@No_one's banner p

No_one


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 7 users  
joined 2022 September 08 22:22:12 UTC

Underemployed Slav. Likes playing Factorio.

Verified Email

				

User ID: 1042

No_one


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 7 users   joined 2022 September 08 22:22:12 UTC

					

Underemployed Slav. Likes playing Factorio.


					

User ID: 1042

Verified Email

Bogged down in the poorest European country

1 ) Ukraine isn't the poorest. Moldova is, iirc.

  1. you are eliding that Ukraine gets all the surveillance and espionage data it needs to use the high tech weapons it got free of charge. Patriots, ATGMs, NASAMS, Himars, Storm Shadow, hundreds of quality artillery systems etc. Enough to equip a large EU/NATO army.

From less high tech weapons, it got ~1000 tanks, 1000s of IFVs, most of its artillery shells and so on.

Poorest country except it got military equipment on par with the French army, at least artillery wise.

Without that help and those supplies, it'd have been over for Ukraine by fall of '22 probably.

  1. you're also eliding that it gets specialist foreign troops operating air defense and elint equipment. (no, they didn't train Ukes to operate it. It takes years of training just to get basic familiarity. )

  2. but a failure by any objective observer. Yeah, the initial plan A (watch the bribed government scram) was a failure.

Plan B, grind down Ukrainian army to the point they can't go on is ongoing. Even Americans are now admitting it's unwinnable.

But it is also showing how faithless Americans are. Despite all their big words, they're unable to even provide Ukraine with something as basic as air defenses. Richest country in the world can't or won't give out thousands of radar guided missiles. Could it? (honestly don't know, but I suspect it has thousands of Aim-120 which should be adaptable for ground launch)

If you have less than a day of storage, you need back up power plants because calm winds easily last up to a week.

Point to how good multilateration is vs stealth please.

You want me to give you the kind of data that'd get you into ADX Florence or whatever its Chinese equivalent is ?

I think people are just full of shit. And when there's billions at stake, the incentive to deny and lie and hope it somehow works out gets irresistible.

Americans pointedly refused to even sell Turkey their F-35s because they apparently don't want it tested against it in a real environment.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-turkey-continue-talks-to-settle-f-35-dispute

S-400 doesn't phone home, no military system can afford to, so it's obviously they didn't want the problem where Turkish air defence troops find out just how good F-35 is. There's little justification for it. They just want to delay the inevitable.

Well, the Biden admin has been the gift that keeps on giving. Money well spent if you're an accelerationist.

I didn't think they'd do the title IX thing with trans, but it looks like trans BS is as irresistible to democrats as abortions are to republicans.

Wow. Imagine thinking US could do combined arms warfare in absence of air superiority.

All this 'stealth doesn't work' smugposting to portend the sheer stupidity of NATO in developing a white elephant

Carriers are also obsolete against peer forces who are just going to launch a hundred supersonic missiles at them a salvo of strategic air above to give planes something to dodge & overwhelm point defense and simply sink them.

That doesn't prevent them being useful against people who don't have hundreds of good ASMs on hand. That's why Chinese are building two.

If you can make a plane stealthy at a reasonable cost, it's still worth it, because it's going to make it a harder target against simple radar systems.

spam is cope when GBAD all requires a first track to be established by a radar station

Multilateration aside which is kinda not talked about much but probably works...

You ever heard of IR sensors ? Yeah, sure, you say you can hide a MW level heat source against the cold sky. No, you can't. Even Yuropoor systems like the Eurofighter have IRST that detects planes up to 50 km from the front.. You think China's unable to manufacture similar sensors and stick one on a high pole in every square 100 kms and connect them by fibre? You think unless there's total overcast, a stealth plane with a 3 MW engine on cruise can just waltz through ?

Detecting IR is 1980s technology. Most air defence now comes with it. America is refitting such on its older warplanes.

Stealth works against countries with bad equipment. That doesn't mean it's going to work against a sophisticated enemy.

By CNN metrics.

No, export models of Soviet and Western equipment armed with obsolete ammunition operated by Arabs whose average IQ is estimated to be 89. US army cutoff for recruitment back when there was a draft was 85. Anyone under that was just not worth having even in the rear echelon.

