sherpa

I am not interested in what Ukraine is suggesting. I am interested in how they will be used as an anti missile platform. I am also interested in how it is a good idea to use them on unimproved, Soviet/Russia grid pattern runways, which they are not designed to operate on, and how they will handle the hydrazine issue, peculiar to the F-16. The Swedish Gripen is a much better alternative.

My "level of thought" is based on years and years of following the energy markets closely. Anyway, Chevron was one of the few that took the risk of not scaling back, and their shareholders have been rewarded. They are working on a major Med project off Israel that will hopefully go well. Anyway, there is absolutely no doubt that Biden promised to end drilling. The admin also had an impact on refining and transportation regs. I could spend hours talking about this, and pointing out specifics that were done, but it simply doesn't matter. Your view, and his thrust, which started in the debates and continued well beyond his first day in office signings are not something I need to take my time to explain. Governor after governor and senator after senator of oil producing states talk about this all the time. You are either not a consumer of non administration, objective stuff that is out on a daily basis, or a Karin Jean-Pierre devotee. Not my concern.

You've lost me here. How is the F-16 an "anti missile platform?"

Just a little trivia. The F-22's used the call sign "Frank," in tribute to Frank Luke, who was a US pilot who shot down 14 German balloons during WW1, and for whom Luke Air Force Base outside Phoenix is named.

In true military form, the balloon has already been painted on the side of the Sidewinder F-22. Not sure how it would have gone in the Langley O'Club last night, but probably fun.

Evidently, there was no warhead on the Sidewinder that hit it, in order to limit payload damage. So...Simply an arrow through the thing.

Yep. If they did it again it should be considered an act of war and shooting them down would be the correct response.

Of course they could, and they do. My daughter is part of the management team of just such a company that was purchased be a very large oil company. They could also invest in any number of other things. Fortunately, they are publicly traded corporations that have to answer to shareholders, and they are very good at what they do, so they do it.

Come on. A combatant would be engaged immediately. Anyway, I think the thing should have been shot down as soon as it entered US airspace, unless there was some intel benefit to watching it, and tapping its upload for whatever data it was transmitting. In addition, doing the "kinetic" kill not only means the balloon and its payload, but also the remnants of a very small missile, or bullets or whatever else was used to puncture it. All that aside, this thing flew over areas that a small plane could fly over at a couple thousand feet. Not exactly a threat to security.

You are way too far gone to ever entice me to have a discussion with you. Simply not worth the effort. One needs look no further than Biden's first day in office, when combined with a modicum of knowledge of the energy markets to see where this administration has steered things. He had a huge bit of bad luck when the Russians did what they did, but there isn't a rational soul that believes his posture on fossil fuel has been non impactful. His desperate, and failed, cries to the Saudis and the touchy feely with Venezuela were a tacit expression of his failure. " Of course, one reason why the capital availability is extremely limited is because of the fear that President Biden and administration officials like Energy Sec. Jennifer Granholm, Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen and Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg have created with their constant statements that their goal is to get rid of the industry entirely over the next decade. Never mind that this is a physical and economic impossibility, the reality that that is the overarching goal of the current leadership at the federal level has the inevitable impact of destroying investors’ willingness to commit billions of dollars to long-term energy infrastructure projects, or aggressive drilling programs designed to rapidly increase domestic production." https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2022/09/20/bidens-kind-of-insane-energy-policies-have-created-an-entirely-rational-investor-response/?sh=45e5994d174d

You find that to be "hilarioius?" China was never a participant, and Russia had been violating the agreement since inception, thus the US withdrawal. A decent idea in the 50's when it was first considered, but totally useless to the US and with repeated Russian violations, it was common sense to get out. Either way, absolutely nothing to do with this Chinese balloon thing.

Wrong about what? I never dodge. Two energy companies reported record earnings having nothing to do with new drilling. The earnings were because of increased commodity costs on a commodity they produce which this president moron had a hand in the price of that commodity going up, a commodity which he has specifically mentioned he wants gone. Is this hard?

I really don't think you guys get this. Chevron and Exxon reported this week. Both CEO's were interviewed extensively on CNBC. The business they are in takes years from exploration to drilling to refining to sales. Five years at least. The companies that continued to produce, in spite of the Biden nonsense, benefitted from him participating in making their already existing investments and ultimate production worth much more money than otherwise, coincident with western Europe making itself, through stupid decisions, more reliant on now unreliable Russian sources. It has been quite apparent over the years that you have no idea about this stuff, so it's all a surprise.

Are you completely economically ignorant? What did Biden say in debate.....Here's a hint....."No new drilling anywhere" Not on any land and not offshore. What did Biden do his first day in office? What do you think was the effect of that on energy prices when the whole of western Europe was threatened with supply issues?

Every once in a while the Chinese do something really ridiculous. Having a Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman state that they had no intention of violating Us airspace when there are thousands of people looking at the exact, real time direct violation, is right up their alley. The winds aloft in the middle of winter are the most predictable of the entire year. If you launch this thing west of the Aleutian Islands, it sure as hell is going to violate US and Canadian airspace. Admittedly, this thing is in the stratosphere where the winds are much lighter than at air travel routes, but you're guaranteed the thing is going east. More interesting would be to know if it is transmitting, and what.

An extremely limited extent, and the minute the US got concerned about their loitering or intel capability they would be dealt with.

You can't control the navigation of these things once they're launched. They travel with the wind.

In the interest if fairness, he mentioned "planes and tanks and trains" with American pilots and crews. That was conveniently left out. That isn't what the Abrams tanks announcement includes. It doesn't matter if it's the false accusation that Trump was talking about white supremacist's in his "good people on both sides" quote that completely ignored context or this one, they are misleading. By the way "trains?" I guess that was Biden just being Biden.

How about lying under oath? The man's law license was suspended. He absolutely broke the law.

I'm guessing most of these are probably briefing documents. The National Archives would not be involved. We used to get many classified documents every day. National Archives was never involved, and they were never logged. We'd read them and destroy them.

Regarding the F-16, again, the Swedish Gripen makes way more sense, on so many levels.

Again, who are "these people" who think that "Russia does better," or that Putin is a master strategist." Please don't say Trump. That makes no sense and is preposterous.

Who are these people you suggest are hoping that Russia does better? Nobody I know or care about. Anyway, the first step towards military defeat is thinking the next time will be the same as the last time. The Russians have had a year to look over their failure, and it's a near certainty, as well as factually observable that they have learned at least a few lessons.

Thankfully, tens of thousands of lives and a nation's future don't depend on waiting for "what you see."

Ever hear the phrase "Past performance is not indicative of future results?" Military folks must never rely on continued, gross misjudgments. Putin has likely learned quite a bit about his military and the inputs he received. Make no mistake, the Russians have a lot of capability and seemingly not much interest in limiting their own casualties. We are where he thought we'd be months ago; betting if NATO and the west has the stomach to bear the burden of wearing him out. So far, he's looked the fool. I'm guessing he got a lot smarter and the net few months will be really ugly.