• Re: weapon inflection

    From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Mar 2 15:45:40 2022
    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.

    Wonder if they will start shooting communication broadcast sats ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 2 07:30:59 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Wed Mar 2 08:24:14 2022
    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>:

    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 :-)

    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Wed Mar 2 08:24:46 2022
    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.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Mar 2 11:32:54 2022
    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

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 17:41:43 2022
    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>:

    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 :-)

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Mar 2 11:53:32 2022
    On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jlarkin@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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Mar 2 09:03:37 2022
    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 Panteltje
    wrote:
    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
    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 :-)

    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.

    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.

    If the Russians knew much, they would not be attacking Ukraine right now, so I put very little faith in their inherent knowledge of what impact a TV station has. Very likely that is part of a battle plan that was created by minds trained 40 years ago.

    I recall seeing the TV towers in Richmond, VA, on the highest point which would have likely been outside the city when it was built. They stick up as an eyesore, a monument to a time when you wanted your single antenna to reach as many as possible. Now,
    "broadcast" means to put your video on the Internet with users connected via cable or the many, many, smaller antenna for cell phones.

    I remember Arab Spring when the government focused on controlling the Internet. In Ukraine, that can't be done, because they haven't taken over the country yet. In fact, they've taken very little of it. Not a six day war.

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Mar 2 12:19:16 2022
    On 3/2/2022 11:41 AM, 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 Panteltje
    wrote:
    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
    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 :-)

    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.


    Speaking of the media, coverage of a war in the US has never been worse;
    most of the major media outlets and papers in the US closed most of
    their foreign bureaus ages ago. The cable news channels don't have many reporters anymore in favor of doing color commentary 22 hours a day.

    IDK how many US-media people are actually on the ground in Ukraine it's probably like five. everyone else just scratches their heads over what
    gets piped in from the AP and Reuters.

    The New York Times has a couple there I think they're old-fashioned that
    way.

    CNN has like one thread of "current news" where they repost stuff from
    Twitter and then a ton of "Analysis" and "Opinion" articles and
    "Explained: What is Ukraine"-type articles.

    Watching CNN or Fox or MSNBC etc. attempting to find out some novel
    information is watching three-day-old fish.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Mar 2 10:03:42 2022
    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Mar 2 09:54:19 2022
    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 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.

    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical. on Wed Mar 2 09:49:20 2022
    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.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Wed Mar 2 19:08:48 2022
    On 02/03/22 16:32, Phil Hobbs 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

    Maybe Cordwainer Smith's manshonyagger are the future.

    "Cheers" would be inappropriate ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 2 13:30:37 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Mar 2 19:16:40 2022
    On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 09:49:20 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <p4bv1h94kdeenn91q0u0uc93v3to4a8mdp@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.

    Maybe Elon will one the moon before NASA's big thing they are building :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to joegwinn@comcast.net on Wed Mar 2 19:20:15 2022
    On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Mar 2022 13:30:37 -0500) it happened Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in <v2dv1hpmla51v1hamrnkis5rjiufsfmt3a@4ax.com>:

    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

    Bad politician war makers like biden do not sit in big tanks...
    The ashole provokes war in Europe just like his predecessor Bil Clignon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 14:43:02 2022
    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 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.

    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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 14:28:48 2022
    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 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.

    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.


