These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >targets.
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2...@4ax.com>:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shellsRussia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a precision weapon. When I worked at the TV station here we we informed we were primary targets in case of war.
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >targets.
EU has just decided to take all Russian TV channels of air.
I can still see their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened >jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in ><dv2v1h9fo1saplle2qt6qmhai5gakorp2q@4ax.com>:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>targets.
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a precision weapon. >When I worked at the TV station here we we informed we were primary targets in case of war.
EU has just decided to take all Russian TV channels of air.
I can still see their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
How about the big space lasers from Reagan?
Is all so simple now, I could hang a grenade under my drone and have it
fly by GPS to within 10 meters of any target within about 10 km.
Thing cost 200$, some extra chips... asm.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/index.html
US Military Industrial Complex is a sucker for your purse.
Most of those big billion dollar aircraft carriers can be sunk by
a million dollar hyper-sonic missile.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 15:45:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2qt6qmhai5gakorp2q@4ax.com>:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from
Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a precision weapon.
When I worked at the TV station here we we informed we were primary targets in case of war.
EU has just decided to take all Russian TV channels of air.
I can still see their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
How about the big space lasers from Reagan?
Is all so simple now, I could hang a grenade under my drone and have it
fly by GPS to within 10 meters of any target within about 10 km.
Thing cost 200$, some extra chips... asm.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/index.html
Scary. Simple drones can be jammed, but smart ones are
fire-and-forget.
We worked briefly with an un-named military organization that was
developing smart swarms of drones. Smart swarms, as talking to one
another.
US Military Industrial Complex is a sucker for your purse.
Most of those big billion dollar aircraft carriers can be sunk by
a million dollar hyper-sonic missile.
Right. An F35 doesn't need a lot of runway, so we could have a large
number of small, cheap aircraft carriers, instead of a few giant billion-dollar targets.
Manned fighter planes are probably on their way out too. Unmanned
kamakaze drones are a better idea.
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:48:38 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2...@4ax.com>:
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating
from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow
up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be
destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes
missed their targets.
precision weapon. When I worked at the TV station here we we
informed we were primary targets in case of war. EU has just
decided to take all Russian TV channels of air. I can still see
their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
TV stations? Do they still have those? It would seem taking out a
broadcast tower to be on the same level of significance as blowing up
a flintlock factory.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their targets.
On 02/03/2022 17:24, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:48:38 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2...@4ax.com>:
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating
from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow
up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be
destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes
missed their targets.
precision weapon. When I worked at the TV station here we we
informed we were primary targets in case of war. EU has just
decided to take all Russian TV channels of air. I can still see
their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
TV stations? Do they still have those? It would seem taking out a broadcast tower to be on the same level of significance as blowing up
a flintlock factory.
I suspect that most TV in most of the world is broadcast from towers.
Sure, people also have streaming services of all kinds, but broadcast is still the most efficient especially if you haven't got a big fast
internet infrastructure. Broadcast TV stations are often digital with
pretty good quality.
I have no idea what the internet infrastructure is like in Ukraine, nor
how much of its television is based on terrestrial broadcasting,
satellite, cable, or other technologies. But I would not dismiss TV
towers out of hand - the attack on the tower was targeted and
intentional, so I suspect the Russians knew more than you (or I) about
its importance.
On 02/03/2022 17:24, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:48:38 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2...@4ax.com>:
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating
from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow
up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be
destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes
missed their targets.
precision weapon. When I worked at the TV station here we we
informed we were primary targets in case of war. EU has just
decided to take all Russian TV channels of air. I can still see
their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
TV stations? Do they still have those? It would seem taking out a
broadcast tower to be on the same level of significance as blowing up
a flintlock factory.
I suspect that most TV in most of the world is broadcast from towers.
Sure, people also have streaming services of all kinds, but broadcast is still the most efficient especially if you haven't got a big fast
internet infrastructure. Broadcast TV stations are often digital with
pretty good quality.
I have no idea what the internet infrastructure is like in Ukraine, nor
how much of its television is based on terrestrial broadcasting,
satellite, cable, or other technologies. But I would not dismiss TV
towers out of hand - the attack on the tower was targeted and
intentional, so I suspect the Russians knew more than you (or I) about
its importance.
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their targets.
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80 miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops
and supplies onto the island.
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 15:45:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2qt6qmhai5gakorp2q@4ax.com>:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a precision weapon.
When I worked at the TV station here we we informed we were primary targets in case of war.
EU has just decided to take all Russian TV channels of air.
I can still see their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
How about the big space lasers from Reagan?
Is all so simple now, I could hang a grenade under my drone and have it
fly by GPS to within 10 meters of any target within about 10 km.
Thing cost 200$, some extra chips... asm.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/index.html
Scary. Simple drones can be jammed, but smart ones are
fire-and-forget.
We worked briefly with an un-named military organization that was
developing smart swarms of drones. Smart swarms, as talking to one
another.
US Military Industrial Complex is a sucker for your purse.
Most of those big billion dollar aircraft carriers can be sunk by
a million dollar hyper-sonic missile.
Right. An F35 doesn't need a lot of runway, so we could have a large
number of small, cheap aircraft carriers, instead of a few giant
billion-dollar targets.
Manned fighter planes are probably on their way out too. Unmanned
kamakaze drones are a better idea.
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
Time for the Butlerian Jihad.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 15:45:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2qt6qmhai5gakorp2q@4ax.com>:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a precision weapon.
When I worked at the TV station here we we informed we were primary targets >>> in case of war.
EU has just decided to take all Russian TV channels of air.
I can still see their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
How about the big space lasers from Reagan?
Is all so simple now, I could hang a grenade under my drone and have it
fly by GPS to within 10 meters of any target within about 10 km.
Thing cost 200$, some extra chips... asm.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/index.html
Scary. Simple drones can be jammed, but smart ones are
fire-and-forget.
We worked briefly with an un-named military organization that was
developing smart swarms of drones. Smart swarms, as talking to one
another.
US Military Industrial Complex is a sucker for your purse.
Most of those big billion dollar aircraft carriers can be sunk by
a million dollar hyper-sonic missile.
Right. An F35 doesn't need a lot of runway, so we could have a large
number of small, cheap aircraft carriers, instead of a few giant
billion-dollar targets.
Manned fighter planes are probably on their way out too. Unmanned
kamakaze drones are a better idea.
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
Time for the Butlerian Jihad.
Cheers
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:32:54 -0500, Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 15:45:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2qt6qmhai5gakorp2q@4ax.com>:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>>>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>>>> targets.
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a precision weapon.
When I worked at the TV station here we we informed we were primary targets in case of war.
EU has just decided to take all Russian TV channels of air.
I can still see their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
How about the big space lasers from Reagan?
Is all so simple now, I could hang a grenade under my drone and have it >>>> fly by GPS to within 10 meters of any target within about 10 km.
Thing cost 200$, some extra chips... asm.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/index.html
Scary. Simple drones can be jammed, but smart ones are
fire-and-forget.
We worked briefly with an un-named military organization that was
developing smart swarms of drones. Smart swarms, as talking to one
another.
