h a l f b a k e r yCaution!
Contents may be not!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The problem with bombing with reusable drones is that in most cases the drone has to be directly overhead of the target, with the operator doing a seat-of-the-pants estimate allowing for wind, bomb drift, etc. If there was a way to cue the operator of a moving drone to the right release moment and vector,
accuracy would be improved and drone survival would be higher.
Using data from satellite, networked mobile data relays, live ground and recon reports, and the bomb drone's own sensors, genius Ukranian programmers develop AI software for a reticle on an arm like the one on AA guns mounted in front of the drone's own camera. The reticle on the arm can indicate time and distance to target by swinging the reticle on the arm within a wide cone to provide an aim point for the drone's own target reticle. The bombsight reticle would be concentric wire circles on a composite arm that's operated by a gimbal motor that swings the reticle around. The operator then pilots the drone so that the drone's own targeting reticle, usually a small red cross in the middle of the viewfield, comes into alignment with the center of the reticle which has been coaxing the operator to follow it. Pickle! Presently it takes a few vertical drops to suss out the winds at altitude and get aligned correctly. With precise data about speed, altitude, the weather and wind variables are calculated by a purely recon drone and transmitted to the bombsight mechanism to simplify onboard expense and complexity and get much greater accuracy than vertical drops. A drone that is moving at 20-50mph can drop a bomb that is much less affected by wind and weather, and after dropping, that drone is out of there.
March 2024 Review of Drone Status
https://youtu.be/iJ...si=fO9_YFa1mOiK9wkq
Long and boring unless you are really, really interested in this stuff. [minoradjustments, Apr 10 2024]
Cheap, cheap, cheap
Jellyfish_20Drone
Anti-drone drone. [minoradjustments, Apr 10 2024]
Discussion breakdowns
https://www.youtube...watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA
[doctorremulac3, Apr 11 2024]
Office of the Clerk Discharge Petition record
https://clerk.house...209?CongressNum=118
I think this is the list of representatives signing to depose Mike Johnson and actually get stuff done. [Loris, Apr 11 2024]
Where to sign up to fight Putin
https://www.zsu.gov.ua/en
[doctorremulac3, Apr 11 2024]
Wow! Like he could read the future!
https://x.com/vigil...0eCaHpQqfML0XPEPHQA
Just got the name wrong but still. [doctorremulac3, Apr 13 2024]
Luckily Biden’s sending the Navy so nothing to worry about.
https://www.busines...124041300165_1.html
Now what were we talking about again? Oh yea, orange man bad. [doctorremulac3, Apr 13 2024]
[link]
|
| |
Wouldn't the target be the bombsite? |
|
| |
// A drone that is moving at 20-50mph can drop a bomb that is much less affected by wind and weather, [...]// |
|
| |
Um, what?
I think this is only the case for dive-bombers. Or if you know the wind direction and attack along that axis.
If you're moving to the side, the bomb takes just as long to fall as if you're hovering. |
|
| |
Regarding the rest of the idea, it seems you've replaced a jammable GPS signal or local drone operator signal with a jammable feed from a jammable, vulnerable ground station. And a lot of complexity I didn't understand. |
|
| |
|Loris| By your logic the entire drone effort should be abandoned as ineffective in the light of jammers. Really? |
|
| |
As to the "dive-bomber" comment, the flight of a bomb dropped at speed, either dive-bombed or level-release, is infinitely more predictable than one released from a stationary point. Wind direction offset is an elementary part of compensating for speed, direction of flight, projectile flight and CEP (Circular Error Probable) calculation. Planes and artillery do it all the time. The hangup is getting this existing info to the drone pilot and helping him aim. All the data needed is already known somewhere else, but not by the operator at the moment of release. |
|
| |
I used a recon drone data hand-off to simplify and obfuscate the control signal to the bomb drone, avoiding jamming. The recon drone can sit further away from the contact line acting as a relay, and work more than one bomb drone. |
|
| |
//By your logic the entire drone effort should be abandoned as ineffective in the light of jammers. Really?// |
|
| |
No, that's not what I said. I was pointing out that your proposal isn't an improvement, at least with respect to that. |
|
| |
//As to the "dive-bomber" comment, the flight of a bomb dropped at speed, either dive-bombed or level-release, is infinitely more predictable than one released from a stationary point.// |
|
| |
I don't think it (release from horizonal flight) is more predictable, though.
