And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
There were a large number of Soviet nukes that Ukraine inherited by virtue of them being based in their territory.
Under the Budapest Accords Ukraine gave these up in return for security guarantees from Russia, various western countries etc
As of course did Kazakhstan.
Am I right in thinking the only country to have given up an independent nuclear weapon voluntarily is South Africa?
Interesting answers from Nicola Sturgeon this morning on legal advice around IndyRef2
Should be said an appeal of the Commissioner's ruling has to be on a point of law, rather than on his judgement of public interest
I have my doubts Ministers will bother to challenge..
But noteworthy the FM refused to commit outright to publish it, instead saying they will consider the ruling (which doesn't leave much wiggle room) and on the line the Government will comply fully with the law
Any further appeal by the Scot Gov would go to the Court of Session
Brilliant header, viewcode. Thanks. You've also given me yet more books to add to my reading list to fill my own gaps.
Talking of which, thanks for the recommendation of “Flying Blind” a few weeks back. Good (if sobering) read.
Yep. The style began to irk by the end, but very important message re corporate culture and how easily it is destroyed for anyone working in safety* in high consequence environments.
*Actually, I should probably delete the words 'in safety'
Yes, very much so. I’m writing out a summary for the management team at work, as a case study in how quickly things can go wrong if you stop focussing on them.
I’m also reading the fantastically-titled “This Is How They Tell Me The World Ends” by Nicole Perlroth, about the rise in cyber-weapons. My summary of that book is designed to scare the sh!t out of them (and give me an enhanced cybersecurity budget for next year!).
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
There were a large number of Soviet nukes that Ukraine inherited by virtue of them being based in their territory.
Under the Budapest Accords Ukraine gave these up in return for security guarantees from Russia, various western countries etc
As of course did Kazakhstan.
Am I right in thinking the only country to have given up an independent nuclear weapon voluntarily is South Africa?
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
Only 3 councils in the East Midlands are having elections on Thursday. Lincoln, Derby, Amber Valley. Lincoln will be interesting because it's a top Labour target at the GE.
To have any chance of Lab majority I suspect Amber valley needs to fall Lab as well.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
There were a large number of Soviet nukes that Ukraine inherited by virtue of them being based in their territory.
Under the Budapest Accords Ukraine gave these up in return for security guarantees from Russia, various western countries etc
As of course did Kazakhstan.
Am I right in thinking the only country to have given up an independent nuclear weapon voluntarily is South Africa?
No - Ukraine gave them up per the above
Were they independent nuclear weapons though?
No - they didn’t have the maintenance or production facilities.
Given the decay rate of tritium, for a start, the helium contamination problem would have made the weapons (assuming all h bombs) duds in short order. A year or 2. Pulling the tritium capsules (if possible) would turn them (maybe) into very low yield a bombs, but that would require knowledge of the design to know if that would work
“Ms Denton, a South African-born former tour guide, has also decided not to attend a hustings in Frome, near Bath, because she does not think “nasty” locals in the town will give her a fair hearing.”
Frome is up there with Hebden Bridge, Totnes and perhaps Bishops Castle and Stroud as a bastion of hand-knitted, organic progressive politics. If the Conservatives ever thought attending a hustings there would be a good idea then I have serious doubts about their strategy.
So 'progressive' means not listening to what a candidate has to say?
She didn't say they wouldn't listen, just that they wouldn't listen "fairly". Which is Tory talk for not accepting the absolute pack of lies being offered and being nasty by producing facts and lived experience examples demonstrating how the Tory hasn't a clue.
Its very difficult to debate with people when alt-fact has embedded in their brains. Anyway, it won't have been the town refusing to debate, it will have been the Tory. Whilst shrieking I'M BEING SILENCED or something.
Okay, I'll take issue with this. firstly, I was responding to what the previous poster wrote, not the candidate. Secondly, 'alt-facts' are everywhere in politics, in all parties. The more you get into politics, and particularly a political party, the deeper the 'alt-facts' can get. I'm certainly not immune to them; and I bet you are not either.
When you canvas, are you really sure that *everything* you say is the true, unvarnished truth? No exaggerations or simplifications to make someone more likely to vote for you?
You are an intelligent chap, you know the boundaries between political spin and open lies. Its absolutely the case that all parties have said things that are silly - I will proffer various LD bar charts as evidence from my own lot.
But there is a massive difference between that and open lies on pretty much every subject. The Tories get pulled up for lying on almost every subject these days - usually by people like the ONS. they say "I didn't say that", then get played the clip of them saying that, and respond with "no no no its you biased media types making it up".
There has never been a party in government or close to it that has build its entire ethos on lies like this one. When you call it out they get uppity. And that "I'VE BEEN CANCELLED" approach is what this candidate is doing. Nobody has said she isn't welcome. But as they will challenge lies with evidence she won't go.
Let's take a simple and topical example: Rayner's apology over her 'scum' comment. Many on here call her apology heartfelt, commendable and good: to the extent she cannot be criticised for her original comment. Yet the 'facts' are that she initially refused to apologise, and only apologised a month later (after a fellow MP was murdered). An opinion - her apology was good - becomes in the minds of many a 'fact' that you cannot argue with, and if you do argue, it's because you're the bad person.
I have made some statements there that can be backed up: *) she made the 'scum' comment; *) she refused to apologise; *) she eventually apologised after a month; *) and that was after a colleague was murdered.
I don't think these can be disputed. What can be disputed is whether those facts make her apology a 'good' or a 'bad' one. But that's opinion.
Yet people take these and, because they like her, or like her party, or agree with her, they turn them into a 'fact' that her apology means that she cannot be criticised for her original comment.
And yet when someone they don't like does something - say a Tory MP - then *no* apology, however immediate, however heartfelt, can ever be genuine.
Facts, eh?
An odd example - "Tories are scum" is an opinion. What we're talking about are Tory claims on the economy or jobs. "Factual" claims which get demolished by their own Office for National Statistics. These are not opinions - we can't have a government which just openly lies about this stuff. Regardless of periphera about opinion.
I'm talking not about her original comment, but about the way people reacted to it, glossing over it in a way that (in my opinion) is invalid. They have created their own facts over it, when in fact it is just their opinions. And the gloss wears thin when a similar situation applies to someone they don't like ....
And I don't know where you were during the Blair years, but there were plenty of (ahem) 'massaging' of stats during their time in power.
Again there is a difference between massage - spin - and open lies. On the Rayner thing lets assume the worst and that she both said Tories are scum and then was insincere with her apology. We can all live with that, it is politics. Both sides say various personal things about each other and react to their reactions and so on. Whilst how nasty these get will ebb and flow they will never go away.
What is new is a government which lies to its own people who then say please tell us more lies. To pull this back to the original subject, my experience of presenting facts to Tories who are bent on presenting the official lie is that they don't like it. When your spin line has some facts in it (albeit distorted) there is something you can anchor back to. When your spin line has been slapped down by the ONS in a "stop saying this untrue thing" letter you don't have anywhere to go.
Oh come on - do you really think that's new?
To this extent? Yes. "Its always been like this" is an excuse for what they are doing to allow them to keep doing it. We're seeing the chipping away of the standards and rules that preserve our entire political system.
I'm not excuse-making - and I deplore it. But they are old and tried methods, and pretending that it is novel behaviour is a little off.
Generally: if you want truth in politics and life, make sure you try to tell the truth yourself. If you want fairness, be fair yourself. This is where many - perhaps all - politicos fall down. Things become true if said by 'your' team; untrue if said by your opponents. Things are 'fair' if done by 'your' team; unfair if done by your opposition.