US Military Industrial Complex is a sucker for your purse.
Most of those big billion dollar aircraft carriers can be sunk by
a million dollar hyper-sonic missile.
Right. An F35 doesn't need a lot of runway, so we could have a large
number of small, cheap aircraft carriers, instead of a few giant
billion-dollar targets.
Manned fighter planes are probably on their way out too. Unmanned
kamakaze drones are a better idea.
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
Time for the Butlerian Jihad.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Imagine a standard controller unit for a smart swarm suicide drone.
It needs good wide-angle and narrow hi-res cameras.
It needs accels and gyros
It needs a fast local interface and RF connectivity
It needs a good OS
It needs a lot of CPU power but low power consumption
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
Raytheon could develop that, given 10 years and a few billion dollars.
Imagine a standard controller unit for a smart swarm suicide drone.
It needs good wide-angle and narrow hi-res cameras.
It needs accels and gyros
It needs a fast local interface and RF connectivity
It needs a good OS
It needs a lot of CPU power but low power consumption
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
Raytheon could develop that, given 10 years and a few billion dollars.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 09:49:20 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:32:54 -0500, Phil Hobbs >><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 15:45:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2qt6qmhai5gakorp2q@4ax.com>:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed. >>>>>>
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>>>>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight >>>>>> down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them. >>>>>>
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>>>>> targets.
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a precision weapon.
When I worked at the TV station here we we informed we were primary targets in case of war.
EU has just decided to take all Russian TV channels of air.
I can still see their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
How about the big space lasers from Reagan?
Is all so simple now, I could hang a grenade under my drone and have it >>>>> fly by GPS to within 10 meters of any target within about 10 km.
Thing cost 200$, some extra chips... asm.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/index.html
Scary. Simple drones can be jammed, but smart ones are
fire-and-forget.
We worked briefly with an un-named military organization that was
developing smart swarms of drones. Smart swarms, as talking to one
another.
US Military Industrial Complex is a sucker for your purse.
Most of those big billion dollar aircraft carriers can be sunk by
a million dollar hyper-sonic missile.
Right. An F35 doesn't need a lot of runway, so we could have a large
number of small, cheap aircraft carriers, instead of a few giant
billion-dollar targets.
Manned fighter planes are probably on their way out too. Unmanned
kamakaze drones are a better idea.
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
Time for the Butlerian Jihad.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Imagine a standard controller unit for a smart swarm suicide drone.
It needs good wide-angle and narrow hi-res cameras.
It needs accels and gyros
It needs a fast local interface and RF connectivity
It needs a good OS
It needs a lot of CPU power but low power consumption
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
Raytheon could develop that, given 10 years and a few billion dollars.
Storm Breaker is already here:
.<https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/small-diameter-bomb-ii-sdb-ii/>
Cannot be little drones to handle modern big tanks.
Joe Gwinn
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from
Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80
miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops
and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other words,
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from
Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80
miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops
and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other words,
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze
drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons.
I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
I also don't understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that can
take out tanks, why they aren't being used on the 40 mile long column
of troops that are stuck on the roads? I'm thinking a lot of the
stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that makes sense
is that the logistics aren't up to snuff and they are running out of
fuel and food. That I believe.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating
from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow
up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be
destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes
missed their targets.
goes for Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and
they have ~80 miles of open water to cross just to get a
significant amount of troops and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an
island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot.
The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from
the sea or from the mainland. In other words, other than political
fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese
aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of
view. It's much more of a political perspective.
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
On 3/2/2022 12:54 PM, Rick C wrote:other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for >> Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80 >> miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops >> and supplies onto the island.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>> targets.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other words,
Only one way for it to go right and a hundred ways for it to go wrong,
where you end up in a shooting-war anyway except you've lost surprise
and your adversaries have had time to get their act together.
Don't see it.
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 09:49:20 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<p4bv1h94kdeenn91q...@4ax.com>:
Imagine a standard controller unit for a smart swarm suicide drone.
It needs good wide-angle and narrow hi-res cameras.
It needs accels and gyros
It needs a fast local interface and RF connectivity
It needs a good OS
It needs a lot of CPU power but low power consumption
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
Raytheon could develop that, given 10 years and a few billion dollars.I already did the heat seeking software in PIC asm for a norml small IR camera.
Demo is on youtube, did not release source for that..
one other reason I am now playing with that FLIR camera,
the software is quite advanced now, just got remote control via LAN working. OS can be a big hinder, libraries get screwed up by people who clearly never coded,
big blob of bloat.
Much can be done with a simple micro at a fraction of the power and weight, You do not need an OS if the application is the only thing running,
not even a filesystem, in some project here I just use sectors on an SDcard one record per sector...
My raspi has the acceleration, giro, air pressure, GPS, Glonass, proximity alarms. temperature, fire solutions,
AIS, airplane tracking .. etc etc.. http://panteltje.com/pub/xgpspc_5_planes.gif http://panteltje.com/pub/boats_and_planes.gif
Couple of RTL_SDR USB sticks to receive AIS and planes data.
In such a multitasking case Linux is nice.
Less than 5 Watt or something?
China has published many videos with drones like mine flying in formation.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:41:54 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:24, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:48:38 AM UTC-5, Jan PanteltjeI suspect that most TV in most of the world is broadcast from towers.
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2...@4ax.com>:
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating
from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow
up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be
destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes
missed their targets.
precision weapon. When I worked at the TV station here we we
informed we were primary targets in case of war. EU has just
decided to take all Russian TV channels of air. I can still see
their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
TV stations? Do they still have those? It would seem taking out a
broadcast tower to be on the same level of significance as blowing up
a flintlock factory.
Sure, people also have streaming services of all kinds, but broadcast is
still the most efficient especially if you haven't got a big fast
internet infrastructure. Broadcast TV stations are often digital with
pretty good quality.
I have no idea what the internet infrastructure is like in Ukraine, nor
how much of its television is based on terrestrial broadcasting,
satellite, cable, or other technologies. But I would not dismiss TV
towers out of hand - the attack on the tower was targeted and
intentional, so I suspect the Russians knew more than you (or I) about
its importance.
They could blow up every TV tower in the world and the only impact to getting news would be the cell antenna lost because they were on the same tower.
People don't worry with TV or even radio these days. They use their cell phones more than any other medium.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On 3/2/2022 12:54 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for >>>> Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80 >>>> miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops >>>> and supplies onto the island.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>>>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>>>> targets.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other words,
attack Russia. They will just lob rockets and artillery from ships and drop bombs from planes.Only one way for it to go right and a hundred ways for it to go wrong,
where you end up in a shooting-war anyway except you've lost surprise
and your adversaries have had time to get their act together.
Don't see it.
Yes, you don't see it. There's nothing the US can do to prevent China from taking control of Taiwan. Literally, nothing. The only thing stopping them is the political repercussions.
Just as in Ukraine, the US is not going to wage war on China. With China or Russia, the risk of nuclear escalation is just too high.
Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won't be a need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of Brittan, all in the air. The difference is China is very much better prepared for it and won't do something stupid like
I don't know if they care about preserving Taiwan's technology industry. China doesn't want Taiwanese chips, they want to reunite their country.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On 3/2/2022 12:54 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for >>>> Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80 >>>> miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops >>>> and supplies onto the island.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>>>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>>>> targets.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other words,
Only one way for it to go right and a hundred ways for it to go wrong,
where you end up in a shooting-war anyway except you've lost surprise
and your adversaries have had time to get their act together.
Don't see it.
Yes, you don't see it. There's nothing the US can do to prevent China from taking control of Taiwan. Literally, nothing. The only thing stopping them is the political repercussions.
Just as in Ukraine, the US is not going to wage war on China. With China or Russia, the risk of nuclear escalation is just too high.
Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won't be a need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of Brittan, all in the air.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >targets.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/captured-russian-soldiers-cry-tell-26367528
Another thing that's strange about this war is that soldiers have cell
phones and are calling home from the battlefield. Security goes to
hell and the folks back home get the stories unfiltered.
Cell phone calls can be tracked, and probably listened to.
The history of war was dominated by "we don't know where they are."
Now we do.
On 2022-03-02 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:41:54 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:24, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:48:38 AM UTC-5, Jan PanteltjeI suspect that most TV in most of the world is broadcast from towers.
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<dv2v1h9fo1saplle2...@4ax.com>:
Russia somehow hit a TV tower and building, possibly with a
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating
from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow
up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be
destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes
missed their targets.
precision weapon. When I worked at the TV station here we we
informed we were primary targets in case of war. EU has just
decided to take all Russian TV channels of air. I can still see
their website and moment... satellite channel :-)
TV stations? Do they still have those? It would seem taking out a
broadcast tower to be on the same level of significance as blowing up
a flintlock factory.
Sure, people also have streaming services of all kinds, but broadcast is >> still the most efficient especially if you haven't got a big fast
internet infrastructure. Broadcast TV stations are often digital with
pretty good quality.
I have no idea what the internet infrastructure is like in Ukraine, nor
how much of its television is based on terrestrial broadcasting,
satellite, cable, or other technologies. But I would not dismiss TV
towers out of hand - the attack on the tower was targeted and
intentional, so I suspect the Russians knew more than you (or I) about
its importance.
They could blow up every TV tower in the world and the only impact to getting news would be the cell antenna lost because they were on the same tower.
People don't worry with TV or even radio these days. They use their cell phones more than any other medium.You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now
I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
refused to have 1 gigabit.
On 02/03/2022 18:54, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating
from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow
up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be
destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes
missed their targets.
goes for Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and
they have ~80 miles of open water to cross just to get a
significant amount of troops and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an
island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot.
The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from
the sea or from the mainland. In other words, other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese
aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of
view. It's much more of a political perspective.
China could destroy Taiwan from a distance. But they have no interest
in destroying it - they want to integrate it into mainland China. That
is vastly more difficult.
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze
drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons.
I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
Of course they are using them. They are not banned by any conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a lot of
devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in comparison
to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford to play nice.
Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians, and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian buildings in
false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to lose by using
nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin's propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population) will just think the Ukrainians
are even worse - and the rest of the world already thinks so badly of
Russia that thermobaric weapons (and also cluster bombs, which are
outlawed in most countries - but neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won't make opinions much worse.
I also don't understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that can
take out tanks, why they aren't being used on the 40 mile long column
of troops that are stuck on the roads? I'm thinking a lot of the
stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that makes sense
is that the logistics aren't up to snuff and they are running out of
fuel and food. That I believe.
The Ukrainians /are/ hitting the column. But you can't do that
effectively with short range hand-held anti-tank weapons - the numbers
are too big, and the distances too far. They are doing some damage
using drones, but they also need to keep things in reserve for when they
are /really/ needed. As long as the Russians can't do better than a
slow crawl, they still have other options.
On 3/2/2022 4:15 PM, Rick C wrote:words, other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 12:54 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed. >>>>>
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>>>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight >>>>> down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them. >>>>>
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>>>> targets.
Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80 >>>> miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops >>>> and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other
Only one way for it to go right and a hundred ways for it to go wrong,
where you end up in a shooting-war anyway except you've lost surprise
and your adversaries have had time to get their act together.
Don't see it.
Yes, you don't see it. There's nothing the US can do to prevent China from taking control of Taiwan. Literally, nothing. The only thing stopping them is the political repercussions.
Just as in Ukraine, the US is not going to wage war on China. With China or Russia, the risk of nuclear escalation is just too high.
Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won't be a need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of Brittan, all in the air.Ya, and Germany LOST the Battle of Britain.
On 3/2/2022 4:15 PM, Rick C wrote:words, other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 12:54 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed. >>>>>
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>>>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight >>>>> down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them. >>>>>
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>>>> targets.
Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80 >>>> miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops >>>> and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other
attack Russia. They will just lob rockets and artillery from ships and drop bombs from planes.Only one way for it to go right and a hundred ways for it to go wrong,
where you end up in a shooting-war anyway except you've lost surprise
and your adversaries have had time to get their act together.
Don't see it.
Yes, you don't see it. There's nothing the US can do to prevent China from taking control of Taiwan. Literally, nothing. The only thing stopping them is the political repercussions.
Just as in Ukraine, the US is not going to wage war on China. With China or Russia, the risk of nuclear escalation is just too high.
Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won't be a need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of Brittan, all in the air. The difference is China is very much better prepared for it and won't do something stupid like
I don't know if they care about preserving Taiwan's technology industry. China doesn't want Taiwanese chips, they want to reunite their country.
If you don't have any of your guys on the ground, then you don't hold anything.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:37:40 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:words, other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On 3/2/2022 4:15 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 12:54 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for >>>>>> Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80 >>>>>> miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops >>>>>> and supplies onto the island.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from >>>>>>> Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed. >>>>>>>
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes >>>>>>> did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times >>>>>>> bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight >>>>>>> down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them. >>>>>>>
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their >>>>>>> targets.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other
attack Russia. They will just lob rockets and artillery from ships and drop bombs from planes.Only one way for it to go right and a hundred ways for it to go wrong, >>>> where you end up in a shooting-war anyway except you've lost surprise
and your adversaries have had time to get their act together.
Don't see it.
Yes, you don't see it. There's nothing the US can do to prevent China from taking control of Taiwan. Literally, nothing. The only thing stopping them is the political repercussions.
Just as in Ukraine, the US is not going to wage war on China. With China or Russia, the risk of nuclear escalation is just too high.
Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won't be a need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of Brittan, all in the air. The difference is China is very much better prepared for it and won't do something stupid like
but a few more months of relentless bombing would have put Japan down regardless. At that time, the US was hell bent on conquest, so they would have landed troops, even though they could have just waited them out. We only needed to break the will ofIf you don't have any of your guys on the ground, then you don't hold
I don't know if they care about preserving Taiwan's technology industry. China doesn't want Taiwanese chips, they want to reunite their country.
anything.
