• Attention All Comstar Customers, Due to unexpected interference by suspected Word of Blake operatives, the HPG systems update was *not* successful. No data was lost due to our careful and extensive backups; however, we will need to try again next weekend. Sincerely, Comstar Precentor Dune

Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Reaction score
1,507
Ah, so now the excuse has shifted from "I don't have time" to "I find it ridiculously to engage it"? If the first was accurate, you wouldn't still be arguing on this and if the second was accurate you would, again, still not be arguing over it. That you are proves exactly what I said; they're nothing more than excuses to give cover for a cherry pick on your part. Now that I've called it out, you've brought out the appeal to majority fallacy. You're not slick, nor clever here.
[edit: regarding "shifted"] "I don't have time now (and make no promises of later)" I really don't know how to help a reading comprehension failure at this level.

By the way, I can't help but notice your grammatical error "I find it ridiculously to engage it". Perhaps that is because you realized how stupid you looked when trying to pretend "I don't have time" and "I find it ridiculously time consuming" have no relation to each other? Or maybe you need me to speak in the language of fallacies. In this case, the fallacy of the excluded middle. I have time and patience. I do not have unlimited time and patience.
When you're constantly shifting definitions, as you are, I'm sure it doesn't. Again, you're not clever here.
But I'm not doing so.
I don't have to claim you've done a cherry pick when from your very first post, you admitted it. In your own words, you decided to take the point about aircraft losses as illustrative of the whole argument; would you like me to quote you on that? That is the definition of a cherry pick and why you've been reduced to special pleading and other logical fallacies because even the point you were trying to target has stood up under scrutiny, it's why you're trying to shift definitions now.
Oh, haha, I see your issue. If you need me to once again hold your hand through understanding a sentence, I'm happy to comply for now.
I don't have time now (and make no promises of later) to respond to everything in this post, but this paragraph in particular caught my eye; may we treat it as representative? Let us, as you say, "actually compare data".
That question is (1) an actual question that you never answered; (2) separate and wholly severable from the actual discussion we've been having. Thus your accusations of cherry picking are off point.
So which excuse is it? If you're trying to reduce your own workload, it's odd you've remained in an extended dialogue.
"Reduce" is a relative term. See above. See "fallacy of the excluded middle". Unless ... are you trying to tell me that your obfuscation expands to fill the space available, and your bullshit wouldn't be any longer if I'd taken on your entire post?
U.S. Armed Forces, 1944. War orders across the board began to be slashed.
Oh, so are you suggesting the Ukrainians are to the Russians now as the Allies were to the Axis in 1944? An interesting claim, to be sure.
So to appeal to the public they put it in the trade journal for the U.S. defense industry instead of American consumer media? Yeah, okay.
Well, okay, they also need to appeal to the military-industrial complex and its lobbyists.
 
Last edited:

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Reaction score
1,507
On totally unrelated topic - in 25 aniversary of Poland joining NATO, oposition made conference.USA ambassador joined them.
Another proof,that USA want germans ruling Poland again.
Which,for Ukraine,mean that we would help as much as germans.

Well,Democrats always must support Moscov.
Hold on, the ambassador joined them? or the ambassador wanted to be in the room to keep an eye on things? There are plenty of conferences the USA attends that are doing things it doesn't like.

This is an honest question that 30 seconds in Google did not answer for me.
 

planefag

A Flying Bundle of Sticks
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
1,779
Perhaps in your fantasies, sure,
You wanna fuck? Lets fuck.

but a very good indicator of how wrong your assessment is comes almost at the beginning in classifying Russia as a 1990s military; the existence of combat usage of hypersonic missiles by the Russians before the U.S. can even get a working model in competition
Any solid-fuel ballistic missile - such as an SRBM, IRBM, or ICBM - is, by definition, "hypersonic." Hypersonics, therefore, are a 1940s technology , having first been deployed by Nazi Germany in the form of the V-2 rocket. In modern parlance, there are two kinds of hypersonic weapons. The first is Ye Olden Ballistic Missile, but with a more maneuverable terminal vehicle - a so-called HGV; Hypersonic Glide Vehicle. Technically speaking, the Apollo command capsule was such a vehicle as it could maneuver (by rolling) to actively steer itself upon landing and control its descent. You may also have heard of "MARVs", i.e. "maneuvering re-entry vehicle," i.e. an RV with some winglets on it so it can steer.

