sherpa

I expect you're using "nuke" figuratively. If he ever used a nuclear weapon against a city there would be no turning back. It is simply unthinkable, and I am starting to doubt his military would obey a clearly illegal order.

I'm kind of up to speed on at least the air and air delivered stuff, and we've got very interesting "new and improved" systems, and are working on even cooler stuff, like drone wingmen. What is important is that we prevent them from getting into the wrong hands, something that was incredibly poorly handled when we quit Afghanistan. Ultimately that stuff ends up in the middle east somewhere.

Always sounds attractive. The problem is that when you realize that a lot of "stuff" sold to relatively unreliable govs ends up in the hands of very bad people, and the market for those type of things is really avtive.

Just an observation from my view. Flying supersonic requires huge fuel consumption, something Russians don't have I seriously doubt any sounds are from sonic booms.

Now fully focused, and exceeding expectations. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60771210 It gets better and better with this thing. Amazing stuff to come in the next few months, and that's just the start. Webb is going to be amazing.

You can overcome lots of things. You cannot overcome other world obnoxiousness. When the Secret Service views an assignment to cover you as punishment, you've got serious people problems.

I am proud of you Tibs. There are a few components to that link. One is the drastic diminution of the Russian Air Force and their obvious inability to coordinate and support their ground forces. Two is the obvious lack of training, especially in close air support, which is training and com intense. Three is something we have always known from debriefing, which is that the Russians have limited capability to prevent friendly shoot downs. They simply haven't cared. Four is that Putin is screwed. His only out card is a NATO intervention. Th last ten minutes or so discuss that in detail.

A very reasonable, accurate assessment of many issues tht have come up in this thread, specifically, the air war. The guy with the Navy shirt on is Ward Carroll, a retired F-14 RIO, (back seater). Many things I have mentioned are explained in detail, ie., no fly zone, providing airplanes etc. Time spent watching this is far better spent than watching the TV nonsense spewed out by ignorant "hosts." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBARgW_vHVE&t=79s

Putin has been out of touch with reality for quite a while. His military isn't anywhere near what he thought it would be. His ability to strike fear is gone, except for the very real threat of nuclear options. A dictator who surrounds himself with people who only tell him what he wants to hear is ultimately ill-informed. The Russian military has been lying and misleading their leaders for years. That's what happens when you are underfunded and need to keep your career on track. This has been suspected for years, and now is grossly obvious to the entire world.

That's a different issue. I'm doubtful that anyone would ever propose forcing homeowners and businesses to retro fit from nat gas or other heating systems to heat pumps in New York State, a state remarkably unfit for heat pump heating. The suggestion is preposterous, wouldn't work, and necessitate a massive increase in electrical utility capacity.

I've got to waive the caution flag on the veracity of this one. Sorry, but I can't believe there is any way that anyone is going to legislate that homeowners eliminate existing heating systems and install different ones. That would be an immense expense per building. Further, heat pumps are great as AC and will heat OK down to about 45 degrees ambient. Once you get below that, their efficiency falls off dramatically. Get below about 40 and you are going to need the supplemental heat they use, which is resistance heating. Running a toaster is the same. Extremely expensive. We have custom built the last three houses we've lived in, and did a ton of research on HVAC. One was in the Chicago suburbs with nat gas. The next was in Central Virginia, with geothermal. Worked great. The one we are built here is heat pump, but supplemented with three LP direct vent fireplaces. Our winter temps are rarely below freezing. I would never live in a house in New York State with a heat pump. What would happen is that people would install woodstoves and other far less clean options to be comfortable. Still, I can't believe that any state would mandate the type of heating system used. California, potentially, but only in new construction.

I'm not sure what their efficiency is in this new tragedy, but this link points out direct ways to donate regarding the issue: https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/9-highly-rated-charities-donate-safely-to-help-ukraine

Just insanity. Glad nobody in that decision making chain had the same view. Let's take two squadrons of our most advances airplanes and place them as bait on an airfield that could easily be taken out.

As I said, and will again, this is covered ground. Page 128 of this thread has my response, so kindly stop asking the same stuff.

You. Th guy that claimed that deploying two fighter squadrons to the Ukraine was a good idea. The guy that claimed that this could be done with drones. The guy that we were jamming the Russian Air Force resulting in them being "blind." Now the guy that suggests that this British system is the only one that tracks after being shot. Covered ground.

I think it's kind of funny to watch you attempt to familiarize yourself with this kind of stuff. Your knowledge base is remarkably limited.

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.