You drop a bomb while hovering, and the wind blows on it for the time it takes to drop, changing its course. The offset is a function of the height.
If you drop a bomb from horizontal flight, the wind blows on it for the same amount of time, because it falls vertically at the same rate. This is basic physics. So the offset from the still-air impact point is just as significant.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's /less/ predictable if you don't know the wind direction, because the bomb may be blown off-course differently dependent on angle of incidence. Of course, if you do know the direction and speed you could account for it... but you could do that from a stable hover just as easily. |
|
| |
I still don't get what function the arm you're trying to put on the drone is going to achieve that couldn't be done better and easier with a software overlay on the drone operator's screen. |
|
| |
I agree. In the best, EM-free area, I'd like it much better if the display handled it all, like the HUD in a jet, where you fly the ball until it meets the pickle hash. Definitely the best, most accurate solution, all integrated by complex signal data that needs to be updated in milliseconds. I'm after a bolt-on mechanical unit that could be attached to any model and would use its own, simple, clunky control signals not dependent on control inputs from the pilot. Its (the arm's) function is to lead the drone reticle to the target release point. This unit should be less than 3 oz, using mini-motors and an 'arm' that's only an inch long. |
|
| |
Stable hovers are not recommended near the contact line. Estimate is thousands of UAF drones are lost a week. |
|
| |
OK. A redesign. I think everyone got lost on the 'arm' thing. |
|
| |
You have the headset of an FPV bomber drone on and you know you are at 100 meters, going 40 mph. You only need to know which direction to fly and exactly when to drop your bomb. You are NOT a kamikaze drone. You are a bomber, with maybe 1, maybe up to 6 bombs ready to drop. Your standard view has a red or white reticle in the middle of the screen. In addition you can see a strip of 21 LED lights across the top of the screen. This is a small bar of tiny LEDs mounted on the outside of the drone above the camera, that shows up across the top of the regular view. Flying at a steady speed and altitude, LEDs to the right or left of center will light up to refine your direction to the target. (Logarithmically, so that fine adjustments are easier at the center of the display.) Just bring the view so it centers on and illuminates the middle LED. If you stray right or left the LEDs will tell you immediately. When you are at the optimum drop point, already calculated remotely or pre-programmed, as to the speed, altitude, wind, and flight characteristics of the bomb, the center LED will flash. Bombs away! Now take your expensive drone back or on another local mission, to be reloaded and reused indefinitely, rather than trash a thousand cheap kamikaze drones. Reception is much better at altitude and jamming much less effective. The bomber drone could fly any evasive route to and from the target and not get lost. This also allows for much faster bomber drones, 100+mph, where seat-of-the-pants bomb release is not an option. With this bombsight the faster the better. Add a belly camera looking back to get a Bomb Damage Assessment and anti-drone air-to-air missiles and you've got a real threat against ground and air targets. Who wants to build one? |
|
| |
Checking current developments, it appears the Ukrainians have made great progress in the bomber drone field, not depending on seat-of-the-pants release timing and opting for an automated bombsight independent of the operator's input or timing. Allowing for accurate delivery, return, and retrieval of the unit for further use.
