(November 1, 2022 at 3:21 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(November 1, 2022 at 2:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You understand that, depending on the missile, one missile is capable of causing damage to more than one target, right?

Boru

Quote:“The missiles in question are either "Bazalt" or "Kalibr" with 1000kg, or 500kg warheads respectively. How big is the blast radius? Well 2-3 weeks ago they found yet another 500kg WWII dud in Frankfurt. A whole effing quarter with some 20k people within 1km got evacuated (like everytime we dig those duds out).”
(…)
Does that really take a rocket scientist? [img=22x16]file:///C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif[/img]
(…)

(November 1, 2022 at 2:00 pm)Leonardo17 Wrote:

(October 31, 2022 at 7:36 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: We Americans didn't start the Korean war. The North Koreans did that with their surprise invasion of South Korea on 25 Jun 1950. America, the UK, Australia, Turkey, and other nations responded to this invasion by giving military support to South Korea -- Americans being the first to aid the defense by dint of America having small forces stationed on the ground there with those units fighting back immediately.

True. As I said. These records in my brain date from 1995, but it’s still there. So I won’t google it.

The PRC had backed North Korea, there had been some gains and then push backs. NATO did not war a direct conflict with China. So it ended in a Status Quo. Creating the republic of South Korea that produces smart phones and microchips instead of outdated nuclear capable ballistic missiles and does not kidnap Japanese citizens to later use them as spies or as bargain against Japan.

(November 1, 2022 at 8:17 am)Belacqua Wrote: So Ukraine reported that 10 Russian missiles evaded interception, and then went on to damage critical infrastructure at 18 points. NY Times is unable to confirm these reports, perhaps because they can count.

(November 2, 2022 at 6:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 1, 2022 at 8:17 am)Belacqua Wrote: So Ukraine reported that 10 Russian missiles evaded interception, and then went on to damage critical infrastructure at 18 points. NY Times is unable to confirm these reports, perhaps because they can count.

Ignoring the fact that one warhead of 500 kg may well be able to damage more than one target. Say, for instance, the Russians targeted a water-treatment facility, and in the ensuing explosion, an electrical substation was hit. There's two vital pieces of infrastructure damaged by one missile.

Or, perhaps, the knock-on consequences from one target being hit by one missile caused an untargeted, unhit facility to take damage as well.

Another thing is that "what goes up must come down", so some of the damage initially attributed to these Russian strikes may be a result of anti-aircraft misses coming back to earth. These things happen regularly in aerial warfare. It's not as clear-cut as you'd like to portray.

Quote:Sooner rather than later, the West needs to move Ukraine and Russia from the battlefield to the negotiating table, brokering a diplomatic effort to shut the war down and arrive at a territorial settlement. A hypothetical deal between Russia and Ukraine would have two main components. First, Ukraine would back away from its intention to join NATO — an objective that has for years provoked strong Russian opposition. Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine. NATO may be a defensive alliance, but it brings to bear aggregate military power that Moscow understandably does not want parked near its territory.

Quote:Second — the harder part — Moscow and Kyiv would need to arrive at a territorial settlement. A reasonable starting point for negotiations would be to aim for a Russian withdrawal to the “line of contact” that existed before Russia’s invasion began in February. Diplomacy could then focus on the ultimate disposition of Crimea and the chunk of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014. Both sides would need to compromise: Moscow to abandon its recently announced intention to annex a major slice of eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv to settle for an outcome that could entail less than regaining all its land.

Quote:Editorial today in The NY Times from former Obama official, now at Georgetown University. He proposes terms for a compromise.

Quote:This would be slightly worse for Ukraine than if they had adhered to the original Minsk agreements. But it would bring peace.

Quote:The Pentagon has admitted that there are American boots on the ground in Ukraine now. These are "advisors" etc., but we all know what that meant in Vietnam. In addition, there are many reports that evidence has emerged showing that Britain was behind the pipeline attack. People here will believe this or not depending on their prior commitments

Quote:But as NATO countries are more and more directly implicated, chances for dangerous escalation increase, and a peace compromise becomes more urgent.

(November 3, 2022 at 12:56 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Should we have handed them a bunch of gear and given them no instruction on it's use?  Seems like a recipe for civilian casualties, to me.  Hardly breaking news, we've been there since 2014.  Publicly.  There's a big training range in western ukraine where nato gear was processed in and nato caw was being taught to the crews.  Seems almost comical that russia and it's apologists are complaining that somebody taught the folks in the small country they planned to annex how to fight back.  

Fully in the upside down now, it seems - and all for what?