Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

«‹›8 »

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Captain von Trapp posted:

ATF has jurisdiction over federal arson cases. Why?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire~~arms~~

# ¿ Dec 2, 2020 02:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:08

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Vahakyla posted:

Why does France maintain a super carrier, and wants more? I do not understand what makes them different from all the other non-US carrier havers? Why not have something smaller like italian Cavour?

And does this mean those other countries, including India and Russia, could do the same just like that?

It's a replacement for the existing one (by 2038), not an additional one.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about current French military strategy, but I suspect it's a combination of prestige and power projection to their existing and former colonies.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2020 13:17

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

mlmp08 posted:

Eh, I still think there's a LOT of room for losing something huge (for example, an airbase basically destroyed via conventional fires or a mission-kill or even hard kill of a carrier) without straight up starting up MAD.

At least I hope so, or else we're far more terrible than we say we are. If you nuke the world over losing 1 ship to conventional attack, you're very much the evil one.

I guess Trump might be willing to do that. It's hard for me to imagine any other president deciding to destroy civilization over losing a carrier group.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2020 21:23

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Cyrano4747 posted:

The problem isn't that we're going to nuke the world over losing a single CVN, it's that it starts a chain of events that leads to run away escalation.

It's not us launching because a single carrier gets sunk, it's us responding in force to neutralize the thing that sank the carrier, that prompting an escalated response on the other side, until you're in pretty much open conventional war between two nuclear powers.

None of this is new. It's why T72s rolling into West Berlin was going to end badly if it ever happened.

On the other hand, people have a pretty big vested interest in not dying in nuclear hellfire, so I don't really think we can be certain that a carrier loss is the point of no return.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2020 21:27

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Captain von Trapp posted:

The internet goes away on Day 1 though, so we probably won't get to crow or eat crow here.

I hadn't really thought about that. What would cause an internet outage in this scenario?

# ¿ Dec 24, 2020 22:47

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

BIG HEADLINE posted:

1. In the eventuality that we're firing nukes, the President will probably use the "internet kill switch" that was made a thing under Obama.

From a quick search, I'm not finding anything about this existing beyond a 2010 proposal that never went anywhere. Am I missing something?

# ¿ Dec 24, 2020 23:04

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

BIG HEADLINE posted:

The act didn't pass, in large part because it was kind of redundant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/606

The authority is redundant, but what makes you think the kill switch was implemented during the Obama administration? This is a long standing authority that tells us nothing about any mechanism.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2020 23:18

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Because there's been a fair amount of ing about it during Trump's presidency for something that "doesn't exist."

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bill-limiting-presidential-internet-kill-switch/

I think we're talking past each other a bit. The link doesn't refer to a mechanism for how it would be possible, which is what I'm curious about. Since you'd referred specifically to it being implemented under Obama previously, I thought you might know.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2020 00:50

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

evilbastard posted:

Single targeted incidents on the nation state vs nation state would be trivial to arrange, and utterly devastating.

The largest recent physical internet outage was the 2006 Taiwan Earthquake which involved cutting 7 cables ( CUCN / SMW3 / APCN 2 Segment 3 and Segment 7, FLAG Europe Asia, FLAG North Asia and some China telecom cable) and that took 6 weeks to fix, and involved 7 ships - note that even today there are only 56 ships in the entire world, and they are very much soft targets and would never go anywhere where their safety was not 100% guaranteed.

Satellite is not a suitable replacement for physical cables for latency and bandwidth reasons.

Cable landing stations would be pretty easy to isolate, and in my experience only some of them are now properly hardened (Hardened as in able to stop a prime mover coming through the door, but not a 500 pounder through the roof)

Continuing the Taiwan trend, here are the approximate current cable stations : you can see the serious bottlenecks.

Look at Explore the rest of the world here,

We already know that the US and Soviets were doing this in the 50's and 60's, today we know that the USS Jimmy Carter and the Russian Losharik * submarines have the capability to insert nearly-undetectable optic taps, and that is a lot harder then simply cutting the cable a few times 15 km apart and vanishing out of the region.

This is not hard to find information, and if it started it would escalate incredibly quickly.

*Yes, the same submarine that caught fire in 2019 where the crew of ~20 had 14 people die, and for some reason there were 12 captains on board

This is really interesting, thanks!

From what you're describing, it sounds like only island nations can be individually targeted in such a way though. It wouldn't be possible to, for example, isolate the US without isolating the rest of North America.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2020 19:36

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

bewbies posted:

What the gently caress? You really think that Margaret Thatcher would have called for a nuclear bombing of an Argentine city because a conventional aircraft carrier(s) were sunk, conventionally, in a conventional war, by a military operating from within its own borders?

Reminder: in that war, a RN submarine sinking an enemy warship was mildly controversial. But yeah, I'm sure she would have been "calling for" what would have amounted to one of the greatest war crimes in human history because a lovely light carrier or two ate an Exocet.

