Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

Hmm,

 

Never known if non-U.S. citizens could purchase T Bills or not but I'd certainly not be touching them at the moment.

 

As big as the U.S. economy is it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it could collapse, there has to be some upper limit to the amount of debt it can sustain.

 

Yet again Trump seems to be running the country like he does his companies, borrow then default...

 

It is notable that although Obama may not have been the most outstanding of presidents he did try very, very hard to keep a cap on national debt.

 

The fact of the matter is that at these levels of debt money ceases to make any sense.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/07/2019 at 1:38 AM, Leonid said:

Fantastic. That means something will finally fucking change and get done to break the impasses of this world.

 

Good Presidential Behaviour == something Putin knows how to play to his heart’s content. It’s the equivalent of handing a rabbit with three broken legs to a fox. He knows this game and it ain’t even a challenge.

What's the opportunity cost if the price of saving democracy in the west is making it more authoritarian to compete with other authoritarian states like China and Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is strong enough in the West to survive right now Nich without becoming authoritarian.

 

I hate to say it because I do not like global social media such as FB and Twitter much but they pretty much ensure its survival, warts and all.

 

We are actually becoming less authoritarian as people en mass choose to just ignore our supposed political masters - anarchy is actually just around the corner - an interesting experiment but not one I really want to be a part of.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 4:03 AM, Nich... said:

What's the opportunity cost if the price of saving democracy in the west is making it more authoritarian to compete with other authoritarian states like China and Russia?

 

For me that’s a hard question to answer since the super-majority of those I hear asking the question, are those I blame for fucking democracy up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the saving of democracy in the west be thought to need to compete with China and Russia ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Good, more people will buy Android...

 

Also utterly stupid but what else could one expect from the moron ? He patently and obviously has absolutely no idea of the damage he is causing , it is going to take years to undo this mess.

 

What a fuckup.....

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's official, IRBMs are back on the table and apparently the U.S. will test one in a few weeks.

 

The Russians have apparently actually had them for a while, according to NATO, whom I do trust, not so sure about Washington at the moment.

 

In many ways they are the most dangerous type of missile - everyone imagines a nuclear exchange being U.S versus Russia but it is far more likely to be Euro-centric with whichever idiot pushes the button first having nothing to gain and everything to lose which is what makes them an idiot.

 

You cannot destroy all of the opposing forces in one pass, they are field mobile and elusive, so whatever you deliver you are destined to get back, in spades.

 

It's insane but sanity has little to do with the current situation - it just takes one small issue to spin out of control.

 

That's why taking IRBMs off the table was so important - you actually have a chance, slim but possible, of intercepting an ICBM, you have zero chance of stopping an IRBM - England in particular is right back in the firing line.

 

I really do begin to despair of the chances for survival of our species, the lunatics are totally in control of the asylum.

 

It is far too early to know just what the latest idiot, Johnson in the U.K. is likely to have as an opinion on the increasing nuclear tension but it probably does not matter anyway, it's a Trump - Putin discussion and both are demonstrably insane - just one is rather smarter than the other.

 

It is rather horrifying to consider that what is keeping us from entering WWIII is Putin, who just wants to get back what Russia lost in the collapse of the USSR, but those freed nations are not going to come quietly, therein lie the seeds of war.

 

It would be nice to think Putin would settle for Crimea, but he wont, he wants Ukraine, and they are not going to come quietly.

 

It gets more and more frightening by the day.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And on the other side of the world....

 

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/us-president-donald-trump-claims-kim-jongun-wont-want-to-disappoint-me-with-latest-missile-tests/news-story/9cc724cee615ac8d69b19fd8fdafecdb

 

Honestly I really do wonder what planet the twitter fool lives on, it most certainly is not planet reality - Kim is playing him as a fool, which he is, in exactly the same way as Putin is, whilst the real world looks on aghast.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, chrisg said:

you have zero chance of stopping an IRBM

 

Last year an Aegis-fired SM3 Block IIA took down an IRBM. And THAAD has at least one published sucess in intercepting an IRBM in June 2017.

 

And David's Sling would foot the bill too.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but those are staged events more intended as proof-of-concept of an ABM capability without going to the expense, or provocation, of using an ICBM.

 

There has been a squabble going on over that for years because every once in a while they do actually launch an ICBM into Kwajalein Atoll to confirm the capability of the arsenal.

The developers of Aegis and THAAD have both asked to test an intercept but the big missile guys argue it will mean having to expend two because they wont have proven their accuracy if the intercept is successful.

 

To intercept an IRBM you have to have the right system in the right place and at the right time. Plus be able to instantly react. At the upper limits of the range that defines an IRBM, maybe, closer in no.

 

Land Aegis is not very extensively deployed and THAD whilst it looks good is not yet operational in Europe which itself would be seen as provocation. (Actually it's in Romania, but that does not give anything like full coverage.)