One thing that boils my p*ss about politics in this country is that there is actually a broad consensus. Most of us agree on lots of things - but politics is about accentuating the differences that divide us, rather than consolidating the things that bind us. The devil is literally in the details.
Very well put. Although my politics are different to many on here I know I would agree with most on here on most topics. Invariably common sense prevails on most things. Only one poster comes to mind where I would find that impossible. It is a shame politicians fail to do this except in extreme circumstances. When competing for votes it is also a shame we can't focus on real differences rather than made up ones.
I am going to a dinner party tonight which is set to discuss democracy and whether it has a future. The point you have both made is interesting. In extremis democracies do have the ability to come together for the common good. Think of the national government in WW2 for example. But all too often we waste our energy arguing the small stuff or making absurd equivalences, so Boris's inability to tell the truth somehow gets equiperated with Putin's tendency to murder his opponents, for example.
The question I am grappling with is whether this tendency to argue about everything and focus on small differences rather than the general consensus is a weakness or a strength and whether the answer to that question changes over time. I am toying with the idea that progress would be very difficult without that friction. Change is never easy and is undoubtedly helped by monomaniacs. OTOH social media has both increased the volume of that discourse to a point that is chaotic and deafening whilst at the same time siloing it so we no longer speak to each other but like minded individuals within an algorithimic bubble.
My tentative conclusion is that the risk reward ratio of internal disputation has evolved not necessarily to our advantage. Whether that so weakens western democracies so that the cannot prevail against autocracies remains to be seen but it is certainly no longer a given that that is so.
On your first paragraph, the later Prof. Parkinson had a good essay on how we focussed on that which we knew about, and could understand, as opposed to that which we had to think about hard and long. In his example and electricity generating company spent about 15 minutes on a new generating plant, because the Chair had a favoured supplier and the only other person in the room who could challenge him didn't have enough facts with which to do so. They spent the best part of an hour on new staff cycle shed, because everyone present could comprehend what was being done. As with many other examples, Parkinson could provoke a discussion.
One of my former partners had the paperclip theory of meetings. He would propose that the firm should acquire triangular shaped paperclips rather than the oval ones. This idea was so morally offensive everyone in the room would exhaust themselves trying to find a more extreme metaphor to show its wrongness. Once everyone was exhausted he would ask for the extra £100k he wanted for a new computer program which would inevitably go through on the nod.
Of course he only revealed this to me after I had left!
I used to sit through hundreds of hours of software specification reviews. These would often degenerate into arguments and discussions on spec formats, spelling, the format of diagrams and other ephemera.
A really good boss I had would say at the beginning: "mark up your copies of the specs with any spelling or grammatical errors, and hand them to the author at the end of the meeting."
Hence we'd spend more time actually discussing what the spec said, rather than how it said it.
Does the Post Office scandal surprise you? A software error that no-one wanted to admit to.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
At a time while in the USSR, they would also have had chemical weapons. I believe that there were multiple storage sites in Ukraine, but I have not found any reference to production sites.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
Thank you to all those who read my article, including those who rubbished it. I try to avoid the comments section but if anybody wants to discuss it, let me know and I'll include you in a backchannel conversation for tomorrow (Tues). The published article is a third the size of the original, the latest version of which includes maps and sources: if anybody wants a copy, let me know and I'll send you one via PM.
@Stocky: I don't know the answer to your question. The best I can say is you never get to choose who you fight with, but you can choose where to fight. We fight him in Ukraine or in the next stones...
@TimT: Here's a booklist for Zeihan: "The Accidental Superpower" (2014), "The Absent Superpower" (2017), "Disunited Nations" (2020) , "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" (2022)
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
There’s a recent video somewhere showing him defending the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine in front of a hostile audience. I don’t think he’s the real problem, so much as the entrenched consensus of the last thirty years.
Indeed he should be encouraged for his gradual change of mind, as much as critiqued for past mistakes.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
There were a large number of Soviet nukes that Ukraine inherited by virtue of them being based in their territory.
Under the Budapest Accords Ukraine gave these up in return for security guarantees from Russia, various western countries etc
As of course did Kazakhstan.
Am I right in thinking the only country to have given up an independent nuclear weapon voluntarily is South Africa?
Canada, Japan and Sweden all had very near capability which they forewent.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
Thanks. Another good museum in the US is the one at Oak Ridge, TN. The Museum of Science and Energy. Notice how the word 'bomb' does not appear in any of these museums' names ...
Admittedly knowing nothing about the law, it seems remarkable that being on tape urging and seeking to bully elected officials into 'finding' the votes he needed would not be unlawful, even if would argue he did not mean invent when he said find.
I won't believe he'll face prosecution let alone conviction until it happens though.
Thank you to all those who read my article, including those who rubbished it. I try to avoid the comments section but if anybody wants to discuss it, let me know and I'll include you in a backchannel conversation for tomorrow (Tues). The published article is a third the size of the original, the latest version of which includes maps and sources: if anybody wants a copy, let me know and I'll send you one via PM.
@Stocky: I don't know the answer to your question. The best I can say is you never get to choose who you fight with, but you can choose where to fight. We fight him in Ukraine or in the next stones...
@TimT: Here's a booklist for Zeihan: "The Accidental Superpower" (2014), "The Absent Superpower" (2017), "Disunited Nations" (2020) , "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" (2022)
There’s a recent video somewhere showing him defending the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine in front of a hostile audience. I don’t think he’s the real problem, so much as the entrenched consensus of the last thirty years.
Indeed he should be encouraged for his gradual change of mind, as much as critiqued for past mistakes.
Yes, that was the Labour Day speech that is mentioned in my link.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
As someone who struggled with A level physics in the 50’s I am always impressed when I see what today’s students regard as ‘normal’.
I had a brilliant but deeply troubled Physics teacher who had a first from Cambridge but claimed never to have understood quantum mechanics. Sadly, he died from what I assume were complications of his alcoholism before I got to A levels.
It was only after my own undergraduate years that I realised what he was getting at - he could do the maths with ease, but what it *meant* was quite something else.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
As someone who struggled with A level physics in the 50’s I am always impressed when I see what today’s students regard as ‘normal’.
I had a brilliant but deeply troubled Physics teacher who had a first from Cambridge but claimed never to have understood quantum mechanics. Sadly, he died from what I assume we're complications of his alcoholism before I got to A levels.
It was only after my own undergraduate years that I realised what he was getting at - he could do the maths with ease, but what it *meant* was quite something else.
He was in good company. Didn't Einstein also struggle with it?
“Ms Denton, a South African-born former tour guide, has also decided not to attend a hustings in Frome, near Bath, because she does not think “nasty” locals in the town will give her a fair hearing.”
Frome is up there with Hebden Bridge, Totnes and perhaps Bishops Castle and Stroud as a bastion of hand-knitted, organic progressive politics. If the Conservatives ever thought attending a hustings there would be a good idea then I have serious doubts about their strategy.
So 'progressive' means not listening to what a candidate has to say?
She didn't say they wouldn't listen, just that they wouldn't listen "fairly". Which is Tory talk for not accepting the absolute pack of lies being offered and being nasty by producing facts and lived experience examples demonstrating how the Tory hasn't a clue.
Its very difficult to debate with people when alt-fact has embedded in their brains. Anyway, it won't have been the town refusing to debate, it will have been the Tory. Whilst shrieking I'M BEING SILENCED or something.
