61–70 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appeasement doesn't work with this aggressor; it only emboldens them and increases the likelihood of another landgrab in a few years. The only thing they understand is force.
Wanting the war to end is reasonable. Not caring who wins is extremely naive or selfish
I’m not a “team America world police” advocate, much more the opposite. Even as stated in the article, most production is more interested in a deterrent. Hate ‘em or hate ‘em, nukes are a deterrent to open war. Reference our posture toward retaliating against Iran-backed groups this week.
Russia didn’t like a nuclear neighbor, it said. So the US brokered a nuclear disarmament of Ukraine with the interests of reducing the tension (sic) with Russia, and on the assurance of support from the US should they need it.
The stage was set on the thin hope of peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of us tech people have the military to thank for the creation of this industry, lest anyone forgets.
So because the Department of Defense invented packet-switching networks fifty years ago, we owe them fealty? Respect? Hitler designed the original Volkswagen Beetle. Who cares? All of us tech people used to know a fascist when we smelled one, now some of us lick their boots for a paycheck.
If you were the son of a fascist, would you not still tell people the truth about your dad even if you told him to shove it long ago?
I really really enjoyed the piece[0], but boy, you think this is bad, wait until we're exchanging missiles with a peer military. Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of missiles[1] in the air at the same time, in a kaleidoscopic dazzle of altitudes, velocities, sensor profiles. Every combat simulation seems to turn into what you might call a "magazine fight" - i.e., who runs out of bullets first. We'll probably burn throu…
Wait, for real?
That seems crazy to me. Lot of those ships minus the vls are pretty useless.
I guess they rely on bases all over
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think everyone should just allow Russia to take over any country it wants?
No — but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities, rather than frantically send Boris Johnson to subvert it. Russia has consistently angled for Ukraine to be a neutral border between two blocs to facilitate trade — and that clearly would have been better for Ukraine than a senseless slaughter which destroyed a generation, by maimi…
Also, at this point it is hilariously obvious that A) Russia will never take all of Ukraine like they wanted (huh, how would that have been for a "nuetral border between the two) and B) whatever portion they don't take will be far far more closely aligned than the west than would have been possible in the absense of their invasion.
Even if you buy it as a reasonable desire and reasonble response to not getting their way, it has very, very obviously not gotten them what they wanted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No — but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities, rather than frantically send Boris Johnson to subvert it. Russia has consistently angled for Ukraine to be a neutral border between two blocs to facilitate trade — and that clearly would have been better for Ukraine than a senseless slaughter which destroyed a generation, by maimi…
Frankly, what Russia would prefer to happen in Ukraine is, to put it politely, their own fucking problem. I get why they might prefer that. But when they don't get their way, they are not allowed to invade a sovereign nation and slaughter thousands of civilians. Ukraine is allowed to pick who it wants to be associated with and Russia doesn't get a say. Also, at this point it is hilariously obvious that A) Russia will…
I really really enjoyed the piece[0], but boy, you think this is bad, wait until we're exchanging missiles with a peer military. Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of missiles[1] in the air at the same time, in a kaleidoscopic dazzle of altitudes, velocities, sensor profiles. Every combat simulation seems to turn into what you might call a "magazine fight" - i.e., who runs out of bullets first. We'll probably burn throu…
> because they can't UNREP top off their VLSs Wait, for real? That seems crazy to me. Lot of those ships minus the vls are pretty useless. I guess they rely on bases all over
I really really enjoyed the piece[0], but boy, you think this is bad, wait until we're exchanging missiles with a peer military. Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of missiles[1] in the air at the same time, in a kaleidoscopic dazzle of altitudes, velocities, sensor profiles. Every combat simulation seems to turn into what you might call a "magazine fight" - i.e., who runs out of bullets first. We'll probably burn throu…
> My solace is that in a real conflict, all of that red tape would be put to the side and people can get about building things.
That's just not going to happen. A real conflict would involve nukes, and the war would be quickly over.
I doubt that something close to Vietnam can happen again either. (And even for a 2nd Vietnam, I doubt that any significant artillery would be used when, as you point out, missiles are an option.)
This reminds me of the excellent series "Blueprint for Armageddon" in Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast [1]. It's about the First World War. WWI tends to get less attention than WW2 and while there are good reasons why we focus on the atrocities of WW2, in some ways WWI was far more devastating. The artillery production mentioned here reminds me of how scales changed from the beginning to the end of the war. At t…
Over the last thirty years or so, it's been increasingly popular to see WW1 and WW2 as the same conflict, but with a pause for populations to stabilize and stocks to be rebuilt. It's sometimes called "The Second Thirty Years' War", although I feel that labelling is misleading, as is, potentially, the core thesis. Careful reading of the diplomatic history illustrates that WW2, despite our popular notions, was not enti…
I really really enjoyed the piece[0], but boy, you think this is bad, wait until we're exchanging missiles with a peer military. Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of missiles[1] in the air at the same time, in a kaleidoscopic dazzle of altitudes, velocities, sensor profiles. Every combat simulation seems to turn into what you might call a "magazine fight" - i.e., who runs out of bullets first. We'll probably burn throu…