I seem to recall the Allies didn't invade mainland Japan in WWII. I can't remember exactly how it was they managed that. Oh, did it have something to do with bombing them until they lost the will to resist? Yeah. In that case we used a shortcut,
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their targets.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
On 3/2/2022 8:50 PM, Rick C wrote:words, other than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from a military point of view. It's much more of a political perspective.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:37:40 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 4:15 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 12:54 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating fromChina is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure goes for
Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few >>>>>>> tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed. >>>>>>>
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times >>>>>>> bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight >>>>>>> down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them. >>>>>>>
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells >>>>>>> and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine, and they have ~80
miles of open water to cross just to get a significant amount of troops
and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets, either from the sea or from the mainland. In other
like attack Russia. They will just lob rockets and artillery from ships and drop bombs from planes.Only one way for it to go right and a hundred ways for it to go wrong, >>>> where you end up in a shooting-war anyway except you've lost surprise >>>> and your adversaries have had time to get their act together.
Don't see it.
Yes, you don't see it. There's nothing the US can do to prevent China from taking control of Taiwan. Literally, nothing. The only thing stopping them is the political repercussions.
Just as in Ukraine, the US is not going to wage war on China. With China or Russia, the risk of nuclear escalation is just too high.
Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won't be a need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of Brittan, all in the air. The difference is China is very much better prepared for it and won't do something stupid
a few more months of relentless bombing would have put Japan down regardless. At that time, the US was hell bent on conquest, so they would have landed troops, even though they could have just waited them out. We only needed to break the will of oneIf you don't have any of your guys on the ground, then you don't hold
I don't know if they care about preserving Taiwan's technology industry. China doesn't want Taiwanese chips, they want to reunite their country.
anything.
I seem to recall the Allies didn't invade mainland Japan in WWII. I can't remember exactly how it was they managed that. Oh, did it have something to do with bombing them until they lost the will to resist? Yeah. In that case we used a shortcut, but
I don't think it's a good analogy, the US had no intention of making
Japan a permanent territory of the US, only to extract an "unconditional surrender" in a war the Japanese started. And it wasn't in fact unconditional; keeping the Emperor as a symbolic leader was a term the
US agreed to, likely to enforce the (correct) understanding that Japan
was expected to remain a fully sovereign entity, at least eventually.
Anyway, the goalposts have shifted, first there wasn't going to be a
shot fired, now there's going to be an air campaign up to and including obliterating populated areas, I guess.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their targets.
On 03-Mar-22 2:30 am, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their targets.
At the start of this, I did wonder at the balance between tanks on the
one hand, and people armed with modern portable anti-tank weapons on the other.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now
I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet
coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:25:00 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
It's not clear that smart-but-disposable is the winning combination; a >well-instrumented artillery battery can account for a lot of mobile armor, >without requiring the metal tonnage and fuel supply. Ukraine's best defense
might be their non-intercontinental ballistic weaponry. It's not high tech, and it
is completely affordable. It also isn't offensive to distant cities in other nations.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone
rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 13:15:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <e846853a-e283-4896-b964-023d7cecc763n@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:25:00 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
It's not clear that smart-but-disposable is the winning combination; a
well-instrumented artillery battery can account for a lot of mobile armor, >> without requiring the metal tonnage and fuel supply. Ukraine's best defense
might be their non-intercontinental ballistic weaponry. It's not high tech, and it
is completely affordable. It also isn't offensive to distant cities in other nations.
Hard to tell if an incoming missile is not nuclear
A nervous Russia could answer with a nuclear counterstrike before it even hits.
As Ukrain has indicated it wants to go nuclear.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:both sides preventing them from dispersing and maneuvering during an attack- not to mention they were ridiculously closely spaced. Russia doesn't have a very good military.
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from
Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Unlikely the lightweight antitank weapons did the damage shown. They were most likely destroyed by demolitions after they were disabled and the Russians left. Tactically un-smart to take a tank column down a stretch of road with impassable barriers on
On 03/03/2022 02:31, Fred Bloggs wrote:on both sides preventing them from dispersing and maneuvering during an attack- not to mention they were ridiculously closely spaced. Russia doesn't have a very good military.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army retreating from
Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads. Once you blow up a few
tanks and trucks, the rest wait patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what airplanes
did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a thousand times
bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing straight
down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery shells
and bombs and depth charges and mines and even torpedoes missed their
targets.
Unlikely the lightweight antitank weapons did the damage shown. They were most likely destroyed by demolitions after they were disabled and the Russians left. Tactically un-smart to take a tank column down a stretch of road with impassable barriers
Javelin is a two stage shaped charge detonation to defeat reactive
armour and hits tanks from above. That hit might well be enough to see
one off. Once a tank is on fire its own ammunition is a big problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
Be careful what you wish for with autonomous weapons though.
Screamers represents one suitably dystopian future for such warfare.
https://www.imdb.com/video/vi3213951257/?ref_=tt_vi_i_1
Originally a Philip K Dick short story.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
On 03/03/22 08:26, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 13:15:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<e846853a-e283-4896-b964-023d7cecc763n@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:25:00 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
It's not clear that smart-but-disposable is the winning combination; a
well-instrumented artillery battery can account for a lot of mobile
armor,
without requiring the metal tonnage and fuel supply. Ukraine's
best defense
might be their non-intercontinental ballistic weaponry. It's not
high tech, and it
is completely affordable. It also isn't offensive to distant cities
in other nations.
Hard to tell if an incoming missile is not nuclear
A nervous Russia could answer with a nuclear counterstrike before it
even hits.
As Ukrain has indicated it wants to go nuclear.
What would they go nuclear /with/?
What's the source and the channel of that information?
Sounds like Russian disinformation.
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 08:26, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 13:15:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd >>> <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<e846853a-e283-4896-b964-023d7cecc763n@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:25:00 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
It's not clear that smart-but-disposable is the winning combination; a >>>> well-instrumented artillery battery can account for a lot of mobile armor, >>>> without requiring the metal tonnage and fuel supply. Ukraine's best defense
might be their non-intercontinental ballistic weaponry. It's not high tech,
and it
is completely affordable. It also isn't offensive to distant cities in >>>> other nations.
Hard to tell if an incoming missile is not nuclear
A nervous Russia could answer with a nuclear counterstrike before it even hits.
As Ukrain has indicated it wants to go nuclear.
What would they go nuclear /with/?
What's the source and the channel of that information?
Sounds like Russian disinformation.
One thing that nobody seems to mention is that back in 1991 when the Soviet Union came apart, Ukraine was full of SS-18 nuclear missiles, which they gave up
in exchange for a Western guarantee of their borders.
Brr.
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now >> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet
coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.Rick you are wrong
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower). Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions. Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are
merely explosives that don't contain their own oxidiser.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be
illegal; I'm not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other
country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels
on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower). Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600
AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is
US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or
near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions. Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was
still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see
Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 4:14:19 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs
without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone
rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I
can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
merely explosives that don't contain their own oxidiser.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be
illegal; I'm not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.
Correct. You are not up to date.