This is what I was after from the start. Congratulations! |
|
| |
[a1] Don't be silly. They took this so much further than I ever could. This is the HALF-bakery... |
|
| |
//The problem with bombing with reusable drones is that in most cases the drone has to be directly overhead of the target,// |
|
| |
//A drone that is moving at 20-50mph can drop a bomb that is much less affected by wind and weather, and after dropping,// |
|
| |
I initially read all this from a USAF-type perspective, and that makes no sense... I'm guessing you're talking about dropping grenades and the like from small RC quadcopter type-arrangements? |
|
| |
Because from a Predator or similar drone, this is all solved. Within certain limits at least, we don't worry about wind. 500lb bombs are not particularly affected by cross winds in the 10's of mph, given their terminal velocity is 500+mph. But even with that simplification, bomb aiming from drones has never really gone that direction, instead, just slap some fins on the bomb and guide it in, or shine a IR laser and have it home on that. The forward velocity of the parent aircraft becomes additional energy that can be used to extend range, 150mph from a Predator is useful, but 600mph + 50,000ft from an F15 adds miles and miles. High altitude and Sat-coms makes jamming tough, you have to get your jamming signal between the drone and space, which means you probably need your own satellites. There's a whole war going on up there with regard to that, stealth satellites are a thing. |
|
| |
I'm surprised a cheap somewhat stealth Predator knock-off hasn't been cobbled together. Using a fuselage/wing structure mainly made of fiberglass, most of the aircraft would be transparent to RADAR. Just from known stealth design features, you could hide the metal in a powerplant, probably a small, turbocharged automotive engine. A carefully V-angled panel under the engine would do, you will have a very restricted flight envelope anyhow. Then some "DIY" radar absorbent material paint. I'm sure the US would provide a few recipes from a couple of generations ago. |
|
| |
Optics from commercial telephoto lenses would probably be fine. |
|
| |
I can see 3 types of drones (not all subcategories noted): High-altitude (Predator), mid-level (fixed-wing or copter, mostly observational), and squad-level (FPV, vertical bomb-droppers). |
|
| |
I'm most interested in the squad-level, low-altitude devices, where the greatest force multiplication happens. There are vids now of the squad dropper-drones skimming in just over head level and releasing very accurate strikes into bunkers, foxholes, and culverts by the seat of their pants. If that same capability could be extended to larger, mid-altitude drones that could carry 4-6 bombs you would be able to further multiply the damage and effectiveness of the squad and depend less on indirect fires. |
|
| |
The Ukrainians evidently have made the leap to autonomous, GPS-independent drone targeting that uses visual recognition after the drone is out of control and transmission range. The drone fulfills the mission independently and returns afterward, not like the Switchblade. No jamming is effective; you've got to knock it down. |
|
| |
{bs0] Did you disagree with the drawback of overhead vertical drop-bombing being that the drone has to be stationery? |
|
| |
Is the Air Force perspective that an accurate bombsight is less effective from a drone moving at 20-50mph than one standing still over the target, given the same altitude and threat environment? |
|
| |
I didn't follow this argument. |
|
| |
We're getting closer to Slaughterbots every day, and the pace has accelerated in the Ukrainian war. Ruck Fussia. |
|
| |
Autonomous killbots are the next nuclear weapons, that is, weapon technology that threatens all mankind. We survived the nuke threat (so far) using international agreements, but let's not kid ourselves, the only reason they haven't been used is they don't do what other weapons systems have historically done, namely making money. In a nuclear war nobody makes any money, everybody loses. You also destroy all that nice infrastructure you'd want to conquer and take advantage of. |
|
| |
The problem with the killbots is that theoretically solves those problems. You can kill all those nasty people and leave their conquered cities standing. I know they're working on bio weapons to do that too but those are also pretty indiscriminate, the "good" guys get killed too. |
|
| |
Solution? Let's have international treaties that agree to not create autonomous killbots. Then we'll all be happy and safe. |
|
| |
But seriously, I don't see any way to deal with this threat other than autonomous killbot killbots. Defensive drones that are cheaper and more numerous than offensive drones. |
|
| |
Good news is, they'd probably need less ordinance than a killbot designed to blow up a tank or seek out a person and kill them, because on this battlefield the old axiom "Quantity has a quality all its own" really is the main paradigm at work here. |
|
| |