But.. but.. Thatcher bad...

Edit: It was a really odd example to use to resurrect the argument in the first place.

EasilyConfused fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Dec 28, 2020

# ¿ Dec 28, 2020 20:25

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Cessna posted:

It's an example of a world power engaged in a war, does a loss of one of their carriers justify significant escalation?

I don't buy the idea that somehow American carriers are somehow uniquely special, that losing one of them would mean any further actions, including bombing cities or using nukes. It's a warship, sure, but it's not sacrosanct.

Yeah, but it's not like Argentina was some threat to British interests outside of the Falkands (UK interest there being pretty much zero other than the population desiring to remain British anyways). The original argument was about a conflict between superpowers.

tldr, I agree with you, but don't think the example was relevant.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2020 21:15

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

bewbies posted:

What the gently caress? You really think that Margaret Thatcher would have called for a nuclear bombing of an Argentine city because a conventional aircraft carrier(s) were sunk, conventionally, in a conventional war, by a military operating from within its own borders?

EasilyConfused posted:

But.. but.. Thatcher bad...

Stairmaster posted:

shes not a very good person, op.

Please stop making satire obsolete.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2020 03:28

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

feedmegin posted:

Isn't this the sort of situation where that price drops like a rock if the US is suddenly buying thousands and thousands of them?

Perhaps like a meteor? :smug:

# ¿ Jan 1, 2021 14:05

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Blistex posted:

Like anyone would be stupid enough to do that.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2021 02:41

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

brains posted:

unless you're using nuclear depth bombs, which puts us firmly back in the wheelhouse of the cold war thread:

Are you suggesting carpet bombing the whole ocean with nuclear depth charges to find subs?

Cause that sounds like a great 1950s DoD white paper.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2021 01:47

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Tender, Friendly Rambos > ColdWar/AirPow: Tac nukes were flying like candy

# ¿ Jan 5, 2021 00:29

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Source4Leko posted:

Hi, lab technician here who works on somewhat dangerous stuff both during assembly and testing. I've actually used the "guys im concerned" phrase at a meeting and it absolutely shut everything down in a way no other phrase does. My personal steps of escalation when being asked to do something both dangerous and stupid are:
1. Talk to the engineer and see if they're open to not doing the stupid dangerous thing or modifying the test to be less stupid and dangerous.
2. Talk to my technician boss about how this idea is stupid and dangerous and we shouldn't do it. If im still told to do it:
3. Talk to the project supervisor about the same concerns. They usually don't care so:
4. Talk to our industrial safety. They generally only know and care about risks to people not equipment so they aren't always a huge help depending on what the problem is. Failing this:
5. Try to get reassigned to other jobs. Escalate this request as high as I can. Say I'm better used at other jobs. This works well if you keep asking questions to the point where it's easier just to get rid of you. This has only not worked for me once. If this still doesn't work theres always :
6. Call in sick on test day.

I work for a lot of former Soviet engineers and, uh, I'm definitely seeing a few of my old/ currebt bosses in these descriptions. Especially the whole "precision field modifications done by hand off of tiny pencil sketches". I lol'd out loud at that. loving been there it blows.

Hmm, sounds like you may have some good stories.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2021 21:13

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

When walking into this subject, ask yourself this: is my opinion based on what I know to be true, or is it based on what I feel should be true? Common sense arguments etc.

Don't do the mistake of the latter, all I'm saying.

As to the presidents reaction to any statements from the rest of leadership about nuclear use, in a reformed system, that shouldn't even be a curiosity. Nuclear weapons use should not be in the hands of the president of the United States of America. It should be in the hands of the surviving elected elements of government. Entirely gently caress first use in any and all conceivable way. Make US weapons reactive instead of nudge nudge pro-active with this chickenhawk "gently caress around" tough guy masturbatory attitude.
That's what it should be. It's also what Nixoning him is is doing right now and it's a god drat blessing. The weapons are a "gently caress You" like no other weapon in the universe.
Nuclear weapons are to dangerous to use and should be relegated to a "gently caress Yo Too" Al Pacino use case.

I haven't been able to sleep very well these last four years. I will tonight.

Well said.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2021 22:26

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Is the fact that Pence was the one who ordered the DC National Guard mobilized an indication that Trump is no longer in control?

How does Pence have that authority?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2021 02:43

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

bewbies posted:

all of this essentially means Trump has been stripped of any meaningful command authority. it isn't likely they will admit this publicly but I would but I would bet big money that's exactly what that meeting was between pence and pelosi and McConnell yesterday.

God I hope so.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2021 02:51

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Dead Reckoning posted:

failure to even attempt to use the mechanisms available to her to remove a President who she believes can no longer be trusted to control nuclear weapons.

Are you not following the news at all?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2021 19:02

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Nebakenezzer posted:

Colossus: the Forbian Project

I remember loving this movie when I saw it as a kid.