    No, the political consequences of a siege that drags on and on aren't
    tenable. If they thought they could take it without a shot they would've
    done it, already.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Robertson@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 2 11:40:17 2022
    DQpPbiAyMDIyLzAzLzAyIDk6MTkgYS5tLiwgYml0cmV4IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBPbiAzLzIvMjAy MiAxMTo0MSBBTSwgRGF2aWQgQnJvd24gd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiAwMi8wMy8yMDIyIDE3OjI0 LCBSaWNrIEMgd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4gT24gV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyLCAyMDIyIGF0IDEw OjQ4OjM4IEFNIFVUQy01LCBKYW4gUGFudGVsdGplDQo+Pj4gd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4+IE9uIGEg c3VubnkgZGF5IChXZWQsIDAyIE1hciAyMDIyIDA3OjMwOjU5IC0wODAwKSBpdCBoYXBwZW5l ZA0KPj4+PiBqbGEuLi5AaGlnaGxhbmRzbmlwdGVjaG5vbG9neS5jb20gd3JvdGUgaW4NCj4+ Pj4gPGR2MnYxaDlmbzFzYXBsbGUyLi4uQDRheC5jb20+Og0KPj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+IFRoZXNl IHBpY3MgYXJlIGFtYXppbmcuIFRoZXkgbG9vayBsaWtlIHRoZSBJcmFxdWkgYXJteSByZXRy ZWF0aW5nDQo+Pj4+PiBmcm9tIEt1d2FpdC4gTWlsZXMgb2Ygd3JlY2thZ2UgYmxvY2tpbmcg dGhlIHJvYWRzLiBPbmNlIHlvdSBibG93DQo+Pj4+PiB1cCBhIGZldyB0YW5rcyBhbmQgdHJ1 Y2tzLCB0aGUgcmVzdCB3YWl0IHBhdGllbnRseSBpbiBsaW5lIHRvIGJlDQo+Pj4+PiBkZXN0 cm95ZWQuDQo+Pj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlc3VuLmNvLnVrL25ld3MvMTc4 MTYyNTUvaW5jcmVkaWJsZS1waG90b3MtcnVzc2lhbi1jb252b3ktd3JlY2thZ2UtYnVjaGEt a3lpdi8gDQo+Pj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+PiBKYXZlbGluIHR5cGUgbWlzc2ls ZXMgYW5kIGRyb25lcyBtYXkgYmUgZG9pbmcgdG8gdGFua3Mgd2hhdA0KPj4+Pj4gYWlycGxh bmVzIGRpZCB0byBiYXR0bGVzaGlwcy4gQ2hlYXAgc21hcnQgd2VhcG9ucyBkZXN0cm95IGEN Cj4+Pj4+IHRob3VzYW5kIHRpbWVzIGJpZ2dlciBhbmQgbW9yZSBleHBlbnNpdmUgdGFyZ2V0 cy4NCj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+PiBJbWFnaW5lIGEgc21hcnQgZHJvbmUgd2l0aCBhIEhlbGxmaXJl IHR5cGUgbWlzc2lsZSBmaXJpbmcNCj4+Pj4+IHN0cmFpZ2h0IGRvd24gb250byBhIHZlaGlj bGUuIEltYWdpbmUgYmVpbmcgaW4gYSB0YW5rIHVuZGVyIGENCj4+Pj4+IHN3YXJtIG9mIHRo ZW0uDQo+Pj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4gSW4gcHJldmlvdXMgd2FycywgdGhlIGdyZWF0IG1ham9yaXR5 IG9mIGJ1bGxldHMgYW5kIGFydGlsbGVyeQ0KPj4+Pj4gc2hlbGxzIGFuZCBib21icyBhbmQg ZGVwdGggY2hhcmdlcyBhbmQgbWluZXMgYW5kIGV2ZW4gdG9ycGVkb2VzDQo+Pj4+PiBtaXNz ZWQgdGhlaXIgdGFyZ2V0cy4NCj4+Pj4gUnVzc2lhIHNvbWVob3cgaGl0IGEgVFYgdG93ZXIg YW5kIGJ1aWxkaW5nLCBwb3NzaWJseSB3aXRoIGENCj4+Pj4gcHJlY2lzaW9uIHdlYXBvbi4g V2hlbiBJIHdvcmtlZCBhdCB0aGUgVFYgc3RhdGlvbiBoZXJlIHdlIHdlDQo+Pj4+IGluZm9y bWVkIHdlIHdlcmUgcHJpbWFyeSB0YXJnZXRzIGluIGNhc2Ugb2Ygd2FyLiBFVSBoYXMganVz dA0KPj4+PiBkZWNpZGVkIHRvIHRha2UgYWxsIFJ1c3NpYW4gVFYgY2hhbm5lbHMgb2YgYWly LiBJIGNhbiBzdGlsbCBzZWUNCj4+Pj4gdGhlaXIgd2Vic2l0ZSBhbmQgbW9tZW50Li4uIHNh dGVsbGl0ZSBjaGFubmVsIDotKQ0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVFYgc3RhdGlvbnM/wqAgRG8gdGhleSBz dGlsbCBoYXZlIHRob3NlP8KgIEl0IHdvdWxkIHNlZW0gdGFraW5nIG91dCBhDQo+Pj4gYnJv YWRjYXN0IHRvd2VyIHRvIGJlIG9uIHRoZSBzYW1lIGxldmVsIG9mIHNpZ25pZmljYW5jZSBh cyBibG93aW5nIHVwDQo+Pj4gYSBmbGludGxvY2sgZmFjdG9yeS4NCj4+Pg0KPj4NCj4+IEkg c3VzcGVjdCB0aGF0IG1vc3QgVFYgaW4gbW9zdCBvZiB0aGUgd29ybGQgaXMgYnJvYWRjYXN0 IGZyb20gdG93ZXJzLg0KPj4gU3VyZSwgcGVvcGxlIGFsc28gaGF2ZSBzdHJlYW1pbmcgc2Vy dmljZXMgb2YgYWxsIGtpbmRzLCBidXQgYnJvYWRjYXN0IGlzDQo+PiBzdGlsbCB0aGUgbW9z dCBlZmZpY2llbnQgZXNwZWNpYWxseSBpZiB5b3UgaGF2ZW4ndCBnb3QgYSBiaWcgZmFzdA0K Pj4gaW50ZXJuZXQgaW5mcmFzdHJ1Y3R1cmUuwqAgQnJvYWRjYXN0IFRWIHN0YXRpb25zIGFy ZSBvZnRlbiBkaWdpdGFsIHdpdGgNCj4+IHByZXR0eSBnb29kIHF1YWxpdHkuDQo+Pg0KPj4g SSBoYXZlIG5vIGlkZWEgd2hhdCB0aGUgaW50ZXJuZXQgaW5mcmFzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgaXMgbGlr ZSBpbiBVa3JhaW5lLCBub3INCj4+IGhvdyBtdWNoIG9mIGl0cyB0ZWxldmlzaW9uIGlzIGJh c2VkIG9uIHRlcnJlc3RyaWFsIGJyb2FkY2FzdGluZywNCj4+IHNhdGVsbGl0ZSwgY2FibGUs IG9yIG90aGVyIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy7CoCBCdXQgSSB3b3VsZCBub3QgZGlzbWlzcyBUVg0K Pj4gdG93ZXJzIG91dCBvZiBoYW5kIC0gdGhlIGF0dGFjayBvbiB0aGUgdG93ZXIgd2FzIHRh cmdldGVkIGFuZA0KPj4gaW50ZW50aW9uYWwsIHNvIEkgc3VzcGVjdCB0aGUgUnVzc2lhbnMg a25ldyBtb3JlIHRoYW4geW91IChvciBJKSBhYm91dA0KPj4gaXRzIGltcG9ydGFuY2UuDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gU3BlYWtpbmcgb2YgdGhlIG1lZGlhLCBjb3ZlcmFnZSBvZiBhIHdhciBpbiB0 aGUgVVMgaGFzIG5ldmVyIGJlZW4gd29yc2U7IA0KPiBtb3N0IG9mIHRoZSBtYWpvciBtZWRp YSBvdXRsZXRzIGFuZCBwYXBlcnMgaW4gdGhlIFVTIGNsb3NlZCBtb3N0IG9mIA0KPiB0aGVp ciBmb3JlaWduIGJ1cmVhdXMgYWdlcyBhZ28uIFRoZSBjYWJsZSBuZXdzIGNoYW5uZWxzIGRv bid0IGhhdmUgbWFueSANCj4gcmVwb3J0ZXJzIGFueW1vcmUgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2YgZG9pbmcg Y29sb3IgY29tbWVudGFyeSAyMiBob3VycyBhIGRheS4NCj4gDQo+IElESyBob3cgbWFueSBV Uy1tZWRpYSBwZW9wbGUgYXJlIGFjdHVhbGx5IG9uIHRoZSBncm91bmQgaW4gVWtyYWluZSBp dCdzIA0KPiBwcm9iYWJseSBsaWtlIGZpdmUuIGV2ZXJ5b25lIGVsc2UganVzdCBzY3JhdGNo ZXMgdGhlaXIgaGVhZHMgb3ZlciB3aGF0IA0KPiBnZXRzIHBpcGVkIGluIGZyb20gdGhlIEFQ IGFuZCBSZXV0ZXJzLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIE5ldyBZb3JrIFRpbWVzIGhhcyBhIGNvdXBsZSB0 aGVyZSBJIHRoaW5rIHRoZXkncmUgb2xkLWZhc2hpb25lZCB0aGF0IA0KPiB3YXkuDQo+IA0K PiBDTk4gaGFzIGxpa2Ugb25lIHRocmVhZCBvZiAiY3VycmVudCBuZXdzIiB3aGVyZSB0aGV5 IHJlcG9zdCBzdHVmZiBmcm9tIA0KPiBUd2l0dGVyIGFuZCB0aGVuIGEgdG9uIG9mICJBbmFs eXNpcyIgYW5kICJPcGluaW9uIiBhcnRpY2xlcyBhbmQgDQo+ICJFeHBsYWluZWQ6IFdoYXQg aXMgVWtyYWluZSItdHlwZSBhcnRpY2xlcy4NCj4gDQo+IFdhdGNoaW5nIENOTiBvciBGb3gg b3IgTVNOQkMgZXRjLiBhdHRlbXB0aW5nIHRvIGZpbmQgb3V0IHNvbWUgbm92ZWwgDQo+IGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uIGlzIHdhdGNoaW5nIHRocmVlLWRheS1vbGQgZmlzaC4NCg0KQ0JDIChDYW5h ZGEpIHdpbGwgZ2l2ZSB5b3UgYW5vdGhlciBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZS4uLg0KDQpodHRwczovL3d3 dy5jYmMuY2EvDQoNCkpvaG4gOi0jKSMNCg==