But I'd just add, the country deciding to swarm an enemy with millions of killbot drones still has that almost century old counter threat to think about. |
|
| |
"Yea, we don't have killbot swarms, but we still have nukes." |
|
| |
So maybe nukes will continue to keep the relative peace. Dunno. |
|
| |
[doc] You want cheap? Hang sticky monofilament from a cheap drone. WKTF. |
|
| |
//I know they're working on bio weapons to do that [...]// |
|
| |
Who is 'they' here? Because that's pretty illegal - it's against the terms of the Biological Weapons Convention, which has almost universal membership. |
|
| |
"The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons." |
|
| |
This is even stronger than the Geneva convention, which only prohibits their use. |
|
| |
//"The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons."// |
|
| |
Good thing people don't do stuff that's against the law. Otherwise we'd have crime. |
|
| |
Thanks to the general ineffectiveness of bio and chemical warfare outside of specific and limited circumstances the bans kind of stick. |
|
| |
Yup, there's two things: it's a pretty shitty system compared to what we already have and the MAD clause still applies. We've got all sorts of beautiful nuclear treaties, but it's reality that keeps the nuclear wars from happening, there's no upside to nuclear war. Likewise, biowarfare has some drawbacks too, namely, you get caught doing that to a country with nukes, well... the mutually assured distruction clause kicks in there too. Plus, like Voice says, compare spreading pathogens around somehow with pushing a button and having a city dissapear in a flash of light, really no comparison. |
|
| |
Rules are window dressing. Ask the League Of Nations how well rules work. Harsh reality is the true enforcer. |
|
| |
Of course the real answer is that both are at work and somewhat effective, not 100%-0%. |
|
| |
What does WKTF stand for? I have to know. |
|
| |
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for international treaties, I just don't trust them. |
|
| |
I've been supporting treaties against autonomous killing machines since I read my first science fiction book as a kid. No human should be killed by a machine without another human directly there making the decision. |
|
| |
Would rules againt that have any affect? Sure, as long as nobody wanted to do it anyway, but as soon as that helps one side in their war, well. The killbots are here. |
|
| |
But yes, that doesn't mean we should give up, at least tacit agreements that we shouldn't build Skynet are a good start. And putting them in writing would foster communication about the subject, which is always a good thing. |
|
| |
//What does WKTF stand for? I have to know// |
|
| |
I assumed that was "widly known to fucking (work)" but now that you mention it... |
|
| |
//Good thing people don't do stuff that's against the law. Otherwise we'd have crime.// |
|
| |
Well, sure. But it's one thing to have suspicions about shadowy organisations doing things they're not allowed to do, with zero evidence - and another thing to know it. |
|
| |
//Thanks to the general ineffectiveness of bio and chemical warfare outside of specific and limited circumstances the bans kind of stick.// |
|
| |
It's not ineffectiveness though. Biological weapons are scary even to the people in power because they're effective but uncontrollable. |
|
| |
//Well, sure. But it's one thing to have suspicions about shadowy organisations doing things they're not allowed to do, with zero evidence - and another thing to know it.// |
|
| |
I have no idea what you're talking about. Who's saying they know about shadowy organizations with zero evidence? |
|
| |
Are you saying there has never been research into biological weapons or that such research could never take place ever again for some reason? |
|
| |
Biological weapons, and biological weapons research could pose a threat. It's okay to talk about it. |
|
| |
//I have no idea what you're talking about. Who's saying they know about shadowy organizations with zero evidence? |
|
| |
Are you saying there has never been research into biological weapons or that such research could never take place ever again for some reason? |
|
| |
Biological weapons, and biological weapons research could pose a threat. It's okay to talk about it.// |
|
| |
I'm responding to the part of your statement that I quoted above:
|
|
| |
//I know they're working on bio weapons to do that [...]// |
|
| |
I'm saying you don't.
Sure, there's probably some random dickwad working in their home lab. Rogue operators like that guy who posted anthrax to people. Maybe a couple of terrorist states have some sort of secret program. But do you actually know about them? No you don't, because - given that you're not a specialist inspector - if you knew, 'everyone' would know and the people whose job it is would be busy coming down on them like a ton of bricks. |
|
| |
Of course it's okay to talk about. But maybe it's not okay to routinely misrepresent the situation, casually passing it off as fact.