That's about all I remember about it though.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2021 20:37

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Dead Reckoning posted:

unless I missed something, the House is in recess and there are no votes on the calendar for next week.

Again, it doesn't sound like you're actually following the news: https://nyti.ms/3ot6MhR

# ¿ Jan 9, 2021 23:41

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

GlassEye-Boy posted:

Awfully convenient of them to leave so many traces which the US administration can use as propaganda hit pieces in the middle of a trade war.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2021 01:55

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

mlmp08 posted:

This wasn�t all just aerial bombings. Engineer BNs blew up some dumps/storage, resulting in dispersing chemical agents unsafely and exposure.

Wow, that's way less understandable than the bombings.

You'd think all the work put into getting the Johnston Atoll chemical weapons destruction program going (begun operating in June 1990 after a decade or so of planning), there would have been a better understanding of the dangers.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2021 14:56

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Dead Reckoning posted:

So I submit the -135/707 as most underrated.

I'm convinced!

Thanks for awesome effort post!

# ¿ Jan 22, 2021 12:18

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Kesper North posted:

Does... does that jet know it has a pimple?

Amazing cheekbones though.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2021 04:07

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

MRC48B posted:

"open source cruise missile" is not a thing that should ever be on github.

The hard part is jamming the missiles into the tubes.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2021 03:21

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Greg12 posted:

something something the ocean is really big with lots of room for planes with RWRs to stay out of EWR range; now that I think harder about it, it was a one-time thing early on that nobody expected; and could you imagine the morale impact if it worked even once? the US would flip its poo poo and waste so many resources on an aerial convoy system. 9/11 showed that our reactions aren't the most sober and calculating. At the least, AWACSes would be wasted circling around the ocean instead of flying over Europe.

9/11 killed civilians and didn't happen in the opening stages of WWIII. Not really seeing the relevance here.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2021 20:39

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

I'm the second Space People.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2021 00:56

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Greg12 posted:

America's sentimental, brittle civilian morale shatters

Did I just travel back in a time machine to the 1920s when military forces were convinced that civilians were a bunch of pansies who couldn't deal with reality?

We've had a century of evidence that civilian morale can hold up to enormous stress in wartime.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2021 19:22

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Warbadger posted:

Even with this route they're flying over Norway where the Norwegians had a bunch of RAdio Detection And Ranging sites.

fixed for Sagebrush

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 01:27

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Chewbacca Defense posted:

I was thinking about drone swarms and had a question: how much does it cost the US to kill the average insurgent and conventional soldier.

My gut tells me that if you rammed an >$2,500 drone into every rifleman you encountered on the battlefield you'd probably save money.

Paging Dr. Von Braun. Dr. Von Braun, please call your office

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 02:24

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Blistex posted:

Pictures don't really do US super carriers justice. They're not only longer, but significant wider, which adds a ton more capability when it comes to AC handling, storage, and maintenance. The displacement difference between the Ford and the next biggest (QE) is 35,000 tons. That's like taking the QE and strapping Brazil's carrier to it.

Wow! This really puts it in perspective.

I don't know anything about the QE, but it looks like it doesn't have a separate flying off deck (or whatever you call it). Anyone know why?

# ¿ Feb 14, 2021 18:33

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Flikken posted:

Angled flight deck?

Thank you! My knowledge of post-WWII naval nomenclature is pretty limited.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2021 18:37

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

Phanatic posted:

If everything you're launching and recovering has STOVL then aircraft you're recovering aren't coming in at full speed and don't need that angled deck to land on, so there's very little reason to increase expense and displacement.

So they can still do simultaneous landings and takeoffs with their setup? That makes sense then, I didn't realize that.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2021 18:43

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

priznat posted:

Can the RCN just claim to have super advanced invisible stealth ships and just go with that?

Just say they've been deployed to Nunavut. How could anyone check?

# ¿ Feb 20, 2021 01:19

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

# ¿ Feb 22, 2021 21:47

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

mlmp08 posted:

Yeah but imagine the Command and Conquer voice actor radio chatter when you switch modes.

�Mowin� the lawn!�

�I think I saw some guys down there!�

�CAS in the grass�

Vs

�Eye in the sky!�

�Wings locked, rockets loaded�

# ¿ Feb 23, 2021 12:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:08

EasilyConfused: Nov 21, 2009; one strong toad

mlmp08 posted:

It was very very very expensive, JSF was going to happen anyway, soldiers were getting blown apart for lack of armored vehicles, and the US has a habit of saying they’re gonna future war but actually getting into fights like Iraq and Vietnam and such, and also deficits and spending blew up during W's tenure.

And at that time, the F-22 had never been used in combat despite years of war.

It was a fairly easy thing to kill off, politically.

It also became a symbol of spending too much on the military and not enough on social services. Didn't have many supporters in the Democratic Party.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2021 18:00

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Old War/Dad Power: Clancey chat (both types)

«‹›8 »