Okay, I'll take issue with this. firstly, I was responding to what the previous poster wrote, not the candidate. Secondly, 'alt-facts' are everywhere in politics, in all parties. The more you get into politics, and particularly a political party, the deeper the 'alt-facts' can get. I'm certainly not immune to them; and I bet you are not either.
When you canvas, are you really sure that *everything* you say is the true, unvarnished truth? No exaggerations or simplifications to make someone more likely to vote for you?
You are an intelligent chap, you know the boundaries between political spin and open lies. Its absolutely the case that all parties have said things that are silly - I will proffer various LD bar charts as evidence from my own lot.
But there is a massive difference between that and open lies on pretty much every subject. The Tories get pulled up for lying on almost every subject these days - usually by people like the ONS. they say "I didn't say that", then get played the clip of them saying that, and respond with "no no no its you biased media types making it up".
There has never been a party in government or close to it that has build its entire ethos on lies like this one. When you call it out they get uppity. And that "I'VE BEEN CANCELLED" approach is what this candidate is doing. Nobody has said she isn't welcome. But as they will challenge lies with evidence she won't go.
Let's take a simple and topical example: Rayner's apology over her 'scum' comment. Many on here call her apology heartfelt, commendable and good: to the extent she cannot be criticised for her original comment. Yet the 'facts' are that she initially refused to apologise, and only apologised a month later (after a fellow MP was murdered). An opinion - her apology was good - becomes in the minds of many a 'fact' that you cannot argue with, and if you do argue, it's because you're the bad person.
I have made some statements there that can be backed up: *) she made the 'scum' comment; *) she refused to apologise; *) she eventually apologised after a month; *) and that was after a colleague was murdered.
I don't think these can be disputed. What can be disputed is whether those facts make her apology a 'good' or a 'bad' one. But that's opinion.
Yet people take these and, because they like her, or like her party, or agree with her, they turn them into a 'fact' that her apology means that she cannot be criticised for her original comment.
And yet when someone they don't like does something - say a Tory MP - then *no* apology, however immediate, however heartfelt, can ever be genuine.
Facts, eh?
An odd example - "Tories are scum" is an opinion. What we're talking about are Tory claims on the economy or jobs. "Factual" claims which get demolished by their own Office for National Statistics. These are not opinions - we can't have a government which just openly lies about this stuff. Regardless of periphera about opinion.
I'm talking not about her original comment, but about the way people reacted to it, glossing over it in a way that (in my opinion) is invalid. They have created their own facts over it, when in fact it is just their opinions. And the gloss wears thin when a similar situation applies to someone they don't like ....
And I don't know where you were during the Blair years, but there were plenty of (ahem) 'massaging' of stats during their time in power.
Again there is a difference between massage - spin - and open lies. On the Rayner thing lets assume the worst and that she both said Tories are scum and then was insincere with her apology. We can all live with that, it is politics. Both sides say various personal things about each other and react to their reactions and so on. Whilst how nasty these get will ebb and flow they will never go away.
What is new is a government which lies to its own people who then say please tell us more lies. To pull this back to the original subject, my experience of presenting facts to Tories who are bent on presenting the official lie is that they don't like it. When your spin line has some facts in it (albeit distorted) there is something you can anchor back to. When your spin line has been slapped down by the ONS in a "stop saying this untrue thing" letter you don't have anywhere to go.
Oh come on - do you really think that's new?
To this extent? Yes. "Its always been like this" is an excuse for what they are doing to allow them to keep doing it. We're seeing the chipping away of the standards and rules that preserve our entire political system.
I'm not excuse-making - and I deplore it. But they are old and tried methods, and pretending that it is novel behaviour is a little off.
Generally: if you want truth in politics and life, make sure you try to tell the truth yourself. If you want fairness, be fair yourself. This is where many - perhaps all - politicos fall down. Things become true if said by 'your' team; untrue if said by your opponents. Things are 'fair' if done by 'your' team; unfair if done by your opposition.
One thing that boils my p*ss about politics in this country is that there is actually a broad consensus. Most of us agree on lots of things - but politics is about accentuating the differences that divide us, rather than consolidating the things that bind us. The devil is literally in the details.
Very well put. Although my politics are different to many on here I know I would agree with most on here on most topics. Invariably common sense prevails on most things. Only one poster comes to mind where I would find that impossible. It is a shame politicians fail to do this except in extreme circumstances. When competing for votes it is also a shame we can't focus on real differences rather than made up ones.
I am going to a dinner party tonight which is set to discuss democracy and whether it has a future. The point you have both made is interesting. In extremis democracies do have the ability to come together for the common good. Think of the national government in WW2 for example. But all too often we waste our energy arguing the small stuff or making absurd equivalences, so Boris's inability to tell the truth somehow gets equiperated with Putin's tendency to murder his opponents, for example.
The question I am grappling with is whether this tendency to argue about everything and focus on small differences rather than the general consensus is a weakness or a strength and whether the answer to that question changes over time. I am toying with the idea that progress would be very difficult without that friction. Change is never easy and is undoubtedly helped by monomaniacs. OTOH social media has both increased the volume of that discourse to a point that is chaotic and deafening whilst at the same time siloing it so we no longer speak to each other but like minded individuals within an algorithimic bubble.
My tentative conclusion is that the risk reward ratio of internal disputation has evolved not necessarily to our advantage. Whether that so weakens western democracies so that the cannot prevail against autocracies remains to be seen but it is certainly no longer a given that that is so.
The other way of looking it is that democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a well run civilised society. If I have any core political belief, it is the importance of pluralism. While having democracy is an important part of encouraging that, you need resilient institutions well beyond just holding elections every few years.
Go to go and get some work done. Just back from a long and interesting work trip to Azerbaijan, travelling around much of the country. Off again on Friday, so much to get done in little time.
But here is why I love coming back to MD, even after the most interesting of trips. The view from my office this morning:
Taken through the fly screen, so apologies for that.
And another very interesting piece on Sky suggesting a big divide with Labour failing to make a breakthrough in northern towns and former industrial heartlands:
Why are deprived red wall areas still sticking with Boris despite everything?
In more gloom for opposition to Boris, the DT front page headline that Sue Gray report is far from unbiased now, as a Tory hating member of the Labour Party has helped create it, has already done the rounds in express and mail.
What is the PB take on this? Tories seem at least on way if not already there neutralising Sue Report as a threat to Boris, whenever published - what MP could use it to try to oust Boris when it’s impartiality from party politics is now questioned like this? 🤔
“Ms Denton, a South African-born former tour guide, has also decided not to attend a hustings in Frome, near Bath, because she does not think “nasty” locals in the town will give her a fair hearing.”
Frome is up there with Hebden Bridge, Totnes and perhaps Bishops Castle and Stroud as a bastion of hand-knitted, organic progressive politics. If the Conservatives ever thought attending a hustings there would be a good idea then I have serious doubts about their strategy.
So 'progressive' means not listening to what a candidate has to say?
She didn't say they wouldn't listen, just that they wouldn't listen "fairly". Which is Tory talk for not accepting the absolute pack of lies being offered and being nasty by producing facts and lived experience examples demonstrating how the Tory hasn't a clue.
Its very difficult to debate with people when alt-fact has embedded in their brains. Anyway, it won't have been the town refusing to debate, it will have been the Tory. Whilst shrieking I'M BEING SILENCED or something.
Okay, I'll take issue with this. firstly, I was responding to what the previous poster wrote, not the candidate. Secondly, 'alt-facts' are everywhere in politics, in all parties. The more you get into politics, and particularly a political party, the deeper the 'alt-facts' can get. I'm certainly not immune to them; and I bet you are not either.