On 03/03/22 15:24, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 4:14:19 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs >>> without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone
rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I >>> can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
merely explosives that don't contain their own oxidiser.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be
illegal; I'm not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.
Correct. You are not up to date.Correct about what? That there is no difference
between being killed with a weapon that does or
does no contain the oxidiser?
On 2022-03-03 16:23, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:Rick you are wrong
You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now >>>> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet >>>> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I >>>> refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower). >> Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions. >> Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
Why do you post such silliness???
That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
are are in active use by the population.
On 03/03/22 13:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 08:26, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 13:15:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened
whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<e846853a-e283-4896-b964-023d7cecc763n@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:25:00 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Warfare could become our robots fighting their robots.
It's not clear that smart-but-disposable is the winning
combination; a well-instrumented artillery battery can
account for a lot of mobile armor, without requiring the
metal tonnage and fuel supply. Ukraine's best defense
might be their non-intercontinental ballistic weaponry. It's
not high tech, and it is completely affordable. It also
isn't offensive to distant cities in other nations.
Hard to tell if an incoming missile is not nuclear
A nervous Russia could answer with a nuclear counterstrike before it
even hits.
As Ukrain has indicated it wants to go nuclear.
What would they go nuclear /with/?
What's the source and the channel of that information?
Sounds like Russian disinformation.
One thing that nobody seems to mention is that back in 1991 when the
Soviet Union came apart, Ukraine was full of SS-18 nuclear missiles,
which they gave up in exchange for a Western guarantee of their borders.
Brr.
I have seen that stated - once.
Embarrassing.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:Rick you are wrong
You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now >>>> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet
coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower).
Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions.
Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
Why do you post such silliness???
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:06:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 15:24, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 4:14:19 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:Correct about what? That there is no difference
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs >>>>> without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone >>>>> rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I >>>>> can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
merely explosives that don't contain their own oxidiser.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be
illegal; I'm not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.
Correct. You are not up to date.
between being killed with a weapon that does or
does no contain the oxidiser?
I get tired of spoon feeding you. Learn how to use Google and do a bit of research... please.
On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<c17246df-5e13-4830...@googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:Rick you are wrong
You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now
I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet >> >> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I >> >> refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower). >> Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions. >> Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are thePeople afraid of 5G have been setting fire to cell towers here, and it caused some emergency services to be cut off too.
sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.I even had a solar powered radio from ebay, modified it to a solar powered GPS based clock with geiger counter.. You may need it.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
only used that solar panel...
I have better radios..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/325043045366 https://www.ebay.com/b/Emergency-Portable-AM-FM-Radios/96954/bn_883755 https://www.ebay.com/itm/373227954744
https://www.ebay.com/itm/353320718382
The hand cranked flash light is in the kitchen, it can charge things via USB, well I added the LED light :-)
On 03/03/22 17:57, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:06:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 15:24, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 4:14:19 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:Correct about what? That there is no difference
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs >>>>> without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone >>>>> rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I >>>>> can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
merely explosives that don't contain their own oxidiser.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be
illegal; I'm not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.
Correct. You are not up to date.
between being killed with a weapon that does or
does no contain the oxidiser?
I get tired of spoon feeding you. Learn how to use Google and do a bit of research... please.
And yet again you avoid the point being made in favour
of one which you prefer to answer^H^H^H^H^H^ respond to
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are
merely explosives that don't contain their own oxidiser.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be
illegal; I'm not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:Rick you are wrong
You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now >> >> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet
coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower).
Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions.
Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the
sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:06:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 15:24, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 4:14:19 AM UTC-5, Tom GardnerCorrect about what? That there is no difference between being
wrote:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are merely
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like
cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of
making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to
the fallout.
explosives that don't contain their own oxidiser.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be illegal;
I'm not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.
Correct. You are not up to date.
killed with a weapon that does or does no contain the oxidiser?
I get tired of spoon feeding you. Learn how to use Google and do a
bit of research... please.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like clusterOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a
Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the
fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a
lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in
comparison to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford
to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
I'm not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.
Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin's
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won't make opinions
much worse.
Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.
I also don't understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that canThe Ukrainians /are/ hitting the column. But you can't do that
take out tanks, why they aren't being used on the 40 mile long
column of troops that are stuck on the roads? I'm thinking a lot
of the stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that
makes sense is that the logistics aren't up to snuff and they are
running out of fuel and food. That I believe.
effectively with short range hand-held anti-tank weapons - the
numbers are too big, and the distances too far. They are doing some
damage using drones, but they also need to keep things in reserve
for when they are /really/ needed. As long as the Russians can't do
better than a slow crawl, they still have other options.
There are reports of "missiles", which are not hand-held weapons.
Short range missiles would be sufficient to attack and retreat,
guerrilla warfare. Sitting in the city and waiting for the onslaught
won't win the war or even the battle. If this column can't be broken
up, there's no point in trying to mount any other sort of defense.
Russia can wage siege warfare if they want.
On 03/03/22 13:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 08:26, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 13:15:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened
whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
Hard to tell if an incoming missile is not nuclear
A nervous Russia could answer with a nuclear counterstrike before it
even hits.
As Ukrain has indicated it wants to go nuclear.
What would they go nuclear /with/?
What's the source and the channel of that information?
Sounds like Russian disinformation.
One thing that nobody seems to mention is that back in 1991 when the
Soviet Union came apart, Ukraine was full of SS-18 nuclear missiles,
which they gave up in exchange for a Western guarantee of their borders.
Brr.
I have seen that stated - once.
Embarrassing.
Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won't be a
need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of
Brittan, all in the air. The difference is China is very much better prepared for it and won't do something stupid like attack Russia.
They will just lob rockets and artillery from ships and drop bombs
from planes.
I don't know if they care about preserving Taiwan's technology
industry. China doesn't want Taiwanese chips, they want to reunite
their country.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:59:06 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:54, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:China could destroy Taiwan from a distance. But they have no
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure
These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army
retreating from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads.
Once you blow up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait
patiently in line to be destroyed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/
Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.
Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.
In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even
torpedoes missed their targets.
goes for Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine,
and they have ~80 miles of open water to cross just to get a
significant amount of troops and supplies onto the island.
And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It's
an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a
shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets,
either from the sea or from the mainland. In other words, other
than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the
Chinese. The Chinese aren't watching the Ukrainian situation from
a military point of view. It's much more of a political
perspective.
interest in destroying it - they want to integrate it into mainland
China. That is vastly more difficult.
"Integration" is the goal, but if a few people die in the process,
that's ok with China. To them, the individual is not as important as
the country. They want to return Taiwan as an integral part of
China, just like Hong Kong. They don't mind running over a few
people with tanks or hitting them with bombs to do it.
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like clusterOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a
Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the
fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a
lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in
comparison to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford
to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK used
them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.
Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week.
Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn't bring much more than a packed lunch, because they didn't expect to take long.
Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.
Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin's
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won't make opinions
much worse.
Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.
/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.