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 21:56:25 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 21:58:55 2022
    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:

    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Mar 2 13:15:18 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Wed Mar 2 13:27:00 2022
    On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:56:25 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    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" :-)

    It's a cell phone.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Mar 2 13:15:30 2022
    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 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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Wed Mar 2 13:18:08 2022
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    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.

    Flying in formation would just make them easier to take out with a few shot gun blasts or one air burst bomb. I would expect them to fly by very diverse paths so they all arrive at the same time, but from different directions so the target can't even be
    identified until the last few minutes.

    --

    Rick C.

    ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E.R.@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 22:24:06 2022
    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 Panteltje
    wrote:
    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
    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 :-)

    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.

    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.

    --
    Cheers, Carlos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 16:37:28 2022
    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 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.

    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.

    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
    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.


    If you don't have any of your guys on the ground, then you don't hold
    anything.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 16:39:25 2022
    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 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.

    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 2 16:29:04 2022
    On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0800, jlarkin@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.

    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.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gerhard Hoffmann@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 3 02:01:16 2022
    Am 03.03.22 um 01:29 schrieb John Larkin:


    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.

    The Russian soldiers do not have any cell phones of their own.
    Their leaders are not completely dumb, only arse lickers.
    All soldiers in the mirror article were POWs.

    And as if the Ukrainian cell phone network would accept
    Russian phone numbers for roaming. No more. You can bet
    your a* on it.

    Gerhard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Carlos E.R. on Wed Mar 2 17:44:44 2022
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    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 Panteltje
    wrote:
    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
    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 :-)

    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.

    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.

    Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Mar 2 17:42:25 2022
    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:
    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.

    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.

    "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.

    --

    Rick C.

    --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Mar 2 17:40:15 2022
    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, 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.

    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 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.

    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Mar 2 17:53:43 2022
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:39:36 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 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.

    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.

    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.

    Ya, because they weren't prepared. Just like the Ukraine can't actually resist the onslaught of Russia, Taiwan can't resist the vastly superior air power of China. There's no contest. It's only political will that stops them currently. They like
    selling us all manner of shiny baubles through Walmart. They don't want to piss us off. But when they decide it's time, there's nothing anyone can do about it other than start buying made in America! lol

    --

    Rick C.

    -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Mar 2 17:50:29 2022
    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 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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    If you don't have any of your guys on the ground, then you don't hold 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
    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 one
    person, the emperor. We happened to have done that with a thermobaric device, a really big one!

    --

    Rick C.

    -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 21:22:36 2022
    On 3/2/2022 8:50 PM, Rick C wrote:
    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 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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    If you don't have any of your guys on the ground, then you don't hold
    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 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
    one person, the emperor. We happened to have done that with a thermobaric device, a really big one!


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Mar 2 18:31:18 2022
    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 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.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Mar 2 18:39:32 2022
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/2/2022 8:50 PM, Rick C wrote:
    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 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.

    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.

    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 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.

    If you don't have any of your guys on the ground, then you don't hold
    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
    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 one
    person, the emperor. We happened to have done that with a thermobaric device, a really big one!

    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.

    I never said not fighting. I was referring to the need to land troops. I think you know that.

    --

    Rick C.

    +-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Mar 3 14:13:49 2022
    On 03-Mar-22 2:30 am, jlarkin@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.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Mar 2 19:56:52 2022
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:14:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    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.

    That is part of the reason for mixing infantry with tanks. Each one protects the other. It works well when attacking infantry or other lightly armed forces. Against other tanks, the infantry, even with tank support, does not make out well. But tanks
    against infantry alone is subject to attacks from places the tanks can't see. Anti-tank weapons can be very effective, even the sort carried by infantry.

    --

    Rick C.