When you canvas, are you really sure that *everything* you say is the true, unvarnished truth? No exaggerations or simplifications to make someone more likely to vote for you?
You are an intelligent chap, you know the boundaries between political spin and open lies. Its absolutely the case that all parties have said things that are silly - I will proffer various LD bar charts as evidence from my own lot.
But there is a massive difference between that and open lies on pretty much every subject. The Tories get pulled up for lying on almost every subject these days - usually by people like the ONS. they say "I didn't say that", then get played the clip of them saying that, and respond with "no no no its you biased media types making it up".
There has never been a party in government or close to it that has build its entire ethos on lies like this one. When you call it out they get uppity. And that "I'VE BEEN CANCELLED" approach is what this candidate is doing. Nobody has said she isn't welcome. But as they will challenge lies with evidence she won't go.
Let's take a simple and topical example: Rayner's apology over her 'scum' comment. Many on here call her apology heartfelt, commendable and good: to the extent she cannot be criticised for her original comment. Yet the 'facts' are that she initially refused to apologise, and only apologised a month later (after a fellow MP was murdered). An opinion - her apology was good - becomes in the minds of many a 'fact' that you cannot argue with, and if you do argue, it's because you're the bad person.
I have made some statements there that can be backed up: *) she made the 'scum' comment; *) she refused to apologise; *) she eventually apologised after a month; *) and that was after a colleague was murdered.
I don't think these can be disputed. What can be disputed is whether those facts make her apology a 'good' or a 'bad' one. But that's opinion.
Yet people take these and, because they like her, or like her party, or agree with her, they turn them into a 'fact' that her apology means that she cannot be criticised for her original comment.
And yet when someone they don't like does something - say a Tory MP - then *no* apology, however immediate, however heartfelt, can ever be genuine.
Facts, eh?
An odd example - "Tories are scum" is an opinion. What we're talking about are Tory claims on the economy or jobs. "Factual" claims which get demolished by their own Office for National Statistics. These are not opinions - we can't have a government which just openly lies about this stuff. Regardless of periphera about opinion.
I'm talking not about her original comment, but about the way people reacted to it, glossing over it in a way that (in my opinion) is invalid. They have created their own facts over it, when in fact it is just their opinions. And the gloss wears thin when a similar situation applies to someone they don't like ....
And I don't know where you were during the Blair years, but there were plenty of (ahem) 'massaging' of stats during their time in power.
Again there is a difference between massage - spin - and open lies. On the Rayner thing lets assume the worst and that she both said Tories are scum and then was insincere with her apology. We can all live with that, it is politics. Both sides say various personal things about each other and react to their reactions and so on. Whilst how nasty these get will ebb and flow they will never go away.
What is new is a government which lies to its own people who then say please tell us more lies. To pull this back to the original subject, my experience of presenting facts to Tories who are bent on presenting the official lie is that they don't like it. When your spin line has some facts in it (albeit distorted) there is something you can anchor back to. When your spin line has been slapped down by the ONS in a "stop saying this untrue thing" letter you don't have anywhere to go.
Oh come on - do you really think that's new?
To this extent? Yes. "Its always been like this" is an excuse for what they are doing to allow them to keep doing it. We're seeing the chipping away of the standards and rules that preserve our entire political system.
I'm not excuse-making - and I deplore it. But they are old and tried methods, and pretending that it is novel behaviour is a little off.
Generally: if you want truth in politics and life, make sure you try to tell the truth yourself. If you want fairness, be fair yourself. This is where many - perhaps all - politicos fall down. Things become true if said by 'your' team; untrue if said by your opponents. Things are 'fair' if done by 'your' team; unfair if done by your opposition.
One thing that boils my p*ss about politics in this country is that there is actually a broad consensus. Most of us agree on lots of things - but politics is about accentuating the differences that divide us, rather than consolidating the things that bind us. The devil is literally in the details.
Very well put. Although my politics are different to many on here I know I would agree with most on here on most topics. Invariably common sense prevails on most things. Only one poster comes to mind where I would find that impossible. It is a shame politicians fail to do this except in extreme circumstances. When competing for votes it is also a shame we can't focus on real differences rather than made up ones.
I am going to a dinner party tonight which is set to discuss democracy and whether it has a future. The point you have both made is interesting. In extremis democracies do have the ability to come together for the common good. Think of the national government in WW2 for example. But all too often we waste our energy arguing the small stuff or making absurd equivalences, so Boris's inability to tell the truth somehow gets equiperated with Putin's tendency to murder his opponents, for example.
The question I am grappling with is whether this tendency to argue about everything and focus on small differences rather than the general consensus is a weakness or a strength and whether the answer to that question changes over time. I am toying with the idea that progress would be very difficult without that friction. Change is never easy and is undoubtedly helped by monomaniacs. OTOH social media has both increased the volume of that discourse to a point that is chaotic and deafening whilst at the same time siloing it so we no longer speak to each other but like minded individuals within an algorithimic bubble.
My tentative conclusion is that the risk reward ratio of internal disputation has evolved not necessarily to our advantage. Whether that so weakens western democracies so that the cannot prevail against autocracies remains to be seen but it is certainly no longer a given that that is so.
The other way of looking it is that democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a well run civilised society. If I have any core political belief, it is the importance of pluralism. While having democracy is an important part of encouraging that, you need resilient institutions well beyond just holding elections every few years.
I think it was in The Narrow Corridor: How nations struggle for liberty which had a lot of arguments about needing a strong state, but not too strong, resulting in what they referred as a 'shackled leviathan' as the sweet spot between despotic and absent leviathans. There was more to it than that, and how a 'cage of norms' is what holds a lot of us back, but I remember finding it a good read.
Go to go and get some work done. Just back from a long and interesting work trip to Azerbaijan, travelling around much of the country. Off again on Friday, so much to get done in little time.
But here is why I love coming back to MD, even after the most interesting of trips. The view from my office this morning:
Taken through the fly screen, so apologies for that.
Mr. Gadfly, sadly, I've only ever seen grass nests when they'd been taken down, usually with a flurry of feathers. Got some blue tits in a box by the window, though.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
As someone who struggled with A level physics in the 50’s I am always impressed when I see what today’s students regard as ‘normal’.
I had a brilliant but deeply troubled Physics teacher who had a first from Cambridge but claimed never to have understood quantum mechanics. Sadly, he died from what I assume we're complications of his alcoholism before I got to A levels.
It was only after my own undergraduate years that I realised what he was getting at - he could do the maths with ease, but what it *meant* was quite something else.
He was in good company. Didn't Einstein also struggle with it?
Go to go and get some work done. Just back from a long and interesting work trip to Azerbaijan, travelling around much of the country. Off again on Friday, so much to get done in little time.
But here is why I love coming back to MD, even after the most interesting of trips. The view from my office this morning:
Taken through the fly screen, so apologies for that.
PS From the deck:
How much of the year is the pool usable ?
Or is it heated water ?
Heated but we don't bother with that, so late May to early October. Not opened yet this year - this is the water we need to leave in to prevent the frosts from lifting the pool out of the ground.
And another very interesting piece on Sky suggesting a big divide with Labour failing to make a breakthrough in northern towns and former industrial heartlands:
Why are deprived red wall areas still sticking with Boris despite everything?
In more gloom for opposition to Boris, the DT front page headline that Sue Gray report is far from unbiased now, as a Tory hating member of the Labour Party has helped create it, has already done the rounds in express and mail.