I also don't understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that canThe Ukrainians /are/ hitting the column. But you can't do that
take out tanks, why they aren't being used on the 40 mile long
column of troops that are stuck on the roads? I'm thinking a lot
of the stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that
makes sense is that the logistics aren't up to snuff and they are
running out of fuel and food. That I believe.
effectively with short range hand-held anti-tank weapons - the
numbers are too big, and the distances too far. They are doing some
damage using drones, but they also need to keep things in reserve
for when they are /really/ needed. As long as the Russians can't do
better than a slow crawl, they still have other options.
There are reports of "missiles", which are not hand-held weapons.
Short range missiles would be sufficient to attack and retreat,
guerrilla warfare. Sitting in the city and waiting for the onslaught
won't win the war or even the battle. If this column can't be broken
up, there's no point in trying to mount any other sort of defense.
Russia can wage siege warfare if they want.
The column hasn't moved for the last 24 to 36 hours. I don't know if
this is due to Ukrainian defence or Russian logistics failures.
There
are also many reports of a collapse of moral amongst Russian soldiers -
they had been told they were doing military exercises until the day of
the invasion, and then they were told they were liberating oppressed Ukrainians from neo-nazi authoritarian leaders. They expected to be
greeted with flowers, not molotov cocktails.
Yes, the Russian army can lay siege to Kiev, and will no doubt aim to do that. It remains to be seen whether they can hold out.
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like clusterOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a
Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the
fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a
lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in
comparison to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford
to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK used
them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.
Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid
majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week. Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn't bring
much more than a packed lunch, because they didn't expect to take long.
Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over
quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.
Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin's
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won't make opinions
much worse.
Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.
/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.
On 2022-03-03 21:16, David Brown wrote:
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like clusterOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a
Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the
fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a
lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in
comparison to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford
to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK used
them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.
Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week. Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn't bring much more than a packed lunch, because they didn't expect to take long.
Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.
Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin's
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won't make opinions
much worse.
Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.
/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons areWhat happens when the local military hide AA missile launchers between
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.
the city civilian buildings? Surely they can be targeted, but hitting
the buildings instead can happen.
What do the rules of war say about that?
Another case. What if the civilian population is armed for resistance?
They become combatants, and possibly fair targets.
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like clusterOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a
Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the
fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a
lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in
comparison to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford
to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK used
them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.
Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid
majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week. Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn't bring
much more than a packed lunch, because they didn't expect to take long.
Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over
quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla >actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.
Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin's
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won't make opinions
much worse.
Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.
/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or >knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.
I also don't understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that canThe Ukrainians /are/ hitting the column. But you can't do that
take out tanks, why they aren't being used on the 40 mile long
column of troops that are stuck on the roads? I'm thinking a lot
of the stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that
makes sense is that the logistics aren't up to snuff and they are
running out of fuel and food. That I believe.
effectively with short range hand-held anti-tank weapons - the
numbers are too big, and the distances too far. They are doing some
damage using drones, but they also need to keep things in reserve
for when they are /really/ needed. As long as the Russians can't do
better than a slow crawl, they still have other options.
There are reports of "missiles", which are not hand-held weapons.
Short range missiles would be sufficient to attack and retreat,
guerrilla warfare. Sitting in the city and waiting for the onslaught
won't win the war or even the battle. If this column can't be broken
up, there's no point in trying to mount any other sort of defense.
Russia can wage siege warfare if they want.
The column hasn't moved for the last 24 to 36 hours. I don't know if
this is due to Ukrainian defence or Russian logistics failures.
There
are also many reports of a collapse of moral amongst Russian soldiers -
they had been told they were doing military exercises until the day of
the invasion, and then they were told they were liberating oppressed >Ukrainians from neo-nazi authoritarian leaders. They expected to be
greeted with flowers, not molotov cocktails.
Yes, the Russian army can lay siege to Kiev, and will no doubt aim to do >that. It remains to be seen whether they can hold out.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:I should have said they are a violation when used against what are largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon can be used against military targets in an urban environment without massive civilian
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK used them >> against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap":-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap."Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like clusterOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any conventions
bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze >>>>> drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. >>>>> I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
(though there have been calls to do so), and give you a lot of
devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in comparison >>>> to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford to play nice.
casualties.
torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 10.14.19 UTC+1 skrev Tom Gardner:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Why wouldn't they? It isn't as if they are NBC. They are merely explosives >> that don't contain their own oxidiser.
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster bombs
without being "rugged". What is the point of making a Kamikaze drone
rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric weapons. I
can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the fallout.
Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be illegal; I'm not up >> to date on the Geneva Conventions.
doesn't matter what weapon you use
article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited
article 48 of Protocol I: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives
On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<c17246df-5e13-4830...@googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:Rick you are wrong
You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now
I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet >> >> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I >> >> refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower). >> Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions. >> Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are thePeople afraid of 5G have been setting fire to cell towers here, and it caused some emergency services to be cut off too.
sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.I even had a solar powered radio from ebay, modified it to a solar powered GPS based clock with geiger counter.. You may need it.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
only used that solar panel...
I have better radios..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/325043045366 https://www.ebay.com/b/Emergency-Portable-AM-FM-Radios/96954/bn_883755 https://www.ebay.com/itm/373227954744
https://www.ebay.com/itm/353320718382
The hand cranked flash light is in the kitchen, it can charge things via USB, well I added the LED light :-)
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
I even had a solar powered radio from ebay, modified it to a solar powered GPS based clock with geiger counter.. You may need
it.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
only used that solar panel...
I have better radios..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/325043045366
https://www.ebay.com/b/Emergency-Portable-AM-FM-Radios/96954/bn_883755
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373227954744
https://www.ebay.com/itm/353320718382
The hand cranked flash light is in the kitchen, it can charge things via USB, well I added the LED light :-)
https://www.axios.com/russia-threatens-block-voa-removes-ukraine-invasion-coverage-cb1a930b-87b9-460f-8ac6-08a02b670ccc.html
Does VOA even have a radio station anymore? It would seem the Russians don't care much about that, it's the web site they care
about.
article 48 of Protocol I:
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and >civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish >between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects >and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations
only against military objectives
I have no use for a radio when the radio tower has been bombed. I don't want to listen to the radio when the radio tower is not
being bombed. I suppose it would tell me that the radio tower had been bombed. Too limited information to worry with.
On 03/03/22 19:43, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 10.14.19 UTC+1 skrev Tom Gardner:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why thermobaric weapons aren't equivalent to "high yield" HE weapons.
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 10:56:22 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 19:43, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 10.14.19 UTC+1 skrev Tom Gardner:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snip>
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why thermobaric weapons aren't
equivalent to "high yield" HE weapons.
Presumably lower brisance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance
Fuel-air weapons depend on forming a fuel-air mix, which - when ignited - can sustain a shock wave. You can get a faster shock wave in a solid explosive that contains it's own oxidiser.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2022-03-03 16:23, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >>>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now >>>>>> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet >>>>>> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I >>>>>> refused to have 1 gigabit.Rick you are wrong
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands. >>>> All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower). >>>> Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions. >>>> Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
Why do you post such silliness???
are are in active use by the population.