Why not? It misleads others, moves the Overton window, and helps the sort of organisations we don't want to help. |
|
| |
//there's probably some random dickwad working in their home lab. Rogue operators like that guy who posted anthrax to people.// |
|
| |
It's not okay to routinely misrepresent the situation, casually passing it off as fact. |
|
| |
You're zeroing in on semantics, I also "know" there will be burglaries in California next week, but you could point out that there's a flaw in that sentence effectively stifling the discussion of the main point, how to deal with burglaries in California. |
|
| |
I'll replace "know" with "I know it's been going on for centuries and would assume there's the highest probability that it will continue so it should be taken as a serious threat and dealt with as such." |
|
| |
Meanwhile the main point dissolves into petty gnashing of teeth. The link shows a good parody of the discussion breakdown we just had. |
|
| |
I "know" it's important to take threats like autonomous killbots and biowarfare seriously. Do I actually "know" that? I actually don't "know" we're not a bunch of heads in jars like in Futurama being fed simulations, but at some point I'm going to go with certain assumptions. |
|
| |
I sense you're wanting to get into discussing the origins of Covid or something, turning it political which only serves to quash discussion of this threat, which is real and absolutely should be discussed. |
|
| |
It works that way, us proles are told what we can and can't discuss. "Military industrial complex permanent war and the various tools it's researching? That one head in a jar's getting a little uppity. Play the Orange Man / Covid denial debate, that should keep them busy." |
|
| |
Okay, so the problem is that the way most people are going to interpret //I know they're working on bio weapons// is that you're saying "my country, the USA, is openly developing bioweapons."
Some people will dismiss it, some will accept it at face value and repeat it. |
|
| |
I think we all know that if there's a significant threat, a bad state actor in the world today - any state which is potentially developing bioweapons in earnest - it's Russia. A state with a history of using disinformation with some level of success.
If or when their bioweapon development comes to light, do you want to be part of their disinformation? When they respond with "Oh, but /America/ is widely known to be developing bioweapons. Look at all the evidence!"
- Do you want your random claims to be part of that? |
|
| |
//we all know that if there's a significant threat// |
|
| |
"It's not okay to routinely misrepresent the situation, casually passing it off as fact." <---see how useless this is? |
|
| |
//Do you want your random claims to be part of that?// |
|
| |
Does the ensuing discussion lead to anything useful? Like assessing the threat and dealing with it by proposing possible approaches to dealing with the problem? |
|
| |
I know this particular disussion sure isn't going to. If I were to misspelll something that would become the central point of the debate. |
|
| |
But this whole post illustrates a problem, we're both in total agreement on this one subject, but I'm assuming since I'm a Libertarian and you're a Democrat, or Democrat supporter, it just becomes a waste of time, tribal chest thumping arguing about whose side is smarter. |
|
| |
So I'll concede, you and yours are smarter. Now that that's settled, how do we deal with this threat? |
|
| |
And to be clear, I don't know. As I've already said, I don't see a real solution other than relying on mutually assured distruction. Laws are as cute as a unicorn under a rainbow, but if there's no way to enforce them, they're useless. |
|
| |
I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I'm not even American.
I don't strongly align with any of my local political parties, either. If you look through my halfbaked ideas, you might notice a few of them are about trying to reduce the power political parties have. |
|
| |
//Does the ensuing discussion lead to anything useful?// |
|
| |
I think potentially, yes. That's why I was doing it. If bad ideas or statements (even accidental ones) don't get push-back, they can quickly take hold and spread. I see you mentioned covid origins as something I 'want' to discuss, and... no, not really. I think we did that elsewhere. But there was some interesting coverage of an organisation discussing it recently (in great depth). If you want, I can post a link. |
|
| |
//Now that that's settled, how do we deal with this threat?// |
|
| |
Which one was 'the threat' again? " "Military industrial complex permanent war and the various tools it's researching"? |
|
| |
At this point I think the best way to avoid permanent war is to make sure Russia gets so thoroughly defeated that it undergoes significant reorganisation. At this very moment the major impediment to that is the failure of your House of Representatives to vote on the support package, because the Speaker, Mike Johnson has been stalling.