What is the PB take on this? Tories seem at least on way if not already there neutralising Sue Report as a threat to Boris, whenever published - what MP could use it to try to oust Boris when it’s impartiality from party politics is now questioned like this? 🤔
My take, FWIW, is that the Tories are done, and this is death throes. You’ve been overreacting to their attempts at pushback more than once.
I couldn’t call you more wrong Nigel!
Wether you like it or not, Boris Johnson’s new number 10 team are busy doing fantastic work saving big dog. Since he has put the Save Big Dog unit together he has gone from shaky position to safe. Off the record they have attacked the Gray Report authors as biased, taking the political sting out of it if Tory’s dare to use it to remove Boris they are in league with Labour. They are hollowing out Labours Partygate attack with Beergate, making it seem in voters minds Labour were doing much the same thing - not just the Tory press, the BBC and Sky keep asking this same question of Starmer legitimising it as a mainstream question. You may not like all the policy’s, but the government are fizzing with ideas and policy - Dorries privatising everything that can be and even what can’t, Patel sending to Rawanda anyone trying to get into UK illegally, right to buy is back, a law has been passed that means statues called racist and offensive can no longer be touched.
You say it’s dead government? we are only half way through a parliament and there’s lots going on, and save Big Dog make him great again Unit of the Dark Arts are very talented you must concede.
Also, it needs to be said for any Nigel’s calling the party over, here in mid term unpopularity experts are saying Labour piling up votes where they don’t need them, struggling in their heartlands, as this weeks votes could yet prove?
If the voters in Labour Red Wall heartlands are still sticking with charismatic Alpha Male Boris against over his uncharismatic opponents, Big Dog could still be there in the 2030s!
And another very interesting piece on Sky suggesting a big divide with Labour failing to make a breakthrough in northern towns and former industrial heartlands:
Why are deprived red wall areas still sticking with Boris despite everything?
In more gloom for opposition to Boris, the DT front page headline that Sue Gray report is far from unbiased now, as a Tory hating member of the Labour Party has helped create it, has already done the rounds in express and mail.
What is the PB take on this? Tories seem at least on way if not already there neutralising Sue Report as a threat to Boris, whenever published - what MP could use it to try to oust Boris when it’s impartiality from party politics is now questioned like this? 🤔
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
Interesting question. We know that the Uralvagonzavod factory at Chelyabinsk, that produced the T72, closed because of parts shortages under sanctions, but it’s not clear what other manufacturing capability exists in Russia. The closed plant was said to be the largest in the country.
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
One last one before going. Interesting thread from Gen Hertling. But this tweet stood out as to why Russia is doomed both militarily and economically until it can get over the thug leadership style:
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
As someone who struggled with A level physics in the 50’s I am always impressed when I see what today’s students regard as ‘normal’.
I had a brilliant but deeply troubled Physics teacher who had a first from Cambridge but claimed never to have understood quantum mechanics. Sadly, he died from what I assume we're complications of his alcoholism before I got to A levels.
It was only after my own undergraduate years that I realised what he was getting at - he could do the maths with ease, but what it *meant* was quite something else.
He was in good company. Didn't Einstein also struggle with it?
If quantum mechanics doesn't confuse you then you haven't understood it properly.
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
On the first point, yes, after the USSR collapsed there were nukes in Ukraine. Everyone - Americans, Russians, Brits, Germans - urged them to give them up, assuring them that they'd be safe without them. OK, they said. Hmm.
But yes, collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists with the Nazis under Bandera's leadership was a big thing for the Russian wartime generation. My mother, who was Russian-born, found it unforgivable not only that they'd collaborated (because of the Holodomor and other history) but that, knowing what we do now about the Nazis, Bandera was still celebrated by many Ukrainians as a great hero, with numerous memorials and streets named after him (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera for a fairly nuanced discussion), and the toleration of the openly neo-Nazi Azov movement added insult to injury.
The Russian invasion is naked imperialism, but it doesn't mean that Ukrainian nationalism hasn't had a dark side, interacting with Stalin's horrors to create enormous bitterness in both countries - it's why Putin's talk of "denazification" doesn't sound as outlandish to older Russians as it does to us.
That does rather ignore the fact that Stalin actively encouraged Polish and Ukrainian nationalists to practice mass murderers and ethnic cleansing on each other at the end of WWII. Stalin’s complicity in the empowerment of the most brutal elements of the states he occupied is not dissimilar to that of Hitler, though its targets were different.
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
Interesting question. We know that the Uralvagonzavod factory at Chelyabinsk, that produced the T72, closed because of parts shortages under sanctions, but it’s not clear what other manufacturing capability exists in Russia. The closed plant was said to be the largest in the country.
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
And they are just "Tommy cookers" without all the tech that they are also running short of.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Interesting answers from Nicola Sturgeon this morning on legal advice around IndyRef2
Should be said an appeal of the Commissioner's ruling has to be on a point of law, rather than on his judgement of public interest
I have my doubts Ministers will bother to challenge..
But noteworthy the FM refused to commit outright to publish it, instead saying they will consider the ruling (which doesn't leave much wiggle room) and on the line the Government will comply fully with the law
Any further appeal by the Scot Gov would go to the Court of Session
As the next GE is likely to be 2024 is it sensible for her to try and push indyref2 by end of 2023? Why not wait until the very real prospect of a hung parliament?
And if by some chance Labour did pull off an outright victory, would Keir Starmer really resist calls for a second referendum?
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
The Ukranians inherited a sizable chunk of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union post-fall.
They probably didn’t have the knowledge or resources required to maintain it though: Getting rid in return for security guarantees was probably the best deal they could have made at the time.
If they had kept the warheads, they could have melted down the plutonium to make some cruder and older style weapons
Due to the idiots in the FSB the full, detailed plans for Fat Man are open sourced.
They could easily have upgraded that to a Mk 18 - half a megaton. Depends how much enriched uranium they got. The French did a big device with plutonium IIRC - 250Kt
When you look at the actual facilities used to build the early bombs, you’d be terrified. The crucibles used for making the core of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki were made by one of the engineers. By hand. In his garage.
Two point implosion designs are probably within reach of a physics dept at a good university. The main thing is a hi speed X-ray filming capability to film implosions in slow motion.
Don't forget the quality of the explosives and timers used to produce the implosion. Also not easy engineering.
On the crudity of the facilities used in the Manhattan Project, the Museum of the Atom Bomb (officially the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History) in Albuquerque is a must. There is a photo of Fermi inserting the fuel rod into the first pile. He is literally standing on a cheap step ladder leaning out over the pile to drop the fuel in with one hand.
The science of the a bombs up was brilliant. The engineering was not exotic.
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
And brilliant though the science was in 1942, The Los Alamos Primer is totally comprehensible to an undergraduate physicist today.
As someone who struggled with A level physics in the 50’s I am always impressed when I see what today’s students regard as ‘normal’.
I had a brilliant but deeply troubled Physics teacher who had a first from Cambridge but claimed never to have understood quantum mechanics. Sadly, he died from what I assume we're complications of his alcoholism before I got to A levels.
It was only after my own undergraduate years that I realised what he was getting at - he could do the maths with ease, but what it *meant* was quite something else.
He was in good company. Didn't Einstein also struggle with it?
If quantum mechanics doesn't confuse you then you haven't understood it properly.
The depth of that is greater than in Einstein's time, too. So many weird predictions (that weren't even made in the 1950s) have been experimentally demonstrated that it is now definitively "the universe" that we *really* don't understand, rather than the theory we have devised to describe it.