By CNN / newspaper chart metrics yes. By any actual metrics, no. It's a laughable claim.

A term as broad as to be essentially meaningless.

Yes, being able to occassionally hit targets inside of Russia with small plastic drones or sometimes even an ultralight plane means "Russia isn't controlling its airspace".

LLM tier understanding on display from you, so bye.

It is not as if NATO will fire nukes in face of conventional assault - so what will they do?

If NATO, with cca what, 900 million population, GDP (ppp adjusted) maybe 4x of Russia, cannot somehow manage to have conventional forces supremacy in Eastern Europe to prevent Russia from attacking, what use is NATO?

That's almost exactly the disparity in population, GDP between Russia and Ukraine. In any reasonable war, conventional war between Russia and NATO should go far, far better than between Russia and Ukraine alone. After all, the developed West has much better everything. It has rule of law, human rights, less corruption, much better R&D sector, better education. One could go on.

So why am I now hearing this defeatism ? Eastern European countries joined NATO because they were told it'd make them 'safe' against Russia ? Was that just a bluff ?

It is not as if NATO countries will ever muster courage to actually wage full fledged war with the aim to physically oust Putin from Kremlin

I'm pretty sure that's what Oppenheimer meant when he said "lot of boys not yet born will owe their life to the bomb". You know well from history how "waging full scale war to oust the despot in Moscow" usually goes. Especially when he has the support of world's biggest industrial power.

I doubt Putin would try to take Baltics unless there's a WW3 going on. There's nothing there, they barely have any forces worth speaking about, it's not defensible at all (or so was the usual expert talk) and all the forces there are just tripwire forces.

What use is NATO if it's unwilling to use nuclear weapons to defend the territory of its members? Was it all a big bluff or what ?

They weren't 'outnumbered'. Russian invaded with 150-170k troops.

Outgunned, maybe not even that.

and are incapable of separating the US military being able to destroy a foe in a force-on-force engagement

The US military has performed very well whenever it has conducted force-on-force operations, in terms of both logistics and combat. We barely took a scratch.

?? Last time US managed to win a war against a peer enemy was WW2. And that was mostly because of massive material superiority. So making assumptions based on WW2, now, is a joke.

Yes, I know US navy is still based on ideas learned in WW2. That in itself is a big joke.

Look, unless you're a 13 year old girl, you should probably understand by now that almost anything any government says that's not in an ultimatum is either lies or bullshit. And even the ultimatums can be bullshit, e.g. bluffing. Historical record is full of lies of this kind.

"I don't believe anything until it has been officially denied" is a 19th century saying.

So why this insistence that what is officially being said by people who are unlikely to be privy to the real plans matters ?

What is said in ultimatums (government to government communications) or in secret cables matters far, far more. Anything for public consumption is typically fake.

That's limited by geography.

Very few places could get days of storage that way, without NAWAPA style megaprojects.

especially given our advancements in biology

Bro, our gene pool is mostly decaying. Accumulating mutations. People who were pre-adapted to modernity aren't even breeding at replacement levels! We-on a societal/species level don't understand anything and don't want to understand anything.

We can't even safely rewrite a fertilised egg's DNA at more than single digit spots because of the error rates.

There have been no successful eugenic projects. Human nature is largely fixed because we're too pussy to do anything about it. All your mushy-headed idealistic bullshit is just putting lipstick on a week old stinking corpse of a pig.

Thanks to the religious, and by that I mean communists with their infinite malleability due to material conditions we're pretty much screwed. There's no good policy, most 'intellectuals' are deluded etc. Only animal instincts of people liking healthy partners are preventing total insanity.

it's that adaptability and change are at the heart of what it means to be human.

That's only true on a timescale of centuries and with very high losses involved.

Yeah. That's why Australian Aborigines after getting unceremoniously yanked from their stone age are now deeply involved in Australian's Aerospace industry and not being subjected to PSA's about the inadvisability of sleeping on the road or sniffing petrol.

Another shining example of 'human adaptability' were Norse in Greenland going extinct because they refused to eat fish, sticking to increasingly desperate farming until the bitter end.