Any shithead with a slide rule can build these things. They are 1960's technology.

But then there is an air-breathing hypersonic vehicle. Rocket fuel consists of roughly 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer. Oxygen is by far the chief component in any fire; which is why thermobaric weapons are so powerful - they are 100% fuel, and get the oxygen from the local air, for free. Same for an air-breathing hypersonic munition; they use scram-jets to get their 02 from the atmosphere, and thus are a few orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than solid-rocket based hypersonics. Imagine a Tomahawk cruise missile, but moving at Mach 5. Contemplate the consequences for magazine depth on ships. Instead of the Russian Khinzal; an SRBM carried by an airplane and fired sideways, it's more like a Harpoon missile - every jet in the carrier air wing can carry at least two, and the carrier itself has hundreds in its internal magazine.

Guess who's leading the pack on developing such weapons? Yeah. I'll leave that as an exercise to the "learner."

  1. Under both the Trump and Biden Administrations, the U.S. worked to extend the START Treaty with Russia. If they had an advantage, why bother?
Because it would preserve said advantage by complicating Russia's ability to take the most obvious corrective course vs. American missile defenses and/or first-strike superiority, i.e. increasing warhead count.

Duh.

2. If NATO has a first strike advantage the Russians are apparently afraid of, why has NATO refused to directly engage in Ukraine?
Because the Russian federation is such a pack of incompetent fucking clowns that merely sending a handful of modern weapons, i.e. the HIMARS, has been more than enough to assfuck Russian rear-area logistics and supply into the stratosphere. Because Territorial Defense Forces who were trained in irregular warfare by the CIA were able to, with nothing more than shoulder-fired RPGs and rifles, assrape Russian logistical columns early in the conflict and inflict staggering losses. Because Russia's vaunted and much-storied army got their asses handed to them so fucking hard that they had to retreat from the assault on Kyiv and left in their wake such a staggering amount of materiel that it still boggles the imagination. I extensively documented just how hard the Russians got raped during their "withdrawal" from the Kyiv theater here and here, using extensive video footage of an entire Russian armored company getting wiped out as a case study in just what a shitshow their combat power is.

This is what the west and NATO have accomplished by sending peanuts. We sent shoulder-launched missiles, small arms ammunition, obsolete AFVs (M-113s etc.) and obsolete and moderately upgraded Soviet kit from former Soviet satellite nations (T-72s from Poland, etc.) Many of the weapons we sent were nearing their expiration dates - solid rocket motors have a limited shelf life. The vast majority of munitions sent were paid for during the 1980s for use against the Soviet Union - i.e., Russia - and now these already-paid for stocks are doing exactly what they were meant to do, which is to destroy Russian combat power. And much of the effectiveness of both our weapons and Ukrainian weapons have been determined by the quality of the intelligence information provided by NATO reconnaissance platforms. You have the Russian army communicating using unencrypted Chinese Baofeng radios while the most advanced ELINT platforms on the planet constantly hover just off the Ukranian coastline hoovering up the data - it is no mystery that Ukrainian munitions so consistently land directly where they hurt the most. And once that phenomenal intel capability was paired with a handful of modern standoff precision munition launchers, we were privileged to see the entire Russian Kharkiv front collapse in a matter of three weeks; with gains that cost them months of fighting being lost in days.

Please, explain to me - why, exactly, does NATO need to intervene directly when the Ukranians are bending the Russian Armed Forces over a barrel using nothing but our goddamned obsolete hand-me-down weapons?

I can present further evidence in this vein, but I'm curious to see how you respond to #2 first.
Try me, bumblefuck.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,237
Hold on, the ambassador joined them? or the ambassador wanted to be in the room to keep an eye on things? There are plenty of conferences the USA attends that are doing things it doesn't like.

This is an honest question that 30 seconds in Google did not answer for me.
Meeting was made to unite oposition against ruling party/it failed for now/ and everybody was taking how bad Kaczyński is,and that he is hidden Putin supporter.

Then Brzeziński told about how great Poland is and how we support Ukraine- but say nothing about who should rule,and nothing about accusation of supporting Putin.