(Incidentally while there was one British Nazi - John Amery - who was part Jewish, he was probably unaware of it as his father went to great lengths to conceal the fact his mother was Jewish. Hitler was not Jewish.)
"You know who else was not Jewish?" chimes in Ken Livingston.
Mr. Gadfly, sadly, I've only ever seen grass nests when they'd been taken down, usually with a flurry of feathers. Got some blue tits in a box by the window, though.
This nest had a near miss, because I initially thought it was a piece of dead branch that had fallen from a nearby larch tree. I reached to remove it, but as my hand touched it I realised my mistake. Thankfully the owner remains in residence and I suspect that hatching is imminent.
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
Interesting question. We know that the Uralvagonzavod factory at Chelyabinsk, that produced the T72, closed because of parts shortages under sanctions, but it’s not clear what other manufacturing capability exists in Russia. The closed plant was said to be the largest in the country.
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
Apparantly Russia has capacity to manufacture 250 per year in normal circumstances, so has lost between 2 and 4 years of production in 2 months of war, alongside experienced crews.
Possibly production could be ramped up, but on the other hand sanctions could bite.
Interesting answers from Nicola Sturgeon this morning on legal advice around IndyRef2
Should be said an appeal of the Commissioner's ruling has to be on a point of law, rather than on his judgement of public interest
I have my doubts Ministers will bother to challenge..
But noteworthy the FM refused to commit outright to publish it, instead saying they will consider the ruling (which doesn't leave much wiggle room) and on the line the Government will comply fully with the law
Any further appeal by the Scot Gov would go to the Court of Session
As the next GE is likely to be 2024 is it sensible for her to try and push indyref2 by end of 2023? Why not wait until the very real prospect of a hung parliament?
And if by some chance Labour did pull off an outright victory, would Keir Starmer really resist calls for a second referendum?
In what universe is right to buy, privatisation, deporting to Rwanda and statues "fizzing with ideas and policy?"
Probably in this here universe in which we exist, where the only comparator is Labour - which is completely fizzless, and has no ideas or policies at all
(Incidentally while there was one British Nazi - John Amery - who was part Jewish, he was probably unaware of it as his father went to great lengths to conceal the fact his mother was Jewish. Hitler was not Jewish.)
John Amery's last words were brilliant:-
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I've always wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
On the subject of nesting tits, I was thrilled to stumble across this work of art in my garden...
Looks like a long tailed tit nest. They are beautiful.
It is indeed. It sits atop a small yew amongst a little copse area. I worry that it's too exposed, but it fooled me initially. I think the risk will be when the forthcoming feeding frenzy draws attention to it.
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
Interesting question. We know that the Uralvagonzavod factory at Chelyabinsk, that produced the T72, closed because of parts shortages under sanctions, but it’s not clear what other manufacturing capability exists in Russia. The closed plant was said to be the largest in the country.
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
Apparantly Russia has capacity to manufacture 250 per year in normal circumstances, so has lost between 2 and 4 years of production in 2 months of war, alongside experienced crews.
Possibly production could be ramped up, but on the other hand sanctions could bite.
Interesting.
So 5 tanks per week in the whole of Russia prior to the war.
Minus the T72 factory that shut down.
Plus whatever they can ramp up at other factories (presumably older designs without the electronics), or older tanks in storage they can ‘recondition’ (which seems to be an oil change and add ammo).
Presumably, the 1,200 tanks sent on the invasion were the best 1,200 they could get their hands on, in the same way as most of the troops sent were from the better-trained units, rather than recent recruits and conscripts. They’ve lost more than half of the tanks, and more than half of the men, in only 70 days. Meanwhile, Ukraine has more tanks than at the start of the war, and some serious reinforcements coming in the next few weeks for which they are already training in Poland.
In what universe is right to buy, privatisation, deporting to Rwanda and statues "fizzing with ideas and policy?"
Probably in this here universe in which we exist, where the only comparator is Labour - which is completely fizzless, and has no ideas or policies at all
Though the fizz is perhaps that of the fuze on their own petard…
The (rancid) Orange in orange (or stripes) is probably the most recurring of all my fantasies but it's firmly in the 'believe when seen' bucket.
I'm afraid it's now been supplanted in my fantasies by "David Frost getting the Conservative nomination for Tiverton & Honiton, leading to a landslide LD win".
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
(Incidentally while there was one British Nazi - John Amery - who was part Jewish, he was probably unaware of it as his father went to great lengths to conceal the fact his mother was Jewish. Hitler was not Jewish.)
John Amery's last words were brilliant:-
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I've always wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
https://twitter.com/NoneOfY60793932/status/1521100432613031936 Congratulations to the Russian Navy on another historical first - after being the first Navy to lose a flagship to a nation with no Navy, they are now the first Navy to lose a ship (two, actually!) to a drone.
(Incidentally while there was one British Nazi - John Amery - who was part Jewish, he was probably unaware of it as his father went to great lengths to conceal the fact his mother was Jewish. Hitler was not Jewish.)
John Amery's last words were brilliant:-
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I've always wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
And another very interesting piece on Sky suggesting a big divide with Labour failing to make a breakthrough in northern towns and former industrial heartlands:
Why are deprived red wall areas still sticking with Boris despite everything?
In more gloom for opposition to Boris, the DT front page headline that Sue Gray report is far from unbiased now, as a Tory hating member of the Labour Party has helped create it, has already done the rounds in express and mail.
What is the PB take on this? Tories seem at least on way if not already there neutralising Sue Report as a threat to Boris, whenever published - what MP could use it to try to oust Boris when it’s impartiality from party politics is now questioned like this? 🤔
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack with Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
All good points, which the Times kind-of addresses
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
(Incidentally while there was one British Nazi - John Amery - who was part Jewish, he was probably unaware of it as his father went to great lengths to conceal the fact his mother was Jewish. Hitler was not Jewish.)
John Amery's last words were brilliant:-
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I've always wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
His wife was a prostitute called “Una Wing”. And he was eventually arrested by TV broadcaster Alan Whicker (who was a British officer at the time)
And his trial lasted 8 minutes?!
Bravo, Bravo
Whicker had an interesting war. He personally had to arrest a German garrison holed up in a town hall in Italy, and they gave him a trunk-full of dollar bills that admits he could have easily spirited away and retrieved after the war had he been so minded.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack with Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
All good points, which the Times kind-of addresses
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
Russia has approximately 1,500 military in Transnistria.
How much occupying do you think they're capable of ?
And even if they could how do they then attack Ukraine from the west ?
Nigel Adams, Con, Selby & Ainsty Crispin Blunt, Con, Reigate Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Margaret Beckett, Lab, Derby South Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. No SNP, no Lib Dems, no NI.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack with Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
All good points, which the Times kind-of addresses
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
Russia has approximately 1,500 military in Transnistria.
How much occupying do you think they're capable of ?
And even if they could how do they then attack Ukraine from the west ?
The implication in the article is that Moldovans secretly want to return to the warm bosom of Mother Russia, so they will do the fighting for Moscow themselves - or so Putin (allegedly) believes
Nigel Adams, Con, Selby & Ainsty Crispin Blunt, Con, Reigate Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Margaret Beckett, Lab, Derby South Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. No SNP, no Lib Dems, no NI.
Isn't it just that Labour MPs are older, following the 2019 defeat?
An interesting thesis from @viewcode in the header, though I am not sure how far it gets us.
It might well describe the Russian world view, but objectively it’s a load of nonsense. Economically, which is what has always counted in terms of power, Russia is the periphery, not the centre, and always has been.