To be clear, the bills that are supposed to 'ban tiktok' would also enable regulation of any other media simply by claiming that managers or owners of said media are 'rival influenced'. So you could go after Twitter e.g. because Musk posted unflattering claims about Ukrainian war and the only reason for that is that he's Russian influenced. The bill said "owned or controlled, directly or indirectly". That seems incredibly broad to be honest.

You'd only be able to challenge this law in a specific D.C. Court. Good luck!

You don't get it, do you?

Japanese aren't docile. They're still the same people.

They're just not at war.

Let's just ignore the reality of last years, that Ukraine is not winning but getting pushed back or that the US is unable to deal with an 80 IQ militia armed with a few Iranian missiles and assume it's 1991, it's always been 1991 and it's always going to be 1991.

And also let's pretend Ukraine is winning because you're giving them Stingers. Which you no can no longer make.

You forgot to mention incest, or more precisely serial cousin marriage which if done repeatedly results in basically brother/sister incest risks. Big past-time in Pakistan. Slightly decreasing as of late.

Meanwhile Indian castes give a good impression of being inbred and data shows basically reproductive isolation for perhaps 2500 years, at minimum 1600.

You can have populations more distinct than Spaniards and Swedes speaking basically the same language and having lived next to each other for millenia.

You rarely see such disturbingly looking people in Europe outside of narrow mountain valleys in the Alps, where half of the people look like they're related to each other and have unusual facial features.

India's special thing is that they religiously restrict meat eating and even eggs, thus their stunting conditions actually mildly worsened since 2000.

While it's valid to say that e.g. England had horrible slums before 1840s, we know that IQ wise, the populations are incomparable even if some castes (brahimns) and ethnics (parsis) are pretty much at white average or even slightly above it.

So India won't get much better unless the substandard human capital running it is substituted for by AIs, and you can bet their bureaucrats and politicians would not like that one bit.

Less hopeless than Africa, but I understand why everyone is trying to get away from there, and I also understand why that must be prevented at all costs.

Opinion of people I know IRL working in IT on Indians (N=4) is about on the same level as opinion of random eastern Europeans on the Roma.

~Yes, there's a few good ones. No, if I could I'd prefer never to come into contact with them, as on average it ranges from disappointing to having your day ruined and getting very angry.

That's all irrelevant because groups that lucked into right beliefs thrive, those that had bad luck die out.

Thus over time, the rules of the groups that survive start to look pretty wise.

It'd matter quite a bit.

Maybe 20-30%. Shells are very hard to intercept and potent, when aimed properly. Artillery caused like 50% of casualties when used with ground spotting with line of sight or plane directed. (was nowhere near universal, iirc only Americans did it)

Missile systems like HIMARS and Smerch and Tornado allow hitting targets up to 100 km in. Tactical missiles, for which Russia is characteristically making with huge warheads of up to 800 kg, [can accurately hit targets at 400 km.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander#Iskander-M). Unless you can prevent enemy from sneaking drones all over your airspace, there's no such thing as a 'front line'. There's just a region of pain where the slightest mistake can result in getting the equivalent of a 3-4 ton bomb falling at you with a 1-2 minute warning. Fuel-air explosives are more potent than high explosives.

But what about the NATO air forces? Well, even if missiles strikes disabling airbases are avoided, the expectation is reducing air defense to allow combat missions that aren't suicidal would take weeks to months. Yeah, you could whittle that down fast if you had thousands of AI-guided small drones outranging big SAMs ready to go, but NATO doesn't have that. And i've seen no indication they want to procure such. What's going on is they're buying Israeli 'stand-off' munitions at outrageous cost (something like $500k per one drone). That's probably, not gonna cut it unless cost goes down by a factor of 10-50x.

Modern war is just a whole different beast than what it used to be.

Let's remember that western military doesn't have a stealthy drone with ~100 km range and hours of loiter capacity per each howitzer. Even though it very well could. At some point, we're going to get a whole ecosystem of autonomous drones patrolling the airspace to prevent enemy recon, laser dazzlers to prevent satellite recon. But we're not there. Even if SV won over the MIC and started making these air-defense drones in bulk, it'd take 5 years to build up enough to matter for NATO. And they won't win. Billions in stock valuations are at stake here!

