sherpa

I'm quite sure the guy in that picture would not want a guy like you judging. Folks can get executed for that.

Know what those things are that have the red noses on them? They are cluster bombs. They have a purpose and they are pretty effective at achieving that purpose. We don't want arbitrary folks determining what is a military or civilian target.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You use the terms "civilian areas," and "for terror." Who gets to make those judgements, because in the last two decades or so, I've seen that "opinion" thrown around in just about every conflict. Regarding Putin, he has already murdered and attempted to murder dissidents. He is pretty much guilty of everything.

What I am referring to is the use of conventional weapons as a war crime charge, which has been brought in this thread. Specifically, the use of cluster bombs. Those have a valuable effect against a number of things. Though the mention of them as a war crime if used in populated areas, that definition is hazy, and whoever would decide what was a civilian area would be highly prejudiced. "War crimes" seems to be the common complaint about a week into any engagement.

I'd be very reticent to throw the "war criminal" charge out. Pandora's box.

The point is that it doesn't need to be a problem at all. The stupidity of not having a coherent energy policy gets us into these spikes over and over, and it is completely avoidable. The US has enough natural gas, much cleaner burning than anything Russia produces by the way, to supply us forever. We also have companies that produce electricity from solid oxide fuel cells. These can use extremely efficient nat gas, or bio gas or zero polluting hydrogen that doesn't rely on grid distribution, which is the huge weakness in our energy universe. The energy is produced on site, and scores of companies which do not want to be burdened by increasing power outages have installed them. If the California grid issues with wildfires and other calamities, along with Texas' gross disaster last winter don't underline grid issues and cause changes, we are stuck with this current malaise and the idiotic politicization of the issue. We got to the moon because of a united, non political challenge and goal met head on. It's all there. We simply haven't had the guts to de-politicize it and get on with the work.

Of course presidents don't control oil or other commodity prices. What they do though, undeniably, is influence the environment that effect energy producers decisions to commit capital to expand production. It cannot be denied that this administration has been openly hostile to domestic fossil energy suppliers, whether drillers or shippers. That influences capital expenditure decisions, as well it should. Hate you 'till I need you simply doesn't work.

I'll provide some. I'm pretty familiar with this type of thing, and it would take significant time to establish. The Russians would not waste that time doing nothing. First, there is no "No Fly Zone Backed up by NATO," per the thread title. The only true capability would come from the US, and perhaps some UK. Germany, Poland and the others provide no significant air to air capability enhancement against the Russians. The only thing NATO would provide, other than proclamations of participation, would be runways to operate off of. The requirements to enforce it would include: Fighters capable of high probability of success against Russian fighters. Those odds go up dramatically using F-22's and F-35's. US f-22's and F-35's, using US AWACS for fore integration. So the player roster would be US AWACS, US F-35's and US F-22's. Tankers. Because the numbers are not favorable, that means very long missions. Fighters doing an air defense mission are thirsty beings. Probably not smart to get the tankers or AWACS into contested airspace, so they would be anchored in some NATO country nearby. Electronic Warfare assets. The Russians have very sophisticated air defense weapons. Given range capability, they could use some on the ground in Russia to cover the area. How would this be handled? Is the "NATO" force going to attack systems on Russian soil? Is NATO going to accept its airplanes being shot at without attacking? I guarantee the pilots won't. Jamming requires three things. One is capability, two is proximity and three is wattage-lots of power. Does NATO have that ability to jam S-400 and S-500 systems? What happens when a Russian or NATO airplane gets shot down? Now we have an undeniable act of war between NATO and Russia. Further, this concept that a no fly zone solves/ends the problem is crazy. What about Russian ground forces, already present in great numbers with a lot more behind them? Do they simply stop advancing and quit? I doubt the Ukrainians can successfully deal with that capability, and I doubt a no fly zone is going to allow strike aircraft to eliminate the Russian threat. Let the sanctions do their work. A no fly zone sounds great, but it's de facto war, and things could get wickedly nasty in a very short time.

I said this as pure sarcasm nine days ago. Guess what the head of the Russian Space Program said yesterday. He threatened to "abandon" US astronaut Mark Vande Hei, who is on the ISS and is scheduled to return to earth n three weeks.

Absolutely the worst conclusion. NATO does not want to go to war with Russia.

On paper, the F-16, depending on variant, is competitive. Other, peripheral issues make the case to get out of the Mig 29. First, with the tuning up of NATO military capability, a sure result of this stupid invasion, it makes sense to have continuity in the air inventory of NATO. The outlier of a one block Mig 29's makes little sense in that strategy. The Mig 29 has a poor maintenance and performance record against wester fighters. India is very displeased with them. With Russia seemingly isolated spare parts would become a problem. I think Poland kept them this long because they have quite an overhaul/maintenance industry regarding the Mig 29, and it's a money maker. Still, it's just a bad idea to have a small amount of your inventory that comes from a known problem child.