It has a huge amount of territory, a lot of natural resources, and a history of brutal repression since it came into being. It’s brief superpower status was achieved entirely on the back of western technology.
Without nukes it doesn’t even have the potential of Africa, and is more convincingly described as hinterland for Europe and/or China than ‘Heartland’.
This whole idea of 'Heartland' just made me laugh. Look at a map like that, and maybe you could see it. But where is the terrain and weather overlay, along with the correction for the obvious bollocks of using the Mercator projection for the world (making the north look at lot bigger than the south).
Russia is very big, but is also very very empty and for good reason. It's cold and wet. This is not ideal for a superstate when over half your territory is uninhabited and uninhabitable.
Russia has long been seen (wrongly) as either a great power or a superpower. But in reality is a lot weaker than commonly believed. WWI showed it up as a paper tiger. Germany defeated it, whilst Germany was also fighting France and the UK! WWII probably would've done the same, but the SU got a lucky break in that it was supported by the US and UK. It was still far too close for comfort. Maybe in the 1950s, it truly achieved superpower status, but lost it again after Brezhnev took over.
The current Ukraine war has again shown it up, like it was shown up in WWI. It's never going to be able to conquer all of Ukraine now (and even miracle of miracles it did, it'd face a 20 year insurgency before they will be forced out). The only thing left to decide is how and when it's able to 'declare victory' and either nibble bits away or just be defeated wholesale (but Putin will still shout 'Victory! We're leaving now.")
On democracy - I actually don't think it's doing too badly. It's liberalism that is in trouble. And it's worth asking what sort of democracy you are left with without a free media, minority viewpoints and the rule of law. Orban isn't likely to abandon elections. Even Putin keeps the facade of democracy.
Simon Kuper has a book out called Chums. All about Oxford university in the 80s. The list of people passing through from the mid to late 80s is quite extraordinary: Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Simon Stevens, Frank Luntz, Jacob Rees Mogg. Conservatives tended to be active in the Union but the Labourites weren't: Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, the Milibands and post graduate Starmer tended to focus on campaigns for the miners etc. Perhaps they never learned to speak well as a result?
A newer generation appears to arrive at the end of the decade including George Osborne, Dominic Cummings and Daniel Hannan. It's a fascinating angle to take for an explanation of the frivolity of our ruling classes but judging by the reviews it seems as if Kuper has focused on it as an explanation for Brexit.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack with Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
All good points, which the Times kind-of addresses
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
They should invite the Romanians to assist in their defence. Meanwhile any attempt at an amphibious assault would be a chance for Ukraine to take out another chunk of the Black Sea fleet.
And whilst I'm on international affairs, I know it's horrendous in Ukraine but has there ever been a thread or discussion on here about the situation in Kashmir? Or Tigray? Or Yemen? Or the horrendous treatment of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar? Or Uighurs?
This isn't whataboutery. There are conflicts and wars across the globe.
The situation in Kashmir particularly gets me. What has happened in beautiful Srinigar is beyond awful.
“Message for the day: distract attention from Russian war crimes by talking about other wars”.
Oh come come. Honestly comments like that lower your own standing.
No one, least of all me, is denying the atrocities of Putin and his war crimes and no tory like yourself is in any position to pick the speck out of my eye whilst missing the bloody great moat in your own. You have trousered Putin's funds into CCHQ coffers for years, given safe haven to his cronies, allowed them to buy up companies including Chelsea FC, monopolise vast chunks of the London property market and to wash their dirty money through London.
The hypocrisy over Russia from tories is breathtaking, until you realise it's a party led by Boris Johnson.
I was merely pointing out that we ought ALSO to be vexed by other atrocities around the world and I find the response from most everyone on here to that (yourself excepted) heartening.
The bloodiest conflict of the 21st century, at least so far, has been the war in Eastern Congo with more than 5 million dead.
Certainly you are right about wars further afield being largely ignored by our press. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Ukrainians as fellow Europeans with a cutural identity not too dissimilar to our own.
The significance of Putin's genocidal war is also its direct threat of expansion into a generalised European or world war, in a way that these other bloody conflicts around the globe do not.
There are four really big engines which power interest in any particular place (like the UK for me) in wars.
The first is proximity in terms of geography. 1940, 1941.
The second is proximity in terms of our own forces engagement and risk level. Iraq yes, Congo. No.
The third is relevance to our lives. Despite distance the threat of from North Korea engages us because we really believe they might launch a nuclear attack somewhere, and the moment that happens we are involved.
The fourth is being able to distinguish between goodies and baddies. (Ukraine yes, Syria, no.)
I have a family member who is passionate about war in East Congo because they lived a long time in Uganda, though not even they can tell you about goodies and baddies.
From a UK point of view Congo wars, and most violence in Africa, fail all four. Sad but true.
That's a good analysis, though I think one can add one more: there are issues where the government of the day doesn't really want it discussed. Take Libya. Our fingerprints are all over recent history there, from cosying up to Gaddafi when he was in power (understandable, perhaps), helping persuade him to give up WMD (hooray), helping to knife him as soon as the opportunity arose (arguably a mistake, as it discourages others from giving up WMD) and then shrugging off the current chaos. Ministers don't want all this discussed, the Opposition judges that voters will find it a confusing distraftion, and the media won't invest resources in digging into it. Likewise Saudi Arabia, where we are continuing to assist a regine that domestically is much worse than most and is actually conducting a war of aggression with numerous civilian casualties.
And yet, it's important. Take the WMD issue. I bet lots of Ukrainians feel that they've been sold down the river in being persuaded to give them up. Can we honestly look the North Korean leadership in the eye and say that if they give up nuclear weapons then we'll be nice to them? And should we, given that they're an oppressive tyranny? But should we not, because otherwise they might use them?
Did the Ukrainians ever have WMD's? Incidentally I was at an international u3a discussion group a few days ago, where there was criticism of Ukrainian actions and policies during WWII. Pro German as a result of being anti-Soviet, and if it hadn't been for the Nazi's anti-Slav policies etc etc. And some at least of the people there seemed to have considerable knowledge and experience of the area and of the history.
There were a large number of Soviet nukes that Ukraine inherited by virtue of them being based in their territory.
Under the Budapest Accords Ukraine gave these up in return for security guarantees from Russia, various western countries etc
As of course did Kazakhstan.
Am I right in thinking the only country to have given up an independent nuclear weapon voluntarily is South Africa?
No - Ukraine gave them up per the above
Were they independent nuclear weapons though?
Before my time. Ex Soviet but who knows how the system worked. CertAinly a lot of nuclear material.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack with Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
All good points, which the Times kind-of addresses
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
Russia has approximately 1,500 military in Transnistria.
How much occupying do you think they're capable of ?
And even if they could how do they then attack Ukraine from the west ?
The implication in the article is that Moldovans secretly want to return to the warm bosom of Mother Russia, so they will do the fighting for Moscow themselves - or so Putin (allegedly) believes
🤷♂️🤷♂️
I know that one shouldn’t really laugh at the prospect of another thousand or two dead Russian soldiers, but there is a minimum amount of men and machines required to invite hostile territory and hold on to it afterwards, of which those numbers are somewhat short.
The Russians, of all people, should know this from what happened, oh, about a month ago north of Kiev.
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
Interesting question. We know that the Uralvagonzavod factory at Chelyabinsk, that produced the T72, closed because of parts shortages under sanctions, but it’s not clear what other manufacturing capability exists in Russia. The closed plant was said to be the largest in the country.
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
Wars always chew through stockpiles of equipment much more quickly than people expect - and I suspect that effects both sides.