    +-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com on Thu Mar 3 08:26:32 2022
    On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in <a01ba1c5-462d-4143-8b2c-920b3c24a720n@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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Thu Mar 3 08:26:49 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 09:14:08 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Mar 3 09:11:14 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Thu Mar 3 11:29:51 2022
    On 03/03/2022 02:31, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    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 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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Thu Mar 3 05:42:44 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 6:30:09 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 03/03/2022 02:31, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    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
    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.
    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

    They didn't use the over-hyped Javelin. They used a multiple rocket launch system.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
    It's the best way to saturate the whole area with explosive destruction using indirect fire from a distance.



    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Thu Mar 3 08:52:44 2022
    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.

    Phil Hobbs

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Thu Mar 3 14:42:09 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Mar 3 07:23:17 2022
    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:
    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?

    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???

    --

    Rick C.

    ++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Thu Mar 3 07:24:37 2022
    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, 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.

    Correct. You are not up to date.

    --

    Rick C.

    +++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Mar 3 16:59:48 2022
    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    <snip>

    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?

    So far, the "portation" of your RPi I2C code from Linux to FreeBSD kept
    me too busy to fire up my ham radio to see what's up in the world. My
    radio's a sweet Elecraft K3 hand assembled by me with love. :) It feeds
    a Cushcraft multi-band vertical.
    Anyhow, it's time to listen to the ham bands in the background
    instead of Yoga music. Well, maybe a little Yoga background music here
    and there to relieve stress. :)
    Sanctions seem a sword, double edged, to me. Markets consist of
    buyers and sellers. And when you outlaw sellers you also outlaw buyers,
    as a perhaps unintended consequence. When you punish buyers you also
    punish sellers.

    Danke,

    --
    Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
    There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 17:06:27 2022
    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,
    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.

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Thu Mar 3 09:57:22 2022
    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:
    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.

    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?

    I get tired of spoon feeding you. Learn how to use Google and do a bit of research... please.

    --

    Rick C.

    ---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Carlos E.R. on Thu Mar 3 09:58:53 2022
    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 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?

    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.

    No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.

    --

    Rick C.

    ---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E.R.@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Thu Mar 3 18:40:51 2022
    On 2022-03-03 15:42, Tom Gardner wrote:
    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.


    It is not that simple.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine>

    Denuclearization

    In 1993, International relations theorist and University of Chicago
    professor John Mearsheimer published an article including his prediction
    that a Ukraine without any nuclear deterrent was likely to be subjected
    to aggression by Russia, but this was very much a minority view at the
    time.[8]

    A study published in 2016 in the journal World Affairs argued that, in
    the opinion of the authors, the denuclearization of Ukraine was not a
    "stupid mistake", and that it is unclear that Ukraine would be better
    off as a nuclear state.[9] The study argued that the push for Ukrainian independence was with a view to make it a nonnuclear state.[9] According
    to the authors, the United States would also not have made Ukraine an
    exception when it came to the denuclearization of other post-Soviet
    states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan.[9] The deterrent value of the
    nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have
    had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over
    the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians.[9] The ICBMs also had a range
    of 5,000–10,000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant
    that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east.[9]
    The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) left by the Russians had been
    disabled by the Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but
    even if they had been reconfigured and made to work by the Ukrainians,
    it is unlikely that they would have had a deterrent effect.[9] Had
    Ukraine decided to establish full operational control of the nuclear
    weapons, it would have faced sanctions by the West and perhaps even a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition by the United States and other NATO allies.[9] Ukraine would also likely have faced retaliatory action by Russia.[9] Ukraine would also have struggled with replacing the nuclear
    weapons once their service life expired, as Ukraine did not have a
    nuclear weapons program.[9] In exchange for giving up its nuclear
    weapons, Ukraine received financial compensation, as well as the
    security assurances of the Budapest Memorandum.[9]


    Budapest Memorandum
    Main article: Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

    On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the
    United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security
    assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear
    weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a
    preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:[10]
    ...
    4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
    Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their
    commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to
    provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to
    the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine
    should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat
    of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.





    So it was not a "Western guarantee of their borders.", as the Russian Federation also promised to protect them. And on the other hand, those
    nukes were useless to attack Russia.



    But all this is offtopic here.


    --
    Cheers, Carlos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E.R.@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 18:30:38 2022
    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:
    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?

    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.

    --
    Cheers, Carlos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 18:57:26 2022
    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:
    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.

    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?

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Mar 3 11:49:18 2022
    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 <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:
    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?

    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.
    People afraid of 5G have been setting fire to cell towers here, and it caused some emergency services to be cut off too.
    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 :-)

    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    --++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Thu Mar 3 11:46:39 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:57:37 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
    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:
    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.

    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?

    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

    But, as usual, you made no point to respond to.

    Go read and learn something. Being ignorant can be a temporary condition. It's up to you.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 3 11:43:45 2022
    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:

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com on Thu Mar 3 19:28:02 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in <c17246df-5e13-4830-831f-638b72bad12fn@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:
    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?

    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.

    People afraid of 5G have been setting fire to cell towers here, and it caused some emergency services to be cut off too.


    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 :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 21:26:16 2022
    On 03/03/2022 18:57, 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:
    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.

    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?

    I get tired of spoon feeding you. Learn how to use Google and do a
    bit of research... please.


    The Geneva Conventions say nothing about weapons of any kind - they
    cover treatment of prisoners of war, and non-combatants.

    There is the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons" which bans
    things like mines, incendiary weapons and cluster bombs. (Neither
    Russia nor Ukraine signed the convention against cluster bombs, and
    Russia has used them against Ukraine.) Thermobaric weapons are not
    included in that convention or any other that I know of.

    I know you don't like spoon-feeding, but here you go :

    <https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60571395> <https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-cluster-bombs-thermobaric-weapons-russia-ukraine-war-7797978/>


    (I've no idea why Google gave me a link to an Indian newspaper article,
    but it explains the matter quite well.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 21:16:14 2022
    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,
    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.

    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 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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Thu Mar 3 21:29:29 2022
    On 03/03/2022 15:42, Tom Gardner wrote:
    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.