 

Iron dome might, possibly be able to handle a couple of incomings but the big danger with IRBMs is you are not going to launch one of two if it comes to that, it would be a saturation assault, hoping to knock out any possible retaliation.

 

MAD gone mad in other words.

 

We managed to keep ABM systems out of the field for years because they allow the politicians to possibly fantasise that they could survive a nuclear exchange. That's why Sprint and Sentinel were cancelled and why Russia only ever deployed the now obsolete Galosh ring around Moscow.

 

They've sneaked in anyway, initially via Aegis with the excuse it was for ship defense but now and for a few years it has been overt with THAAD.

 

Is it really as capable as they would have us believe ?

 

I don't really think so but regardless you would need a massive deployment to cover all the possible incoming launch options.

 

The other big thing about IRBMs is they are small enough to be readily mobile so you just can't be sure of where they might come from.

 

We are right back where we were at the height of the Cold War, we may not fully realise it yet but we are, and with lunatics in control...

 

This time we may not survive it.

 

Cheers (not very cheery but cheers anyway,)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 2:18 AM, chrisg said:

Sure, but those are staged events more intended as proof-of-concept of an ABM capability without going to the expense, or provocation, of using an ICBM.

 

There has been a squabble going on over that for years because every once in a while they do actually launch an ICBM into Kwajalein Atoll to confirm the capability of the arsenal.

The developers of Aegis and THAAD have both asked to test an intercept but the big missile guys argue it will mean having to expend two because they wont have proven their accuracy if the intercept is successful.

 

To intercept an IRBM you have to have the right system in the right place and at the right time. Plus be able to instantly react. At the upper limits of the range that defines an IRBM, maybe, closer in no.

 

Land Aegis is not very extensively deployed and THAD whilst it looks good is not yet operational in Europe which itself would be seen as provocation. (Actually it's in Romania, but that does not give anything like full coverage.)

 

Iron dome might, possibly be able to handle a couple of incomings but the big danger with IRBMs is you are not going to launch one of two if it comes to that, it would be a saturation assault, hoping to knock out any possible retaliation.

 

MAD gone mad in other words.

 

We managed to keep ABM systems out of the field for years because they allow the politicians to possibly fantasise that they could survive a nuclear exchange. That's why Sprint and Sentinel were cancelled and why Russia only ever deployed the now obsolete Galosh ring around Moscow.

 

They've sneaked in anyway, initially via Aegis with the excuse it was for ship defense but now and for a few years it has been overt with THAAD.

 

Is it really as capable as they would have us believe ?

 

I don't really think so but regardless you would need a massive deployment to cover all the possible incoming launch options.

 

The other big thing about IRBMs is they are small enough to be readily mobile so you just can't be sure of where they might come from.

 

We are right back where we were at the height of the Cold War, we may not fully realise it yet but we are, and with lunatics in control...

 

This time we may not survive it.

 

Cheers (not very cheery but cheers anyway,)

 

Err... you sound like you don’t know much about IRBMs.

 

First of all THAAD is 40 launchers across 9 batteries. There is one each in Israeli, UAE, Guam and South Korea. The rest are in Europe and America (Alaska probably has one or two), with the only disclosed locations being Romania and Poland. THAAD has a 15 from 15 public success rate.

 

In addition Romania and Poland have Aegis Ashore.

 

Aegis marine systems are also split fairly evenly between the Pacific Fleet (16) and the Atlantic Fleet (17). The latter are deployed mostly around Western Europe.

 

The next point you make is about mobility. Yes IRBMs are smaller. But you don’t care where the source is because you don’t shoot an interceptor at the source. You shoot at it when it enters the interceptor’s range. No anti-IRBM platform has the range of an IRBM.

 

I am reasonably sure that with THAAD covering most of Europe and America + Israel and UAE’s THAADs covering Syria and Iran, Russia’s launch options are extremely limited. Which is why Russia complains so often about American/NATO missile defence - they don’t have a clean launch capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Actually I know rather a lot about IRBMs and a considerable amount about THAAD and other ABM systems although this recent article as in updates from Wiki has brought me more up to date - been busy.

 

IRBMS are not in the least well understood - they can and do include cruise missiles and there is a strong suggestion that some of the latest rocket rather than turbine engine types are fully capable of Fractional orbit ballistics and of maneuvering during their short trajectory times.

 

All of those are damned good reasons to ban them.

 

THAAD and most every other currently extant ABMs is a kinetic hit-to-kill weapon but it has to see and react to an incoming missile which is kinda difficult when it comes in just over the horizon.

 

It also has to deal with multiple launches, the possibility of decoys and a very high potential as a consequence to simply be overloaded.