That is precisely why the US is flying WC 135 Constant Phoenix airplanes along the border. Those are "sniffer airplanes" that detect radiation. I do, and I think that's what the Poles really want.

Told ya. Aint happenin'.

Check out a company like Bloom Energy. Tons of capacity in place across the corporate world, some municipalities, including the town of Colchester, CT as well as a huge South Korean market including container ship energy supply, which is heavy, dirty fuel oil replaced by light, solid oxide energy. All changing. Of course it must be mentioned that Gillette Stadium, home of the Pats, also has the system installed.

There is so much more in this universe than electric cars and solar/wind. Solid oxide fuel cells that eliminate the energy grid which is the real vulnerability can be powered by nat gas, at a much less atmospheric impact than what we are now using, or hydrogen, which has no environmental impact. The long term solution to energy is not substituting oil producer producer A for oil producer B. It is in eliminating the centralized grid weakness, where energy is transmitted from a central source, (utility), across a vulnerable grid, (see California's problems). On site production is the solution, and many have figured this out, Google, ATT, Home Depot, Verizon, WalMart, Staples etc. It goes on and on.

There are no good nuclear options. Only when faced with the end of the regime. Israel considered it in the early days of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, but that option quickly changed when events turned in their favor. I have no doubt they would employ them if Iran got close to ending the state of Israel.

And it's really good stuff.

I'm not sure this three party agreement to get Mig 29's to Ukraine is going to be effective. Where are they going to base them? I cannot imagine that Ukrainian air bases are still operational, or would be within the time frame required. I'm unsure of the differences between Polish Mig variants and those provided to the Ukraine Air Force. Sometimes the differences are minor, sometimes they're not. Anyway, not sure this is going to matter.

That isn't going to happen.

I am commenting based on my experience, which is seven years of planning against them, the last two and a half an an adversary pilot, studying their tactics and weapons and presenting them to US fighters and other air forces. The US performance in Iraq was military nearly flawless. This is a a strange non use of capability, terrible planning and poor execution. The lack of a professional NCO group is obvious, but their Air Force sitting on the sidelines is puzzling.

Of course they're going to defeat Ukraine, but it's going to be the most pyrrhic victory in memory. Russia becomes economically and politically isolated and loathed by every nation on earth except its satellites. As well, the Russian military performance has been abysmal. Embarrassing actually. Alliances in opposition to them are tuned up and strengthened. Passive states like Germany, are changing to a far more hostile view of them, and countries like Finland and Sweden have become NATO friendly. Even historically neutral Switzerland is participation in sanctions, and it's hard to believe the "occupation" phase is going to go well for them.

Absolutely no blame. That coup failed and Chavez returned to power. Know he he got that power? You guessed it, a coup. Either way, no blame is due the US for any of that. The US simply knew the unfolding tragedy he would cause before he knew it. Either way, he was back in power quickly and started his tragic realm. Among the many things I listed in my original post that caused this economic and humanitarian tragedy that were firmly caused my the Chavez regime, I forgot to mention he completely trashed the currency, which happens when you trash the economy by expropriating, (stealing), entire industries leading to dramatic failures, stole money from foreign businesses providing needed services to that country resulting in them leaving, and caused a massive exodus of capital and talent, and causing the worst domestic crime environment in the hemisphere. None of that was caused by anyone other than him. Shoot. The country was so screwed up when he died that they couldn't even mummify him. They tried to do what the Chinese did to Mao, which was chemically treat him so he could be on display, but waited too long and his corpse was already rotting. Good thing for him, because if he was displayed, as pissed as the folks got at him, it would not have ended well for the mummy.

At the risk of "thread creep," Venezuela's problems are entirely self inflicted. By the way, they recently, two days ago I think, condemned the rest of the world's sanctions against Russia in the wake of their Ukraine invasion. The Chavez gov nationalized their oil industry to fund his adventures trying to spread the "Bolivarian Revolution" across South America and beyond. Utter failure and he destroyed that industry among others he nationalized. He then rigged the legislature, rigged the courts, changed the constitution to ensure he could stay in power, courted Syria, Iran and Russia while harassing the US, and US diplomats based in Caracas at every opportunity, and constantly poking his neighbor, Colombia. He set his acolyte, Maduro, up to succeed him and the downward spiral continued with a massive exodus of talent to escape the nonsense. Venezuela is an entirely self caused, unforced error. The US deserves no blame for their tragedy.

Well, for starters, how ' bout any rationalization that explains Putin "carpet bombing" a Ukraine city, a preposterous idea that you brought up.

😄 Where do you dream up this stuff?