    Ukraine is not nuclear, and has no possibility of going nuclear - and
    everyone (including Putin) knows that. Of course they might think /now/
    that it would have been nice to have some nukes on store, which might
    have stopped Russia from invading.


    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.

    They got the guarantee from /Russia/ as well, and gave their nukes to
    Russia in return for that guarantee.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 21:33:56 2022
    On 02/03/2022 22:15, Rick C wrote:

    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.


    China feel that an independent Taiwan is an affront to their honour and history. But there is one thing that /always/ trumps that in China -
    money. Taiwan makes a great deal of money. China do not want to take
    Taiwan until they have figured out a way to do so while preserving that
    income - they certainly won't risk damaging the island's semiconductor business. China is patient.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 21:38:09 2022
    On 03/03/2022 02:42, Rick C wrote:
    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:
    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.

    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.

    "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.


    Sure, China has no qualms about deaths on either side. But they /do/
    have qualms about damaging the income generators - they don't just want
    an island with some people, they want Taiwan's industry and sales.

    Hong Kong was a different situation - in 1999, the UK's lease ran out
    and the territory became part of China. They didn't need to capture it,
    it was already theirs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Mar 3 13:19:06 2022
    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,
    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.

    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.


    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.

    I hate when people make up stuff. Did the Kremlin send you an email with this in it?


    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.

    Again, made up. Yeah, there may be troops separated from their supply lines and out of food. That is nothing like what you just said.


    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.

    This is not only made up, but very... I'll let you fill in the adjective. You don't know anything of what Putin is thinking and there is no way in hell the sanctions will "be over quickly" even if he won the war in a single day!


    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.

    You seem to not understand that the problem is the inability to target anything but a geographical area. They can be used away from populations, just not where civilians are present in numbers. Even a rocket is targeted because the area is impacts is
    relatively limited. That is the difference.


    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.

    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.

    Why are you so certain this is not part of the plan? It's not D-day where they have to get off the beaches. It would appear Ukrainian forces are not able to attack the column, stalled or otherwise. So clearly Russia is not in a hurry to move the
    troops further.

    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.

    Reports are easy to come by. I heard reports of Bigfoot in the area.


    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.

    I think it is pretty inevitable that the country will be taken. The Russian army is too massive to be stopped. I can't believe they are looking to kill civilians. If they were I would expect to see many, many more reports than the relatively few we
    are seeing. The US killed any number of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't believe it was intentional. In war people screw up like any other time, but with more serious consequences.

    I also believe they are trying not to attack urban areas with no strategic value. They clearly do wish to control the flow of information per their actions. That may well be the reason the attack on Kiev is stalled, they haven't shut down the
    information flow as yet.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E.R.@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Mar 3 22:39:29 2022
    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,
    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.

    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.

    What happens when the local military hide AA missile launchers between
    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.

    --
    Cheers, Carlos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 3 13:45:19 2022
    torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 22.40.16 UTC+1 skrev Carlos E.R.:
    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,
    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.

    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.
    What happens when the local military hide AA missile launchers between
    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?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target


    Another case. What if the civilian population is armed for resistance?
    They become combatants, and possibly fair targets.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Thu Mar 3 18:02:10 2022
    On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> 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,
    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.

    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.

    Thermobaric bombs are not outlawed, although there are some
    organizations who would like to do so, and some claim to have done so,
    but the key countries have declined to do so.

    Nor are thermobaric bombs fundamentally different from ordinary
    high-explosive bombs, except that one gets about three times the
    energy from a TB bomb compared to a HE bomb of the same weight. Which
    is why they are used.

    The overpressure pulse is longer and stronger from a TB bomb, but one
    gets more shrapnel from a HE bomb.

    I've seen lots of pictures from Ukraine (mostly in cities) where a TB
    bomb was probably used. The tell is that the sheet metal sides of the
    cars are all caved in, but there are few shrapnel holes in that metal.


    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.

    Yes, and the Ukrainian AF has been destroying supply trucks.


    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.

    Yes. Actually, even if the Russians left Ukraine today, the sanctions
    against Russia will long endure. It may take a generation or two of
    good behavior for this to fade.


    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.

    Yes, and the same can be said of cluster bombs, which are intended to
    break up assault waves.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    I've seen many reports that the Ukrainian Air Force has been able to
    attack that convoy, and has been destroying fuel tankers and the like,
    as well as battle tanks. The exact degree to which this has been
    achieved is unclear, but the convoy does seem to be stuck.

    This is possible because Russia has not been able to achieve air
    dominance, due to the Ukrainian Air Defense system still being at
    least partly functional, and of course due to those damn Stinger
    missiles. And armed drones from Turkey.


    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.

    I'm sure that the Russian troops were not told the full objective in
    advance, but this is a standard part of OPSEC (Operations Security).

    But I'm also sure that even when they were told the objective, they
    didn't expect it to be such a problem either.


    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.

    At this point, I would doubt if Russia can hold Ukraine; even if they
    manage to capture (or simply destroy) Kviv, the war will continue to
    the bitter end.

    One can certainly see why; there is a history:

    .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor>


    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Mar 3 23:58:38 2022
    On 03/03/22 21:19, 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,
    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.
    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.

    Yes, you should have said that, rather than blathering on about google fu.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Thu Mar 3 23:56:10 2022
    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:

    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.

    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

    That corresponds with what I presumed.

    I'm still waiting for someone to explain why thermobaric weapons
    aren't equivalent to "high yield" HE weapons.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Mar 3 22:01:12 2022
    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 <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:
    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?

    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.
    People afraid of 5G have been setting fire to cell towers here, and it caused some emergency services to be cut off too.
    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 :-)

    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com on Fri Mar 4 08:10:28 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 22:01:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in <11ad6c4f-d61a-48cd-a8d6-1a1caa60d1fdn@googlegroups.com>:

    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

    Yea, now they may want to nationalize all Boeing and Airbus airplanes (not fully payed for but leased) as counter measure:
    https://www.rt.com/business/551151-russia-nationalise-boeing-airbus-jets/

    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.