To me it look like american blessing for uniting oposition to take power.And,considering that those people support Berlin/Moscov/both,it would be not good both for Poland and Ukraine.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
35,488

So they want to threaten Kessler Syndrome now as well, it seems, because of how damaging US sigint/NRO birds and the data we give Ukraine from them, have been to the 'Special military operation'.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Reaction score
5,873
Location
--<COORDINATES ENCRYPTED---ACCESS DENIED>--

So they want to threaten Kessler Syndrome now as well, it seems, because of how damaging US sigint/NRO birds and the data we give Ukraine from them, have been to the 'Special military operation'.
I would not put too much stock into anything Anatoly Karlin says, considering his background.

 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
35,488
Is that moron really that stupid? If this happens, there will be a third world war. Not only that, Humanity would be trapped on Earth for centuries at the very least.
Not centuries, more like a decade or so of hard work would be needed to clean of the mess, and even beyond that this would be happening low enough a lot of debris would naturally de-orbit itself over the course of a few decades.

SpaceX and Musk's rapidly reusable rockets also change the equation, because it would allow you to replace assets faster and get debris-cleaning equipment up there faster.

Plus anything in GEO-stationary orbits would be safe, unless directly targeted, as they are far above the LEO orbits where most of the mess would be.
I would not put too much stock into anything Anatoly Karlin says, considering his background.

It's less about putting stock in his words, than about showing how the Kremlin fanboys are willing to do anything and everything to get some sort of 'win' against the West out of this war, even beyond using tactical nukes.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer
Founder
Sotnik
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Reaction score
33,350
Location
The Drakwald
Russia's New Army is Still Assembling.

Twitter Thread Showing Anecdotes and Details of the Mobilization.


Support for Putin barely dips. Anxiety for the future Apparently Spikes in State funded polling.


Just Buy Your Own Equipment.


Assuming these are more 18-35 Year Olds.


Kadyrov is already prepping His young'ins for Battle.

 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Reaction score
5,873
Location
--<COORDINATES ENCRYPTED---ACCESS DENIED>--
Russia's New Army is Still Assembling.

Twitter Thread Showing Anecdotes and Details of the Mobilization.


Support for Putin barely dips. Anxiety for the future Apparently Spikes in State funded polling.


Just Buy Your Own Equipment.


Assuming these are more 18-35 Year Olds.


Kadyrov is already prepping His young'ins for Battle.

Putin and Kadyrov are doing a bad desperate imitation of the Hitler Youth and Volkssturm. Sad and pathetic.


EDIT: Also, it seems some in Russia might be noticing.

 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
7,948
You wanna fuck? Lets fuck.



Any solid-fuel ballistic missile - such as an SRBM, IRBM, or ICBM - is, by definition, "hypersonic." Hypersonics, therefore, are a 1940s technology , having first been deployed by Nazi Germany in the form of the V-2 rocket. In modern parlance, there are two kinds of hypersonic weapons. The first is Ye Olden Ballistic Missile, but with a more maneuverable terminal vehicle - a so-called HGV; Hypersonic Glide Vehicle. Technically speaking, the Apollo command capsule was such a vehicle as it could maneuver (by rolling) to actively steer itself upon landing and control its descent. You may also have heard of "MARVs", i.e. "maneuvering re-entry vehicle," i.e. an RV with some winglets on it so it can steer.

Any shithead with a slide rule can build these things. They are 1960's technology.

But then there is an air-breathing hypersonic vehicle. Rocket fuel consists of roughly 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer. Oxygen is by far the chief component in any fire; which is why thermobaric weapons are so powerful - they are 100% fuel, and get the oxygen from the local air, for free. Same for an air-breathing hypersonic munition; they use scram-jets to get their 02 from the atmosphere, and thus are a few orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than solid-rocket based hypersonics. Imagine a Tomahawk cruise missile, but moving at Mach 5. Contemplate the consequences for magazine depth on ships. Instead of the Russian Khinzal; an SRBM carried by an airplane and fired sideways, it's more like a Harpoon missile - every jet in the carrier air wing can carry at least two, and the carrier itself has hundreds in its internal magazine.

Guess who's leading the pack on developing such weapons? Yeah. I'll leave that as an exercise to the "learner."



Because it would preserve said advantage by complicating Russia's ability to take the most obvious corrective course vs. American missile defenses and/or first-strike superiority, i.e. increasing warhead count.

Duh.