At this point, the clearest way past that is to depose him. |
|
| |
There is a motion which is a few signatures short. I will post a link - I think this is the correct list. If you agree with this interpretation, look at the list and check that your representative is on it. If they're not, you could contact them and urge them to sign on to it. |
|
| |
Best way to stop war? WAR!! |
|
| |
Okay, that problem's solved. |
|
| |
Plus we're not discussing biological weapons research anymore. Killed two birds with one stone. |
|
| |
And PHEW! Finally getting back to Democrats vs Republicans, the only subject us proles are allowed to discuss. |
|
| |
//Best way to stop war? WAR!!/ |
|
| |
Sometimes, yes. Appeasement didn't stop the nazis, and it isn't going to stop Putin. |
|
| |
So when are you guys signing up to fight? |
|
| |
Put up your link for you. Let us know when you're shipping out. |
|
| |
You think I'm hungry for war? Let me assure you that I am not. I just recognise that sometimes it's necessary for a people to fight, or be conquered and annihilated. |
|
| |
I looked at your link, by the way. It looks like it's specifically for Ukrainian citizens who have already been militarily trained.
So I'm not dodging the issue, though, I'd like to be clear that I'm not eager to go there and fight. In theory, I suppose I could try to get citizenship and go there at my own expense to do so (if they'd have me) - and I don't have any plans to do so.
But to be fair, that is a little bit more of a commitment than sending an email to your representative. |
|
| |
If you disagree with my evaluation above, maybe if you agree with it you can explain to me what the Mike Johnson/MAGA republican thinking is?
1) Send no more weapons
2) Watch Ukraine gradually get overwhelmed
3) What? |
|
| |
I've been given a choice of "solutions" to a situation that was royally f'd up in the first place by the people who now are giving me those choices, none of them good. |
|
| |
Before this situation got to the place it is now, I saw that there were proposed peace talks that I totally supported, peace talks that same ruling body you refer to quashed. |
|
| |
Now that the situation's been wrecked by your guys it's up to me to fix it? |
|
| |
Nope. You're on your own. Good luck. |
|
| |
And before you call me a Putin puppet, I went against the grain a long time ago saying "If the Ukraine is going to join NATO, do it overnight, announce that it's done and put our weapons in place. QUICKLY! A very liberal person now supporting this war said "We need to follow all the necessary protocols first." Like letting Putin know now's the time to invade while he has the chance? How'd that work out? If somebody's casing my house to rob it, I don't say "Hey you! I'm thinking of getting a shotgun to protect myself from home invasions! Not this month but possibly next, next year for sure!" |
|
| |
But if you want to save the day by using your WW2 protocol, might want to consider that doing a D-Day style invasion of a country that has thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons might have a kink or two to work out. |
|
| |
Peace negotiations are going to happen eventually, can start them sooner or later. Or just continue with the fantasy that a world's superpower with nukes will be overthrown if we just pay enough money to the military industrial complex. Might wanna check their victory / defeat history first. And yes, I'd negotate from a position of "strength", real or not. |
|
| |
I'd tell Putin "You sign this treaty or I'm sicking Loris on your ass!" ;) |
|
| |
// Before this situation got to the place it is now, I saw that there were proposed peace talks that I totally supported, peace talks that same ruling body you refer to quashed.// |
|
| |
There's been no realistic prospect of peace talks succeeding for the entire course of the war. Putin has routinely used them insincerely, trying to get ceasefires to gain time to regroup his forces. |
|
| |
//Now that the situation's been wrecked by your guys it's up to me to fix it?// |
|
| |
Um, what?
I'm not sure what /my/ side (whatever that may be) did which made the situation worse. |
|
| |
If I may ask, what actually constitutes your 'side'?
'The West'
USA?
Republicans?