    Not sure, I though it stopped transmitting years ago?
    I tried finding Russia on shortwave yesterday afternoon, but no luck so far
    the time of day matters for shortwave reception though.
    China in English was OK,
    So much noise here from all those wallwarts, above 20 MHz things are more quiet, conditions, sunspots, many things matter.
    When power goes you may get noise from solar panel converters...

    I remember in the afternoon in the sixties listening to US truckers here in the Netherlands on 27 MHz as if those were next doors.
    Worked with South America on 27 MHz a few years back.
    Many people here still have CB sets.

    Quatar lauched the QO100 HAM satellite that I can use here, you can see hear online what is happening too:
    https://eshail.batc.org.uk/nb/

    That way you may get info from the people in Russia (heard many Russians on it) That signal is always clear and noise free.

    My radiation meter was still OK this morning.
    This whole thing looks like escalating, both sides need to cool down, its not worth destroying the world for, covid shit was already bad enough,
    Restrictions lifted here, could finally go to the hardware shop and supermarket without a mask,
    people happy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to Langwadt Christensen on Fri Mar 4 08:18:06 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:43:45 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote in <5423dac1-0967-4606-b029-274d08c035d6n@googlegroups.com>:

    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

    Like nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    US is a BAD example.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com on Fri Mar 4 08:15:51 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:49:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in <b6d6615c-7af0-479c-8000-7b225b397107n@googlegroups.com>:

    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.

    When global war or catastrophe happens shortwave radio may tell you where it is still safe to go
    Same for when you are in a boat on the ocean (I have a marine radio license too).
    Things like BBC news may be a great way to see what's happening home.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Fri Mar 4 01:08:00 2022
    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.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Fri Mar 4 09:23:21 2022
    On 04/03/22 09:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    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.

    No quibble there, but my observation/question was
    in the context of the statement that thermobaric
    weapons are illegal (but not, by inference, HE)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E.R.@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Mar 4 11:08:03 2022
    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 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?

    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.

    No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.

    Not correct. There are batteries and generators.

    --
    Cheers, Carlos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Mar 4 10:32:11 2022
    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,
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Piglet@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Fri Mar 4 18:25:37 2022
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 4 13:56:24 2022
    On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 18:25:37 +0000, 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.

    Hmm. I don't doubt that it was used at the Battle of the Bulge.

    I got the bit about Normandy (June 1944) from a history book, but
    don't recall which. Could have been Bodyguard of Lies (W. Churchill).
    I'll think about it and try to recover the breadcrumb trail.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Mar 4 10:43:21 2022
    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:
    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,
    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.

    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.

    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    -++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Carlos E.R. on Fri Mar 4 10:46:54 2022
    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:
    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: >>>>>> 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?

    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.

    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 kWh battery.

    Are you happy now?

    --

    Rick C.

    -+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to Piglet on Fri Mar 4 19:01:33 2022
    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 Armys 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/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 4 14:25:33 2022
    On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 19:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    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 Armys 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/>


    Wikipedia said basically the same thing (that the Bulge was the first
    use) in the section titled Deployment:

    .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze>


    As for bomb craters at Normandy Beach, this is not relevant because
    one would not use VT fuzes against bunkers and pillboxes, which are
    not vulnerable to shrapnel.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Fri Mar 4 19:20:27 2022
    Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> wrote:

    [...]

    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 Armys 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/

    Some additional information that may be of interest. From Wikipedia:

    VT (Variable Time)

    The Allied fuze used constructive and destructive interference to detect
    its target.[41] The design had four or five tubes.[42] One tube was an oscillator connected to an antenna; it functioned as both a transmitter and
    an autodyne detector (receiver). When the target was far away, little of
    the oscillator's transmitted energy would be reflected to the fuze. When a target was nearby, it would reflect a significant portion of the
    oscillator's signal. The amplitude of the reflected signal corresponded to
    the closeness of the target.[notes 1] This reflected signal would affect
    the oscillator's plate current, thereby enabling detection.

    However, the phase relationship between the oscillator's transmitted signal
    and the signal reflected from the target varied depended on the round trip distance between the fuze and the target. When the reflected signal was in phase, the oscillator amplitude would increase and the oscillator's plate current would also increase. But when the reflected signal was out of phase then the combined radio signal amplitude would decrease, which would
    decrease the plate current. So the changing phase relationship between the oscillator signal and the reflected signal complicated the measurement of
    the amplitude of that small reflected signal.

    This problem was resolved by taking advantage of the change in frequency of
    the reflected signal. The distance between the fuze and the target was not constant but rather constantly changing due to the high speed of the fuze
    and any motion of the target. When the distance between the fuze and the
    target changed rapidly, then the phase relationship also changed rapidly.
    The signals were in-phase one instant and out-of-phase a few hundred microseconds later. The result was a heterodyne beat frequency which corresponded to the velocity difference. Viewed another way, the received signal frequency was Doppler-shifted from the oscillator frequency by the relative motion of the fuze and target. Consequently, a low frequency
    signal, corresponding to the frequency difference between the oscillator
    and the received signal, developed at the oscillator's plate terminal. Two
    of the four tubes in the VT fuze were used to detect, filter, and amplify
    this low frequency signal. Note here that the amplitude of this low
    frequency 'beat' signal corresponds to the amplitude of the signal
    reflected from the target. If the amplified beat frequency signal's
    amplitude was large enough, indicating a nearby object, then it triggered
    the fourth tube a gas-filled thyratron. Upon being triggered, the
    thyratron conducted a large current that set off the electrical detonator.