No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, likeOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of
making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared
to the fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give
you a lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so
badly in comparison to their plans and expectations, that they
can't afford to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK
used them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I should have said they are a violation when used against what are
largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon can be
used against military targets in an urban environment without massive civilian casualties.
The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
territory.
For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
Joe Gwinn
On 03/03/2022 23:02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
territory.
For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
Joe Gwinn
Can you cite any sources for that info please? The earliest use
over-land against troops in Europe I heard of was in December 1944
during the Battle of the Bulge.
On 03/03/2022 22:19, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, likeOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of
making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared
to the fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give
you a lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so
badly in comparison to their plans and expectations, that they
can't afford to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK
used them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I should have said they are a violation when used against what are
largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon can be
used against military targets in an urban environment without massive civilian casualties.
OK, so you were completely wrong about thermobaric weapons being in violation of any kinds of treaties or conventions, and you were wrong to
get your knickers in a twist when Tom called you out on it.
You are also wrong to keep back-tracking here. There is /nothing/
special about thermobaric weapons. That includes attacking "military
targets in an urban environment". Attacks are illegal if they
deliberately target civilians, or if they do not take appropriate
measures to minimise civilian casualties when attacking military
targets. It's that simple. It is /irrelevant/ if you are using a
thermobaric weapon, or missiles, or bombs, or tanks, or pea-shooters.
Russia is using thermobaric weapons because they are cheap and
effective. If they hit military targets, it's legal (to the extent that
the invasion itself is legal). If they hit significant civilian areas,
it's illegal - just like their missiles hitting other housing.
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2022-03-03 16:23, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick CThat's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right nowRick you are wrong
I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet >>>>>> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I >>>>>> refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands. >>>> All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower).
Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions.
Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running. >>>>
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
Why do you post such silliness???
are are in active use by the population.
No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.Not correct. There are batteries and generators.
On 03/03/2022 23:02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
territory.
For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
Joe Gwinn
Can you cite any sources for that info please? The earliest use
over-land against troops in Europe I heard of was in December 1944
during the Battle of the Bulge.
piglet
Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2022 23:02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
territory.
For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
Joe Gwinn
Can you cite any sources for that info please? The earliest use
over-land against troops in Europe I heard of was in December 1944
during the Battle of the Bulge.
piglet
The Normandy landings used impact fuses. You can tell from the craters and >the videos of shell explosions. Patton used the proximity fuse in the
Battle of the Bulge as stated, but there may have been some use a few weeks >earlier.
Quote:
"In chapter 4 of “War as I Knew It”, General George Patton stated “the
night of December 25 and 2 6 we had used the new proximity fuse on a number >of Germans near Echternach and actually killed 700 of them.” This action
was during 3rd Army’s move north to Bastogne, and was the first documented >use of the fuse against ground forces. It is my belief that we had seen the >proximity fuse in use several weeks earlier, even though many WWII authors >have stated that it was first used on the continent during the Bulge."
<https://battleofthebulge.org/2013/10/11/proximity-fuse-use-prior-to-the-bulge-wes-ross-146th-ecb/>
The Normandy landings used impact fuses. You can tell from the craters
and the videos of shell explosions. Patton used the proximity fuse in
the Battle of the Bulge as stated, but there may have been some use a
few weeks earlier.
Quote:
"In chapter 4 of “War as I Knew It”, General George Patton stated “the
night of December 25 and 2 6 we had used the new proximity fuse on a
number of Germans near Echternach and actually killed 700 of them.” This action was during 3rd Army’s move north to Bastogne, and was the first documented use of the fuse against ground forces. It is my belief that
we had seen the proximity fuse in use several weeks earlier, even though
many WWII authors have stated that it was first used on the continent
during the Bulge."
https://battleofthebulge.org/2013/10/11/proximity-fuse-use-prior-to-the- bulge-wes-ross-146th-ecb/
On 03/03/2022 23:02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
territory.
For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
Joe Gwinn
Can you cite any sources for that info please? The earliest use
over-land against troops in Europe I heard of was in December 1944
during the Battle of the Bulge.
On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
where space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws coverage something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from
ground level with antennae at the top.
TV towers are serious expense and quite difficult to replace. My local
one caught fire last summer and TDTV is still dodgy even now and it will
be a while before the replacement mast is properly back on air. The
present bodge of temporary masts barely covers the most populous areas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58169501
Pretty much total TV blackout ensued if you were on terrestrial TV. It
is still not right even now outside of major cities.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries >>>> are are in active use by the population.
Why do you post such silliness???
No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
I'm with Jan on this. Most people *do* have a battery powered radio (although DAB radios are a POS - eating a set of batteries in <8hr).Not correct. There are batteries and generators.You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive.
My old Sony world band portable would last weeks on a set of batteries.
VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio.If you have lived in an earthquake zone or somewhere prone to power
outages then you will have (at least one). UK mains power is now getting dodgy where I live. Northern Powergrid are operating a perverted version
of Bayesian maintenance programme - replace *only* on failure. The
result is that rows of powerline poles fail simultaneously in storms.
Storm Arwen last year was a complete fiasco. Anyone that can afford tobattery.
where I live now has a generator for the next time they MFU.
I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh
Are you happy now?He was right though. There are plenty of battery powered portable
devices capable of receiving broadcast terrestrial TV even when the
local mains is off. Most peoples smartphone can do radio too.
My USB TV dongle and laptop can do it pretty easily just plug in an
aerial. Where I live was close enough to the transmitter that torched
itself that any piece of wire would do. Now you would be better off
pointing a highly directional yagi in another direction entirely.
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries >>>> are are in active use by the population.
Why do you post such silliness???
No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
Not correct. There are batteries and generators.You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive.
VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio.
I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWhbattery.
Are you happy now?
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh battery.
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:Not correct. There are batteries and generators.
On 2022-03-03 16:23, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >>>>>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote inThat's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries >>>> are are in active use by the population.
<a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>> You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right nowRick you are wrong
I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet >>>>>>>> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I >>>>>>>> refused to have 1 gigabit.
Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands. >>>>>> All from towers.
Cellphone all from towers.
The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower).
Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions.
Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures. >>>>>> I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running. >>>>>>
Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
Need to improve my Russian,
Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
via satellite.
All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
How about doing it to the US?
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
Why do you post such silliness???
No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive. VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio. I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still have that
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:Whereas you normally
On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings where >> space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws coverage >> something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the >>>>>>> sides of buildings.
with antennae at the top.
I don't know why I read your posts. You like to shoot from the hip on topics you know little about.
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:32:22 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 03/03/2022 22:19, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:OK, so you were completely wrong about thermobaric weapons being in
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster >>>>>>> bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making aOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the >>>>>>> fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a >>>>>> lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in >>>>>> comparison to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford >>>>>> to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK used >>>> them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I should have said they are a violation when used against what are
largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon can be used >>> against military targets in an urban environment without massive civilian >>> casualties.
violation of any kinds of treaties or conventions, and you were wrong to
get your knickers in a twist when Tom called you out on it.