'MAGA Republicans'? |
|
| |
And there you have it. It’s never about “what, how or why?”, it’s about “whose cult do you belong to so we can bark approved talking points at each other?”. Couldn’t have been more clear about the specifics of my views on this war. And your response? |
|
| |
“I didn’t hear a word you said because you didn’t reference what "side" you're on. I belong to this side, group, or cult and therefore have a prescribed set of talking points. Now what cult do you belong to so I can avoid dealing with those complicated specifics of dealing with this complex world and the challenges we face and I can instead show how well I memorized the approved talking points of my "side".” |
|
| |
Enjoy your war for peace. |
|
| |
The only thing worse than war is an unjust peace. |
|
| |
//And there you have it. It’s never about “what, how or why?”, it’s about “whose cult do you belong to so we can bark approved talking points at each other?”. Couldn’t have been more clear about the specifics of my views on this war. And your response?// |
|
| |
You maybe think you're being clearer than you are.
And it seems like I'm being misunderstood by you, too, so maybe it's mutual. |
|
| |
//“I didn’t hear a word you said because you didn’t reference what "side" you're on. I belong to this side, group, or cult and therefore have a prescribed set of talking points. Now what cult do you belong to so I can avoid dealing with those complicated specifics of dealing with this complex world and the challenges we face and I can instead show how well I memorized the approved talking points of my "side".”// |
|
| |
No. I read what you said and asked questions - which you ignored.
I'll talk about what I want, and make up my own mind - and if that doesn't align with one side or another that's not my problem.
So please stop pretending that's what I'm doing, it's starting to look disingenuous. |
|
| |
/You/ are the one who keeps bringing up 'sides'. Not me. And I don't actually know what you mean by some things, because it's not clear where you're coming from. Assume that I don't know what libertarians want in practice. (Because it's true.)
(I hope you will forgive any terminology errors. Remember that I see this from a long way away - but I am following it.)
From where I am, it seems many Republicans and most Democrats want to support Ukraine. /If/ there was a vote in the house of representatives on whether to pass the bill to fund Ukraine (and Israel, and Taiwan) then I think it would pass with a large majority. Which would mean the only thing stopping it is that the speaker of the house isn't putting it up for a vote.
/If/ that's not the case, tell me why not - because that is the basis I'm working on.
So, conversely - does being a libertarian mean you can't contact your representative there? Is it against your principles to participate?
/If/ you don't agree with supporting Ukraine, explain to me what your reasoning is - I've explained above why I don't think peace talks with Russia are an option, and weren't ever a real option. |
|
| |
I should say - I don't disagree with what you said about Ukraine joining NATO. It would have been great if that had been an option - but I don't think it ever really was. It seems obvious that a country with contested territory won't be allowed to join a mutual defence organisation, the entire point of which is to avoid actually having to fight a war. So that has been the case since 2014, and prior to that... I guess the annexation of Crimea wasn't expected by anyone who might have done something. If you were talking about Ukraine before that, you were more alert to the threat than me, because I had no idea - but if that's the case, did you change your mind? |
|
| |
Excuse my lack of excitement about the glories of war, but when a 7.62 Dragunov sniper rifle bullet missed your US Marine son by 4 or 5 feet and it’s sitting on the shelf in front of your bathroom mirror reminding you how lucky you were every morning when you’re shaving, you can’t help but think about the young men who brought that bullet home imbedded in their lifeless body opposed to in his outstretched hand while saying “Hey dad, check this out.” You vow to do whatever you can to support dialog, compromise, whatever it takes to not see another mother dealing with the loss of their beloved son. Something that I’ve seen and never want to see again. |
|
| |
Sorry Loris, just saw your post, they overlapped. Does it even matter what I think? Warmongers gonna get their war on. When I say let’s be smart and 1- keep the Ukraine armed with nukes post Soviet Union then 2- Don’t taunt Putin with Ukrainian NATO membership, shut the hell up and do it overnight, to both suggestions liberals called me a warmonger or accused me of not following proper protocol. Now that the dragon’s been unleashed I’m supposed to figure out how to defeat a nuclear power using gunpowder weapons? |
|
| |
Any other miracles you need me to perform while I’m at it? |
|
| |
And by the way, using the WW2, model? If I were prime minister in 38 knowing only what Neville knew I’d have done the exact same thing he did so maybe I’m not the guy to ask. |
|
| |