    In order to be used with gun projectiles, which experience extremely high acceleration and centrifugal forces, the fuze design also needed to utilize many shock hardening techniques. These included planar electrodes and
    packing the components in wax and oil to equalize the stresses.[citation needed] To prevent premature detonation, the inbuilt battery that armed the shell had a several millisecond delay before its electrolytes were
    activated, giving the projectile time to clear the area of the gun.[43]

    The designation VT means variable time.[44] Captain S. R. Shumaker,
    Director of the Bureau of Ordnance's Research and Development Division,
    coined the term to be descriptive without hinting at the technology.[45]

    Development

    The anti-aircraft artillery range at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico
    was used as one of the test facilities for the proximity fuze, where almost 50,000 test firings were conducted from 1942 to 1945.[46] Testing also
    occurred at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, where about 15,000 bombs
    were fired.[35] Other locations include Ft. Fisher in North Carolina and Blossom Point, Maryland.

    US Navy development and early production was outsourced to the Wurlitzer company, at their barrel organ factory in North Tonawanda, New York.[47] Production

    First large scale production of tubes for the new fuzes[8] was at a General Electric plant in Cleveland, Ohio formerly used for manufacture of Christmas-tree lamps. Fuze assembly was completed at General Electric
    plants in Schenectady, New York and Bridgeport, Connecticut.[48] Once inspections of the finished product were complete, a sample of the fuzes produced from each lot was shipped to the National Bureau of Standards,
    where they were subjected to a series of rigorous tests at the specially
    built Control Testing Laboratory.[35] These tests included low- and high- temperature tests, humidity tests, and sudden jolt tests.

    By 1944, a large proportion of the American electronics industry
    concentrated on making the fuzes. Procurement contracts increased from $60 million in 1942, to $200 million in 1943, to $300 million in 1944 and were topped by $450 million in 1945. As volume increased, efficiency came into
    play and the cost per fuze fell from $732 in 1942 to $18 in 1945. This permitted the purchase of over 22 million fuzes for approximately one
    billion dollars ($14.6 billion in 2021 USD[49]). The main suppliers were Crosley, RCA, Eastman Kodak, McQuay-Norris and Sylvania. There were also
    over two thousand suppliers and subsuppliers, ranging from powder
    manufacturers to machine shops.[50][51] It was among the first mass-
    production applications of printed circuits.[52]

    Deployment

    Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and
    Development (OSRD) during the war, credited the proximity fuze with three significant effects.[53]

    It was important in defense from Japanese Kamikaze attacks in the
    Pacific. Bush estimated a sevenfold increase in the effectiveness of 5-inch anti-aircraft artillery with this innovation.[54]

    It was an important part of the radar-controlled anti-aircraft
    batteries that finally neutralized the German V-1 attacks on England.[54]

    It was used in Europe starting in the Battle of the Bulge where it was
    very effective in artillery shells fired against German infantry
    formations, and changed the tactics of land warfare.

    At first the fuzes were only used in situations where they could not be captured by the Germans. They were used in land-based artillery in the
    South Pacific in 1944. Also in 1944, fuzes were allocated to the British
    Army's Anti-Aircraft Command, that was engaged in defending Britain against
    the V-1 flying bomb. As most of the British heavy anti-aircraft guns were deployed in a long, thin coastal strip, dud shells fell into the sea,
    safely out of reach of capture. Over the course of the German V-1 campaign,
    the proportion of flying bombs flying through the coastal gun belt that
    were destroyed rose from 17% to 74%, reaching 82% during one day. A minor problem encountered by the British was that the fuze was sensitive enough
    to detonate the shell if it passed too close to a seabird and a number of seabird "kills" were recorded.[55]

    The Pentagon refused to allow the Allied field artillery use of the fuzes
    in 1944, although the United States Navy fired proximity-fuzed anti-
    aircraft shells during the July 1943 invasion of Sicily.[56] After General Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded he be allowed to use the fuzes, 200,000
    shells with VT fuzes (code named "POZIT"[57]) were used in the Battle of
    the Bulge in December 1944. They made the Allied heavy artillery far more devastating, as all the shells now exploded just before hitting the ground. [58] German divisions were caught out in open as they had felt safe from
    timed fire because it was thought that the bad weather would prevent
    accurate observation. U.S. General George S. Patton credited the
    introduction of proximity fuzes with saving Lige and stated that their use required a revision of the tactics of land warfare.[59]

    Bombs and rockets fitted with radio proximity fuzes were in limited service with both the USAAF and USN at the end of WW2. The main targets for these proximity fuze detonated bombs and rockets were anti-aircraft emplacements
    and airfields.[60]

    Sensor types

    Radio frequency sensing (radar) is the main sensing principle for artillery shells.

    The device described in World War II patent[61] works as follows: The shell contains a micro-transmitter which uses the shell body as an antenna and
    emits a continuous wave of roughly 180220 MHz. As the shell approaches a reflecting object, an interference pattern is created. This pattern changes with shrinking distance: every half wavelength in distance (a half
    wavelength at this frequency is about 0.7 meters), the transmitter is in or
    out of resonance. This causes a small cycling of the radiated power and consequently the oscillator supply current of about 200800 Hz, the Doppler frequency. This signal is sent through a band pass filter, amplified, and triggers the detonation when it exceeds a given amplitude.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze

    - MRM

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Piglet on Fri Mar 4 19:20:21 2022
    On 04/03/2022 18:25, Piglet 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.

    That is also the view of Encyclopedia Britannica:

    https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze


    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Fri Mar 4 13:13:25 2022
    On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    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.

    I don't know why I read your posts. You like to shoot from the hip on topics you know little about. In urban areas, tall antenna are not allowed or appropriate. Cells are smaller and antenna much more focused. It is very common to put antennas
    around the sides of a tall building to prevent an eyesore, but also to optimize the patterns. Since the cell is only some blocks, rather than trying to reach for miles this is the correct way to install urban cellular stations. With 5G this applies in
    an extreme way and they put cell stations on telephone poles with a reach of only a small number of blocks or just one.


    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

    Yes, goes to show they aren't getting much profit from the TV signal or it would be back up pronto!


    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.

    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.

    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).

    You are entitled to your opinion. But it is worth pretty much the same as anyone's. Other than in cars, people don't use radio much, and battery powered radios much less. I think I had an FM radio in my old cell phone, until I lost it.


    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.

    Ok, the Pacific rim has chimed in.