You are also wrong to keep back-tracking here. There is /nothing/ special
about thermobaric weapons. That includes attacking "military targets in an >> urban environment". Attacks are illegal if they deliberately target
civilians, or if they do not take appropriate measures to minimise civilian >> casualties when attacking military targets. It's that simple. It is
/irrelevant/ if you are using a thermobaric weapon, or missiles, or bombs, >> or tanks, or pea-shooters.
Russia is using thermobaric weapons because they are cheap and effective.
If they hit military targets, it's legal (to the extent that the invasion
itself is legal). If they hit significant civilian areas, it's illegal -
just like their missiles hitting other housing.
You literally have no idea what Russia does what it does. Neither does anyone else.
The point is there is no viable means of using thermobaric weapons against military targets in an urban area (the context of the discussion). You can try to throw shade all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
It very much is relevant what sort of weapon you use. Using a rifle to shoot at a soldier only to have the bullet ricochet and kill a civilian is not a war crime. A thermobaric weapon is pretty much nothing but ricochet so that it is inexcusable to use in an urban area. That constitutes a war crime.
No one knows what you were actually targeting, so you pretty much get a free pass on most weapons. No one can argue that their thermobaric bomb was only aimed at the soldiers setting up a machine gun at the end of the street.
Now that I've spelled it out in complete detail, do you finally understand?
You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive. VERY FEW have battery radios or >have generator backup to run a radio. I have a battery radio somewhere,
but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device
I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these
days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh battery.
On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are
the sides of buildings.
That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
where space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws >coverage something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from
ground level with antennae at the top.
TV towers are serious expense and quite difficult to replace. My local
one caught fire last summer and TDTV is still dodgy even now and it will
be a while before the replacement mast is properly back on air. The
present bodge of temporary masts barely covers the most populous areas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58169501
Pretty much total TV blackout ensued if you were on terrestrial TV. It
is still not right even now outside of major cities.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries >>>>> are are in active use by the population.
Why do you post such silliness???
No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
Not correct. There are batteries and generators.You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive.
I'm with Jan on this. Most people *do* have a battery powered radio
(although DAB radios are a POS - eating a set of batteries in <8hr).
My old Sony world band portable would last weeks on a set of batteries.
VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio.
If you have lived in an earthquake zone or somewhere prone to power
outages then you will have (at least one). UK mains power is now getting >dodgy where I live. Northern Powergrid are operating a perverted version
of Bayesian maintenance programme - replace *only* on failure. The
result is that rows of powerline poles fail simultaneously in storms.
Storm Arwen last year was a complete fiasco. Anyone that can afford to
where I live now has a generator for the next time they MFU.
I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still
have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh
battery.
Are you happy now?
He was right though. There are plenty of battery powered portable
devices capable of receiving broadcast terrestrial TV even when the
local mains is off. Most peoples smartphone can do radio too.
My USB TV dongle and laptop can do it pretty easily just plug in an
aerial. Where I live was close enough to the transmitter that torched
itself that any piece of wire would do. Now you would be better off
pointing a highly directional yagi in another direction entirely.
That was my point. The only time you would want a battery radio is in a significant
power failure. Most of us just use our cell phones to call the power
company and don't think much more about it. So not much thought of a battery >radio.
I think you and Jan just like to argue. Radio would be a great means of communicating
in an emergency, but few people in the US have radios in blackouts
because in the US doesn't have many blackouts where they would be useful.
The group of nerds who post here are hardly representative.
On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:Whereas you normally
On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the >>>>>>>> sides of buildings.
where
space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
coverage
something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level >>> with antennae at the top.
I don't know why I read your posts.  You like to shoot from the hip on
topics you know little about.
 1) speed-read to the point of not understanding the points being
 2) presume the rest of the world is the same as you have experienced
Unimpressive.
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:32:22 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 03/03/2022 22:19, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David BrownOK, so you were completely wrong about thermobaric weapons being in
wrote:
On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
"Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, likeOf course they are using them. They are not banned by any
cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point
of making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using
thermobaric weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for
them compared to the fallout.
conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and
give you a lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is
doing so badly in comparison to their plans and
expectations, that they can't afford to play nice.
I have read they are considered a violation of existing
treaties.
Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and
UK used them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I should have said they are a violation when used against what
are largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon
can be used against military targets in an urban environment
without massive civilian casualties.
violation of any kinds of treaties or conventions, and you were
wrong to get your knickers in a twist when Tom called you out on
it.
You are also wrong to keep back-tracking here. There is /nothing/
special about thermobaric weapons. That includes attacking
"military targets in an urban environment". Attacks are illegal if
they deliberately target civilians, or if they do not take
appropriate measures to minimise civilian casualties when attacking
military targets. It's that simple. It is /irrelevant/ if you are
using a thermobaric weapon, or missiles, or bombs, or tanks, or
pea-shooters.
Russia is using thermobaric weapons because they are cheap and
effective. If they hit military targets, it's legal (to the extent
that the invasion itself is legal). If they hit significant
civilian areas, it's illegal - just like their missiles hitting
other housing.
You literally have no idea what Russia does what it does. Neither
does anyone else.
The point is there is no viable means of using thermobaric weapons
against military targets in an urban area (the context of the
discussion). You can try to throw shade all you want, but that
doesn't change the facts.
It very much is relevant what sort of weapon you use. Using a rifle
to shoot at a soldier only to have the bullet ricochet and kill a
civilian is not a war crime. A thermobaric weapon is pretty much
nothing but ricochet so that it is inexcusable to use in an urban
area. That constitutes a war crime.
No one knows what you were actually targeting, so you pretty much get
a free pass on most weapons. No one can argue that their thermobaric
bomb was only aimed at the soldiers setting up a machine gun at the
end of the street.
Now that I've spelled it out in complete detail, do you finally
understand?
BTW, you would do well to avoid the personal attacks. It just makes
you look bad.
On 05/03/2022 01:24, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:Whereas you normally
On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>>
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the >>>>>>>>> sides of buildings.
where
space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
coverage
something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level >>>> with antennae at the top.
I don't know why I read your posts.  You like to shoot from the hip on >>> topics you know little about.
 1) speed-read to the point of not understanding the points being
 2) presume the rest of the world is the same as you have experienced
Unimpressive.
Remember, Rick lives in a world where Teslas are the car for the masses.
The idea that someone might be using the same television set they have
had for a couple of decades, or listen to a battery radio in the kitchen instead of using the house-wide Sonos system, is just inconceivable to him.
On 05/03/2022 01:24, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:Whereas you normally
On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>>
Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the >>>>>>>>> sides of buildings.
where
space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
coverage
something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level >>>> with antennae at the top.
I don't know why I read your posts.  You like to shoot from the hip on >>> topics you know little about.
 1) speed-read to the point of not understanding the points being
 2) presume the rest of the world is the same as you have experienced
Unimpressive.
Remember, Rick lives in a world where Teslas are the car for the masses.
The idea that someone might be using the same television set they have
had for a couple of decades, or listen to a battery radio in the kitchen instead of using the house-wide Sonos system, is just inconceivable to him.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 231 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 113:57:36 |
| Calls: | 4,952 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,523 |
| Messages: | 3,986,320 |
