War

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Yep, the cops or even bounty hunters I suppose, could wait for a fugitive using a drone perched like a crow on top of a telephone pole waiting with facial recognition software and using the 5G cell network, and the robot version would hunt them down using their cellphone signals! If the cops are late, it can take off from the pole swoop down and tase the fucker! :lol:
Repo men are using drones to find cars....
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I looked at it wondering wtf? Then I started watching it and came away pretty impressed at the aircraft.
Yep, if the Ukrainians bought them with seized Russian money, they couldn't whine about NATO supplying modern fighters to Ukraine, Sweden is a non-NATO member, non-membership has its privileges, just like Ukraine! They are in no particular hurry to join NATO, Russia has to go through NATO countries to get to them, so we can wait out the Turks, they are defacto allies anyway.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I looked at it wondering wtf? Then I started watching it and came away pretty impressed at the aircraft.
Yup. The Swedes built a capable and cost-effective aircraft for the terrain and the opponent. The field-service modularity impressed me. And if they can sneak up on a Typhoon like that, Sukhois won’t have an easy time of it.

But I would have liked a bit of info on that Bang&Olufsen jet.
Even if it was simply someone’s art project.
 
Last edited:

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I looked at it wondering wtf? Then I started watching it and came away pretty impressed at the aircraft.
If Norway wanted Sweden in NATO badly, they would just dangle a few billion in financing for his Black Sea canal in front of Erdogan it is his pet project. Victory in Ukraine with them taking Crimea would give him more than enough business for it to make it a success as traffic into Europe dramatically increases with the short cut to Ukraine and right into Europe. Also, a pipeline from the Crimean gas fields could supply Turkey with energy, something else it desperately needs.
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
If Norway wanted Sweden in NATO badly, they would just dangle a few billion in financing for his Black Sea canal in front of Erdogan it is his pet project. Victory in Ukraine with them taking Crimea would give him more than enough business for it to make it a success as traffic into Europe dramatically increases with the short cut to Ukraine and right into Europe. Also, a pipeline from the Crimean gas fields could supply Turkey with energy, something else it desperately needs.
Yuck no. That canal is an even bigger boondoggle than Vladolf’s bridge.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Yuck no. That canal is an even bigger boondoggle than Vladolf’s bridge.
I never approved of it, just that Erdogan would do damn near anything to get it built and traffic will increase there with a shortcut to Europe from the middle east and Asia Via the Suez Canal, it will take off a lot of sea miles and reduce the Northeastern European ports load.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I never approved of it, just that Erdogan would do damn near anything to get it built and traffic will increase there with a shortcut to Europe from the middle east and Asia Via the Suez Canal, it will take off a lot of sea miles and reduce the Northeastern European ports load.
That makes no sense.

First off, it parallels an existing waterway.
Secondly, if you’re shipping to a North Sea or Baltic port, it’ll take more time and money to send it overland from Romania or Ukraine.

And, enticing an autocrat with incentives for his bs canal is bad policy. If anything, we should threaten him with a removal of our cash-cow military bases to Ukraine, who are likely to become a valued regional ally.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
That makes no sense.

First off, it parallels an existing waterway.
Secondly, if you’re shipping to a North Sea or Baltic port, it’ll take more time and money to send it overland from Romania or Ukraine.

And, enticing an autocrat with incentives for his bs canal is bad policy. If anything, we should threaten him with a removal of our cash-cow military bases to Ukraine, who are likely to become a valued regional ally.
Not up to us, I'm just pointing out the potential levers that could be used, but it is unlikely. Finland in NATO removes the need for Sweden to join, they are inside NATOs borders, so no rush and we can outwait Erdogan, the Sweds can chill and know it.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
You can use them if you want to die and Russians extinct as a nation, Moscow will look like strobe lights with multiple strikes from multiple systems by multiple nations, the place will glow in the dark for a century.
If Russia crosses the nuclear threshold and IF we decide on a nuclear response, it will be a small number of limited-yield bombs, perhaps B-61s dropped from crewed bombers, on military targets. We won’t be using ICBMs or going after cities.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
If Russia crosses the nuclear threshold and IF we decide on a nuclear response, it will be a small number of limited-yield bombs, perhaps B-61s dropped from crewed bombers, on military targets. We won’t be using ICBMs or going after cities.
That's what the subs are for, other systems would be confined to their nuclear launch capability. My point is besides the American triad, there is the British and French ones pounding Russia. If faced with a sure launch by crazy Vlad as he goes down, it would be nice to have a bigger meu of options than MAD, especially when facing a technologically inferior enemy and you have lots of allies and they have none. I think the pentagon is working on expanding the president's options, if say that fat little fuck in North Korea should lose his marbles one day. It is things like starlink, stealth, drones and precision weapons that make such expanded options feasible, including missile defense. America is not up against thousands of warheads, but hundreds and many might not get off the ground or work when they arrive. New tech and a new situation might make starwars feasible and it's worth another look.
 

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
If Russia crosses the nuclear threshold and IF we decide on a nuclear response, it will be a small number of limited-yield bombs, perhaps B-61s dropped from crewed bombers, on military targets. We won’t be using ICBMs or going after cities.
If Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine would America then get even more involved and attack Russia directly with tactical nuclear weapons? Bit of an escalation. - Wouldn't that mean the Proxy war is over and its official? Not sure America would as it then means America becomes a legitimate target. Depends if that's what the US Gov want- get a nuclear war over and done with.
America has form for nuking cities so i would not dismiss it plus add in cities and civilians as a target since WW2.
Lots of ifs buts and maybes.
 
Top