A lot of them like the Bayraktar has propellers, it’s pretty cute.
As far as I’ve read it’s made with off-the-shelf parts sourced from around the world, just with some kinda advanced interface made by some MIT whiz kid.
ISIS used hobby/junk drones in Syria to drop grenades or kamikaze enemies, and while it’s more harassment than gamechanger, it must have been pretty uncomfortable for the people who had to deal with it. Could be something to consider for a 21st century insurgency. Nasty little flies.
Obviously though, if you can make a TB-2, make a TB-2.
Houngan
5102
The difference being anti-personnel rather than anti-vehicle. Two very different requirements. I very much doubt any drone smaller than a proper military drone has destroyed a military vehicle bigger than a Toyota pickup. Edit: I noticed your bold on Jet, my point was the scale rather than the engine. Military drones are essentially warplanes, just a bit smaller and with remarkably fewer people in them.
RichVR
5103
You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. So I will stop trying to talk to you.
Timex
5104
The idea that sanctions against Russia will lead to a “De-dollarization” of the global economy is a joke.
It’s basically based on the idea that Russia will go to people and be like, “hey, so we can’t buy stuff with the global currency, but we got our own money! Sure, everyone else in the world says it’s now worth nothing, but if you accept it, then it’ll be worth something!”
It basically has the ruble in the same category as bitcoins. Sure, if everyone decided that it’s worth something, then it will be! But that’s not going to happen!
Russia isn’t some kind of economic powerhouse. Their GDP is around 1.7 trillion. It’s roughly equivalent to JUST the state of Texas. Not California, that’s like twice as big.
So, do we think that Texas could just make is own currency? Nah, don’t think so. The global economy isn’t going to shift from dollars to Russian tulip bulbs.
That article was ideologically-motivated wishful thinking, I suspect, but… they have a bit more of a point then you’re making out. Russia has lots of nice oil, minerals and grain. People who want that stuff used to just pay for it in dollars. Now they can’t do that, but they still might really need the stuff. And they might be motivated enough to join the Russian and Chinese payment networks and pay for it in yuan. Which might nudge us towards a future where, eventually, the global dollar-denominated marketplace for commodities (or certain commodities) fractures into two or three marketplaces. Russia produces 10% of the world’s oil. Someone is gonna need it.
Don’t ever change, @TimexAutocorrect.
-Tom
vyshka
5107
The best part is the reply was meant for @Strollen . :)
So what, why is drone different than Javelin? They both can kill tanks, APC etc.
I think people are missing the big picture.
According to the memorandum,[22] Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:
- Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[23]
- Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
- Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
- Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[19][24]
The Russian invasion of 2014,and especially this invasion violated this agreement. The US and UK, irrespective of NATO, have a moral obligation to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. Not surprisingly Ukrainine lawyers say this is an international treaty and the US has a legal obligation, US lawyers disagree. Not protecting Ukraine in this situation establishes a horrible precedent which will cause any nation that has nuclear weapons to never give them up and encourage nations without nukes to develop them. Because the lesson is clear, if you have nukes no one will challenge you militarily.
The US and Russia have been killing each other soldiers directly and indirectly for 70 years, despite “our demands are backed by nuclear weapons,” rhetoric Could a drone, or no-fly zone, or a Patriot missile battery, be the last straw .Yes it could, but you know what, if Putin is crazy as people seem to think. Then by definition, a crazy person doesn’t act in a rational or predictable fashion, which means a mean tweet, or a SNL skit that goes viral in Russia also may be the trigger for WWIII. We know SNL pissed off Trump.
Do we shut down SNL over concern that they may trigger WWIII?
Kid who tracks Elon Musk’s jet announces a new tracker, @Putinjet:
Setting aside the nuclear implications of intervention, that agreement doesn’t obligate the US or UK to protect Ukraine’s sovereign or independence. The obligations are right there in the bit you quoted, and they don’t include that obligation.
Yes, if we look at the long history of sanctions, can anybody name three countries, who’s government fundamentally changed course due to sanctions? Have any of them done it in less than a year?
When Iraq was sanctioned, there was oil for food program. After various taxes, middle man fees, Iraq got just over 1/2 the market price for their oil, and paid a nice premium for wheat. Lots of UN folks benefited. I predict we will see an iron ore for IPhones and Oil for Oligarch essentials within a year or two even if the sanctions remain in place.
This is actually incorrect, and a reason why I don’t like the “madman with a gun keeping everyone on their toes” view of someone like Trump. “Crazy” (only in quotes because it carries many meanings) people can be VERY predictable. I’ll give you an example;
Imagine someone who is an arachnophobe (phobias being a disorder). This person will behave normally unless presented with a spider, at which time you can expect an escalated fear response.
In a more extreme sense, imagine someone who suffers from megalomania (which is actually a symptom rather than a disorder itself, but regardless…). They will reliably use whatever is in their grasp to retain and achieve control.
Both of these types of people are very predictable, and frankly their disorders can be leveraged against themselves due to that pattern. Unpredictability only comes from a lack of understanding. That’s why it’s so important to learn what’s a driving factor in any engagement in lieu of making assumptions or using old data.
It depends on how you read 4, to provide assistance to Ukraine. The Ukrainian’s believe it means that parties are obligated to provide assistance. The other parties say they merely have to ask the security council for action. I side with the Ukrainians knowing that all 3 parties have a veto in the ecurity council, asking security council to do something is of virtually no value. Certainly less value than several hundred nuclear warheads.
The parties are providing assistance. I read about their assistance every day. There is no obligation in that agreement to defend Ukraine with the force of arms.
Ukraine was giving up weapons over which they had no command and control authority. They couldn’t use them. They just happened to be in their country, and everybody wanted them out of the country for non-proliferation reasons.
Fair point. I was using the common definition of crazy, cause to be honest I think Putin is faking crazy. My sister just put her husband in a nursing home,he has Parkinson’s, which causes paranoia, and Lewy dementia. He’s been telling the staff and visitors that my sister put in the facility because she has a boyfriend and that’s why she doesn’t come home at night. Today when my sister visited him, he stood up just to give her a big hug. That’s what I mean by unpredictable.
I agree legally, not necessarily morally, but there is nothing wrong with us defending a democracy and in fact a lot of reason to do so. I get we can’t risk WWIII sentiment. but to me a dead Russian soldier is still dead regardless if he is killed by a Stinger fired by a Ukranian, a drone supplied the US, or F-35 flown by a US pilot.
There isn’t any difference to me, either, but there will be a difference to Russia, and they get to determine the consequences. I’m down with giving Ukraine any weapons we think they can use — with obvious exceptions like nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers etc — but not with using those weapons ourselves.
MikeJ
5119
There’s some quote floating around that I can’t find. The gist of it is some country asking for British soldiers to help in their defence, even one will make a difference. How will one soldier make a difference? Well, we shall make sure that he is killed.
It’s from Tuchman, The Guns of August.
A question that Wilson asked of Foch during his second visit in January 1910, evoked an answer which expressed in one sentence the problem of the alliance with England, as the French saw it.
“What is the smallest British military force that would be of any practical assistance to you?” Wilson asked.
Like a rapier flash came Foch’s reply, “A single British soldier—and we will see to it that he is killed.”
