could be spotted many miles away, and yet both of Russia's most advanced bombers missed their targets by a wide margin.

Steve

What are you talking about?  Both jets successfully engaged the empty field, though one did come dangerously close to hitting those buildings over there. 

[alison]

Popped up overnight on Sinocism: https://www.chinausfocus.com/publication/2023/51.html

This is a English translation (PDF) of a study done by a Tsinghua University-based thinktank on Chinese people's perspectives on international security. It's a worthwhile read, although it should not be surprising that the findings show that the Chinese people apparently support the party line on every topic.

Ukraine section:

Quote

Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, about 80 percent of the respondents believe the US and Western countries should be held most accountable, while less than ten percent of the respondents argue that Russia is mainly responsible.

On favorability:

Quote

Chinese People are most favorable to Russia, and about 60 percent of the respondents have “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” impression on Russia. More than half of the respondents have “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable” impression on the US and Japan.

Imo this shows exactly where the government stands, regardless of what they might say to western leaders.

Edited May 26, 2023 by alison
typo

[paxromana]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

You need some sort of ranked choice or proportional voting system. Otherwise you will always trend towards two dominant political parties after enough election cycles. The problem is that you need access to modern political science in order to know that, which they didn't.

Doesn't necessarily work that way ... here in Oz we have a Proportional Represetation voting system and yet since 1901 (Federation) we have basically had a two party system - Labor and Liberal/Nationals (by varying names). Yes, there are currently minor parties -- but they'd be lucky to get 10% of the overall vote and have only a limited real effect on politics.

The real advantage we have is compulsory voting (and voting on a Saturday) which forces politics towards the centre. Elections are decided by who attracts the most voters from the 10% or so 'swinging voters'

However, our founding fathers looked hard at world examples of government (mainly UK and US) and adopted elements of both ... our Senate is modelled more on the US Senate than the UK House of Lords for example ... but we did manage to come up with a way of preventing legislative and budgetary deadlock.

The Senate cannot block Money Bills and it can only block any Bill twice before potentially triggering a Double Dissolution (i.e. the whole of the House of Reps and the whole of the Senate.

This has usually resolved things by giving the Government the votes in the Senate it needed after such an election but, on the off chance it might not, the Constitution provides for a joint sitting of both Houses to vote on the triggering legislation, so it would be extremely likely the Senate would be swamped by numbers. This has never needed to happen so far.

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by paxromana