 

There has to my knowledge only been one test of multiple launches being intercepted by a combination of PAC3 and THAAD by a multiple launch - five. That happened in 2012, THAAD claimed success because it intercepted a C-17 launch from Hawaii airspace. Impressive, but no mention made of the other four incomings, no mention of any PAC3 successes and no allowance for the launch being from altitude and staying visible over a distant horizon.

 

In the current state-of-the-art it should be pretty apparent that it would not be particularly difficult to over-whelm THAAD in isolation or in combination with PAC3 and Aegis, be it sea or ground based.

 

I' rather not see it put to the test because it is a no-return situation that would almost certainly lead to escalation.

 

I also wonder just how much attention has been paid to THAAD when it comes to de-confliction and fratricide plus the ever present possibility of a failed launch from the battery.

 

We simply do not know, I'd prefer we not find out, so it would be best to keep IRBMs banned but Trump has taken them off the table, put simply that is given the scenarios I've presented escalation.

 

They are in many ways just as frightening as ICBMs, they do not have as much throw weight but anything over a few hundred kilotons is utter overkill anyway unless you really do want Armageddon.

 

THAAD is essentially a deterrence, not an answer just a complication for the other guys making their plans - all of which are theoretical of course - until it gets real.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, chrisg said:

THAAD and most every other currently extant ABMs is a kinetic hit-to-kill weapon

 

THAAD is, Aegis is, David’s Sling is partial (the Stunner missile has options).

 

55 minutes ago, chrisg said:

IRBMS are not in the least well understood - they can and do include cruise missiles and there is a strong suggestion that some of the latest rocket rather than turbine engine types are fully capable of Fractional orbit ballistics and of maneuvering during their short trajectory times.

 

David’s Sling can maneuver and distinguish between the real thing and decoys. It’s got its pedigree from Iron Dome which can track a Palestinian corkscrew rockets that don’t travel in anything close to a straight line.

 

I think your knowledge is a little out of date, at least. We’ve got some serious tracking tech in-situ in the actual missiles now. Almost anything that is anti-* has impressive capabilities.

 

IRBMs are not the danger you think they are. Not any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really willing to bet on that ?

 

I don't think I'm particularly out-of-date at all because I keep aware of the improvements, on both sides.

 

The only way to really find out is to initiate a strike - I tend to think that would be a very bad idea - far better to keep them off the table.

 

David's Sling is indeed impressive but it is also largely unproven, for every move there is a counter-move - sudden-death chess is not a game I want to be playing.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Are you really willing to bet on that ?

 

It’s not much of a bet.

 

48 minutes ago, chrisg said:

David's Sling is indeed impressive but it is also largely unproven, for every move there is a counter-move - sudden-death chess is not a game I want to be playing.

 

David’s Sling is proven enough for Poland to order a version of it. Likewise, it’s based on Iron Dome tech which is very much proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

 

If the IRBMs are ever incoming race you for the shelter...

 

Yes, but Poland is not exactly wealthy  🙂

 

Iron Dome is indeed good, my point is that IRBMs are not a static technology - they can go faster, they can go lower, they can jink, they can be deceptive.

It is all very well to have an ABM capability, it is better to ban the damned things all together by agreement that is observed.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

Iron Dome is indeed good, my point is that IRBMs are not a static technology - they can go faster, they can go lower, they can jink, they can be deceptive.

 

All of which has already been dealt with by Iron Dome.

 

1 hour ago, chrisg said:

Yes, but Poland is not exactly wealthy

 

44th out of approx 200 for GDP per capita and sixth largest economy in Europe.

 

And rising massively.

 

They’re not poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically only Leo and not against a large assault. Iron Dome is not foolproof, nothing is. In any attack and defend situation the attacker always retains the advantage.

 

It gets somewhat irrelevant if you do not have a complete "Dome" over Europe and even with Poland it remains far from complete.

 

For Israel it is different, a reasonably complete coverage can be given and realistically the attack vectors are limited, the likely attack distances arelikely to be longer - Jordan is not likely to be a viable launch site, nor is Syria in the foreseeable future, or Egypt. Also unless Russia or China srats selling latest tech to the potential foes, unlikely they would be facing far less sophisticated attack vehicles.

 

Defending Europe against a concerted IRBM attack is a nightmare that NATO does not want which is why the planners at Mons would far rather the treaty remained and was enforced.

 

Trump is playing with dangerous fire that he pretty much certainly does not properly understand - to him everything is a "Deal."

 

I'll repeat, it is an escalation that we can well and truly live without.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This tariff/trade war just triggered a massive crash on US stock-markets ... DOW down 2.9%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stock markets were priced in assuming the US/China trade war might come to come sort of agreement but it seems it's all fallen apart and we're in a perpetual trade war now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully only until the next American election  🙂

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×