    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.

    You are just giving an opinion. Thank you.

    Yeah, my phone has an FM radio, but it won't work without an antenna. I get nothing. It also won't work for more than a few hours. No place to insert the AA batteries.


    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.

    Both your TV and your computer will stop working in short order when you power goes out.

    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.

    --

    Rick C.

    +--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Mar 4 20:24:24 2022
    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.

    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.

    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.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E.R.@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Mar 4 22:38:45 2022
    On 2022-03-04 19:46, 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:
    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: >>>>>>>> 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?

    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.

    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 kWh battery.

    Actually, I meant that the towers keep running because they are built
    with batteries and generators.

    Over here, you no longer have one tower per station. It is one tower
    servicing dozens of stations with just one set of equipment.

    And then, many people will have radios that run on batteries. At least,
    the car radio.




    --
    Cheers, Carlos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Mar 5 00:24:34 2022
    On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
    On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
    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.

    I don't know why I read your posts. You like to shoot from the hip on topics you know little about.
    Whereas you normally
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Mar 5 00:18:09 2022
    On 04/03/22 18:43, Rick C wrote:
    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:
    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,
    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.

    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.

    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?

    Yes we understand.

    You cannot distinguish between using a weapon in a particular
    circumstance with the weapon itself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com on Sat Mar 5 07:07:32 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 4 Mar 2022 10:46:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in <b53d4971-9a91-4ac9-9ff3-826eafa771e7n@googlegroups.com>:

    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.

    Dunno what place of the world you live in
    but here even small kids going to school on bikes have loud rock - and what's it called? 'rap' music
    coming from them.
    Most radios are battery powered I'd think.
    Cost nothing, I have two 2$69 battery FM radios with earplugs from ebay, bought out of curiosity.
    Mini Portable Wire controlled Pocket FM Radio With Strap Earphone object: 16078434288
    07-jan-14
    US $2,69
    2
    US $5,38

    No longer available, but hey, cup of coffee costs more!
    just search
    US $3.99 with earplugs:
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/222330386284
    1,189 sold

    US $4.98 with speaker:
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/143615021059

    In the early sixties we all had 2 transistor battery radios with speakers...
    I made the transmitter :-) We made our own program...

    Any kid with a dynamo for light on their bike can, with a single diode, charge rechargables.

    For 100$ or more you can get a real Tecsun.
    https://www.radioamateurwinkel.nl/tecsun-pl-600/
    my every day radio, SSB shortwave longwave, AM FM..

    And many here have the PMR walkie talkies, I can sometimes hear the kids on it. about 20 $ a pair in the supermarket,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMR446
    common in many households.
    about 25 USD...
    https://www.beslist.nl/elektronica/Wanneton_WT-Q1_UHF_portofoon/3oFxKswg4g4kiAaz7dPu3yoh7Kq3/?productId=3oFxKswg4g4kiAaz7dPu3yoh7Kq3
    inclusive 7,4V 2800mAh battery, charge station, belt clip....

    Can talk over the border Ukrain Russia too :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Sat Mar 5 07:11:38 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:24:24 +0000) it happened Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <svtsht$11c1$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Yes, towers are expensive, this one services the middle of the Netherlands:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerbrandy_Tower

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com on Sat Mar 5 07:20:56 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 4 Mar 2022 13:13:25 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in <33a5df73-531e-4e64-abe9-339858b8f2b8n@googlegroups.com>:


    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.

    Maybe you, but the rest of the world uses batteries most of the time
    1000 to 1 I think, see my other post.


    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.

    LOL reading the news I see large power outages on an almost daily basis in the US.
    Overground electrickety grid,
    Here most power in burried and outages of any length like several hours I do not even remember.


    The group of nerds who post here are hardly representative.

    You could actually learn something, you know shit about radio and life in civilized coutries it seems.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Sat Mar 5 12:39:55 2022
    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:
    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.

    I don't know why I read your posts.   You like to shoot from the hip on
    topics you know little about.
    Whereas you normally
     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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Mar 5 12:53:32 2022
    On 04/03/2022 19:43, Rick C wrote:
    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:
    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,
    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.

    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.

    You literally have no idea what Russia does what it does. Neither
    does anyone else.

    While no one but Putin knows what he is really thinking, it's clear here
    that there are different levels of ignorance. Some people here base
    their information on things like satellite photos and analysis by
    military experts in countries next door to Russia. Others apparently
    base it on whatever they can make up to avoid admitting they got
    something wrong earlier.


    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.


    The fact is that disproportional damage to civilian property and disproportional risk to civilian lives is what matters. Not the weapon technology - that's irrelevant.

    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.


    Firing a rifle at a soldier amidst a group of civilians is a war crime.
    Firing a thermobaric weapon at a military building with an appropriate distance to civilian buildings is not a war crime.

    How is this so difficult for you to understand? Thermobaric weapons are conventional weapons. They are not banned, or special in any way. They
    have different characteristics than missiles, fire bombs, grenades, and
    other weapon technologies. Used against military targets they are
    allowed by the rules of war, used in a way that causes disproportional
    risk or damage to non-combatants they are not allowed.

    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.

    No one /is/ arguing that. And no, the Russians do /not/ get a "free
    pass" on their other weapons - the ICC is investigating how much they
    have been targeting civilians or civilian buildings, and how much it is accidental or collateral damage. That applies to /all/ their weapons -
    from rifle fire upwards.



    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.


    Look in the mirror before you try that one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to David Brown on Sat Mar 5 20:54:55 2022
    On 05/03/22 11:39, David Brown wrote:
    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:
    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.

    I don't know why I read your posts.   You like to shoot from the hip on >>> topics you know little about.
    Whereas you normally
     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.


    Oh, I couldn't forget that! :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to David Brown on Sat Mar 5 20:18:13 2022
    David Brown wrote:
    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:
    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.

    I don't know why I read your posts.   You like to shoot from the hip on >>> topics you know little about.
    Whereas you normally
     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.


    Which is especially weird since he now apparently lives in Puerto Rico.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)