Because the Russian federation is such a pack of incompetent fucking clowns that merely sending a handful of modern weapons, i.e. the HIMARS, has been more than enough to assfuck Russian rear-area logistics and supply into the stratosphere. Because Territorial Defense Forces who were trained in irregular warfare by the CIA were able to, with nothing more than shoulder-fired RPGs and rifles, assrape Russian logistical columns early in the conflict and inflict staggering losses. Because Russia's vaunted and much-storied army got their asses handed to them so fucking hard that they had to retreat from the assault on Kyiv and left in their wake such a staggering amount of materiel that it still boggles the imagination. I extensively documented just how hard the Russians got raped during their "withdrawal" from the Kyiv theater here and here, using extensive video footage of an entire Russian armored company getting wiped out as a case study in just what a shitshow their combat power is.

This is what the west and NATO have accomplished by sending peanuts. We sent shoulder-launched missiles, small arms ammunition, obsolete AFVs (M-113s etc.) and obsolete and moderately upgraded Soviet kit from former Soviet satellite nations (T-72s from Poland, etc.) Many of the weapons we sent were nearing their expiration dates - solid rocket motors have a limited shelf life. The vast majority of munitions sent were paid for during the 1980s for use against the Soviet Union - i.e., Russia - and now these already-paid for stocks are doing exactly what they were meant to do, which is to destroy Russian combat power. And much of the effectiveness of both our weapons and Ukrainian weapons have been determined by the quality of the intelligence information provided by NATO reconnaissance platforms. You have the Russian army communicating using unencrypted Chinese Baofeng radios while the most advanced ELINT platforms on the planet constantly hover just off the Ukranian coastline hoovering up the data - it is no mystery that Ukrainian munitions so consistently land directly where they hurt the most. And once that phenomenal intel capability was paired with a handful of modern standoff precision munition launchers, we were privileged to see the entire Russian Kharkiv front collapse in a matter of three weeks; with gains that cost them months of fighting being lost in days.

Please, explain to me - why, exactly, does NATO need to intervene directly when the Ukranians are bending the Russian Armed Forces over a barrel using nothing but our goddamned obsolete hand-me-down weapons?



Try me, bumblefuck.
FWIW, nowadays some Russians are talking about destroying US satellites:

 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Reaction score
5,873
Location
--<COORDINATES ENCRYPTED---ACCESS DENIED>--
FWIW, nowadays some Russians are talking about destroying US satellites:

They can talk about that all they wish. Actually trying is another thing, and doing so would be a direct act of war against the US. Draw your own conclusions. Considering the utter clusterfuck the Russian military has proven to be I’m not particularly worried. Never mind that Anatoly Karlin is a far right/legit Nazi shill who says outrageous crap just to get attention.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
7,948
They can talk about that all they wish. Actually trying is another thing, and doing so would be a direct act of war against the US. Draw your own conclusions. Considering the utter clusterfuck the Russian military has proven to be I’m not particularly worried. Never mind that Anatoly Karlin is a far right/legit Nazi shill who says outrageous crap just to get attention.
Anatoly Karlin is more of a Russian nationalist than a Nazi, though the two have been converging as of lately since Russia's recent aggression against Ukraine, which Karlin enthusiastically supports, strongly reeks of Fascism.

I hope that this war will send aggressive Russian nationalism into the dustbin of history, where it permanently belongs.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
11,924
FWIW, nowadays some Russians are talking about destroying US satellites:

a) Russia gets dared to launch any spacecraft. Ever. For any reason.
b) Everyone sends bills for their lost satellites to Kremlin.
c) Elon Musk near-monopoly on space infrastructure.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
11,451
Location
Before the Ninth Gate
Shooting down a satellite wouldn't be hard to do (India did it, for example, this isn't top level technology), but the added space debris could likely make it impossible to use satellites if they destroy enough.
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
7,948
So a) it wouldn't be hard to do (India did it, for example, this isn't top level technology), but b) the added space debris could likely make it impossible to use satellites if they destroy enough.
Who are you responding to here?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
7,948
a) Russia gets dared to launch any spacecraft. Ever. For any reason.
b) Everyone sends bills for their lost satellites to Kremlin.
c) Elon Musk near-monopoly on space infrastructure.
I think that Anatoly Karlin previously discussed blowing up Starlink as well.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
7,948
With what? X-Wing squadrons?
With whatever Russia would use to blow up the rest of the West's satellites? FWIW, I am specifically talking about blowing up Starlink's satellites here. I don't know what else Starlink has.
 
Top Bottom