More important stuff:

-anti-aircraft missile production (US Patriot production is expected to go up to 600 a year. A year!). I've never seen figures on Russia but they seem well aware of the utility so it was likely a lot higher.

US has nothing like the Pantsir system, which is designed to be economical, with cheap, high performance missiles. No expensive seeker, basically a fast missile guided by impossible to jam commands from the radar and a proximity fuze).

-whether stealth actually works (unclear. You can detect stealth aircraft using bounces to places other than the radar, so called 'multilateration. With satellite comms, you don't even need to set up microwave relays between these sites.)

-degree of dysfunction in western militaries. Oppressing sand people doesn't translate well to contending with an enemy who can't wait but put a small, tiny drone above your unit and blow your entire headquarters section up with a 300mm missile. (Himars, Tornado-U?, beats me what Chinese call theirs). You need completely different tactics, weapons to kill and detect small drones etc. Winning at such a conflict would be hard even if you had an infinite budget and enough competent, serious people.

-whether China gets involved (imo a certainty, China allowing Russia to fall due to a lost conventional war would put more enemy bases on their borders. And allow yanks to embargo them almost totally on gas and oil).

Plus the reality check of actual efficacy of all that GDP put into military. Fucking North Korea who is economical dwarf was able to send 3 million shells to Russia. US production is around 30,000 a month so North Korea was able to send years of production to Russia. And we are not even talking about what Russia was able to do since the war started - triple the production of artillery shells to 300,000 a month.

Now you're getting it. People have been talking about how a green service economy with little actual industry isn't actually useful when you need to like, blow stuff up or build it.

when their soldiers will return in cardboxes by thousands in peer-to-peer warfare

You know, it does takes years to build up big armies and industries. Germany was cheating in 1930s because their entire army was designed around re-expanding. They hired the best, they had WW1 veterans, everyone was trained on things a couple levels above him. And even then it took them like 6 years to build up. In a militaristic regime with relatively high approval rates, plenty of young people and so on.

Look at Biden or von der Leyen. Look at the green energy 20 year shamble.

Not gonna happen. It's late stage regime, the best it can do is suppress political opposition

Russia meanwhile doesn't have enough people to occupy Ukraine. It's not the world-conquering totalitarian state of scare propaganda. If they were, they'd not be hiring Nepalis, but everyone youngish but essential workers would be in the army and it'd be 4 million strong.

They could, if Putin was feeling insane enough try to take over Baltics and maybe (I give this low probability) Russian missile attack could wreck enough of NATO airbases (which I'm not even sure have solid air defenses against maneuvering, fast missile salvos) and then if NATO wasn't resolute enough to H-bomb Russian formations on the wrong side of the border in Baltics, then yeah, maybe they'll get taken over.

Which would be a net benefit to EU because 60-90% of working age non-Russians will just move away.

We know the IQ pretty much varies with white admixture.

So, it's not environmental.

Swedes tried to conquer Germany, mind you. And paid an extremely heavy price for that.

You're talking about small countries.

Large countries, with the exception of China, which just keeps sitting there, have a strong record of expansionism. Spain. France. United States. United Kingdom. Japan, once it modernised.

India was conquered by the same people who conquered Europe. Steppe pastoralists, first people to develop horse chariots, a pastoral nomadic lifestyle and thus thrive in the trackless wastes.

This gave them a huge boost, they took over the entire steppe in 300 years and then went on to topple every adjacent civilization, ushering in a centuries long dark age, out of which we got the classical era.

They were likely proportionately a far smaller population than in Europe, and it's also unclear whether in India they practiced genocidal policies like in Europe. E.g. from grave DNA it seems for several generations after the conquest, men from the conquered populations weren't procreating much, or at all.

The truthful* novel set in 1970s India, written by a Midwest US writer who visited Calcutta in 1970s notes that western world used to have pretty horrible slums too before Victorians got disgusted with them and bulldozed them all & built sewers...

*half of the horror is basically just the things noted in this thread ..