With that said, the combined Western world almost certainly has both more manufacturing capabilities, and more inventory than dos Russia. And I suspect attackers suffer greater materiel loss than defenders.
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
Interesting question. We know that the Uralvagonzavod factory at Chelyabinsk, that produced the T72, closed because of parts shortages under sanctions, but it’s not clear what other manufacturing capability exists in Russia. The closed plant was said to be the largest in the country.
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
Apparantly Russia has capacity to manufacture 250 per year in normal circumstances, so has lost between 2 and 4 years of production in 2 months of war, alongside experienced crews.
Possibly production could be ramped up, but on the other hand sanctions could bite.
Sanctions have already bitten much of Russian industry. Even simple stuff like machine tool spares. I can make cutting tools for a lathe by hand, on a grinding wheel.
But that puts your machining capability back to the 1950s - a modern CNC multi-axis machine needs proper tools and eats them at a steady rate.
That’s exotic alloys, heat treating. Russia has limited ability to make such things.
One last one before going. Interesting thread from Gen Hertling. But this tweet stood out as to why Russia is doomed both militarily and economically until it can get over the thug leadership style:
In Putin's Russia, the doctrine is to steal what is needed to afford your own yacht, while assuring one's political masters that you have the strongest military in the world.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack with Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
All good points, which the Times kind-of addresses
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
They should invite the Romanians to assist in their defence. Meanwhile any attempt at an amphibious assault would be a chance for Ukraine to take out another chunk of the Black Sea fleet.
Would Romania get involved, tho?
Romania is in NATO, Moldova is not. That’s the red line here. If Romania wades in, that’s direct NATO-Russia warfare and it’s Hello WW3
Neither side wants that, so if Putin IS planning an assault on Moldova he’s probably calculating NATO will still stand aside (other than supplying arms) and he’s probably right
As @another_richard notes, however, that doesn’t make “invading Moldova” easy for Putin. He lacks weapons, men, access
However he might just try it to cause more chaos and confusion? (And divert Ukrainian efforts to their western border)
Nigel Adams, Con, Selby & Ainsty Crispin Blunt, Con, Reigate Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Margaret Beckett, Lab, Derby South Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. No SNP, no Lib Dems, no NI.
Isn't it just that Labour MPs are older, following the 2019 defeat?
This is one reason why the Conservatives "50% of our MPs will be women" is so much hogwash.
Even if every single MP standing down was replaced by a female candidate, and won, they'd be miles off.
Unless this is code for "disproportionately greater numbers of our male MPs are going to lose at the next election" of course. And that is unlikely given that female MPs are (I believe) disproportionately represented in more marginal seats - though I haven't verified that claim recently.
One of the many reasons I am keen to see Putin fall (and ideally to end up with a bullet in the back of the head) is so that Trump sees* that the life of an autocrat is far from all plane sailing.
Nigel Adams, Con, Selby & Ainsty Crispin Blunt, Con, Reigate Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Margaret Beckett, Lab, Derby South Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. No SNP, no Lib Dems, no NI.
Isn't it just that Labour MPs are older, following the 2019 defeat?
Most are not particularly old for MPs. A surprising number from 2010, though a number of holdouts from 1997 clearing the decks.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
I doubt Russia has the remaining military capability to invade Molodova.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Putin believed his own bullshit, and thinks Russia is brimming with ready reserves to throw into battle.
On democracy - I actually don't think it's doing too badly. It's liberalism that is in trouble. And it's worth asking what sort of democracy you are left with without a free media, minority viewpoints and the rule of law. Orban isn't likely to abandon elections. Even Putin keeps the facade of democracy.
Simon Kuper has a book out called Chums. All about Oxford university in the 80s. The list of people passing through from the mid to late 80s is quite extraordinary: Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Simon Stevens, Frank Luntz, Jacob Rees Mogg. Conservatives tended to be active in the Union but the Labourites weren't: Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, the Milibands and post graduate Starmer tended to focus on campaigns for the miners etc. Perhaps they never learned to speak well as a result?
A newer generation appears to arrive at the end of the decade including George Osborne, Dominic Cummings and Daniel Hannan. It's a fascinating angle to take for an explanation of the frivolity of our ruling classes but judging by the reviews it seems as if Kuper has focused on it as an explanation for Brexit.
@Heathener recommended that book yesterday for pretty much the same reasons.
I wonder if it will become a defining book on this political era.
One of the many reasons I am keen to see Putin fall (and ideally to end up with a bullet in the back of the head) is so that Trump sees* that the life of an autocrat is far from all plane sailing.
* Yeah, I know it'll make no difference
I’ve met a few Trump voters on this trip. They’re not all thick ugly racists
Some are smart and funny and admit Trump is a bit dangerous and crazy, they just believe the Woke Dems are even crazier and more dangerous. They are particularly agitated by soaring crime
Thought @Leon might appreciate my just unpacked decanter, being as it is a combination of two of his favoured topics: wine and rather phallic crafting. I like to imagine that the balls at the bottom were made with some skilful and delicate blowing.
Excellent point made on that thread: this might not be “an attack” it could simply be signs that Russians are skimping on health & safety, as they push these factories to the limit
Nigel Adams, Con, Selby & Ainsty Crispin Blunt, Con, Reigate Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Margaret Beckett, Lab, Derby South Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. No SNP, no Lib Dems, no NI.
I think I can confidently predict that Helen Morgan will retire as an MP at the next election.
An excellent and refreshingly unusual header @viewcode
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
Attack with Moldova with what and invade Ukraine from the west with what ?
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
All good points, which the Times kind-of addresses
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
Give each member of the Moldovan armed forces an NLAW. Sit back - and watch....
At the start of the conflict, Russia committed over 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65 per cent of its entire ground combat strength.
It is likely that more than a quarter of these units have now been rendered combat ineffective.
Some of Russia’s most elite units, including the VDV Airborne Forces, have suffered the highest levels of attrition. It will probably take years for Russia to reconstitute these forces.
The other day I put my finger in my backside (*) and said that, in terms of tanks and people, 50 BTG's worth of Russian capability had gone. That's 40 percent. I also gave my working
It's possible that many of those BTG's have been regenerated, but it's still one heck of a pasting. A question is how 'thin' the BTG's currently are. If a BTG is supposed to have ten tanks, how many only have seven or eight? And if one is supposed to have 800-900 people, how many are at that level of manpower?
(*) Figuratively, not literally...
Well, depending on whom exactly you believe, Russia has lost between 600 and 900 tanks of the 1,200 it went in with.
I’m surprised it’s not more than a quarter of units that have been rendered ‘combat ineffective’. Maybe a few of them have been resupplied with those barely-serviceable WWII relics that were seen heading West on trains from Siberia.
My understanding is that the tank factory that is closed is only the one producing the new, replacement tank, and that other tank factories are still operating. Does anyone know if that is true and, if so, what the current Russian tank production rate is?
Interesting question. We know that the Uralvagonzavod factory at Chelyabinsk, that produced the T72, closed because of parts shortages under sanctions, but it’s not clear what other manufacturing capability exists in Russia. The closed plant was said to be the largest in the country.
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
Wars always chew through stockpiles of equipment much more quickly than people expect - and I suspect that effects both sides.
With that said, the combined Western world almost certainly has both more manufacturing capabilities, and more inventory than dos Russia. And I suspect attackers suffer greater materiel loss than defenders.
Oh indeed. I’m not too sure that anyone in Russia expected quite the Western response they got, when it came to arming Ukraine with modern equipment and training. They have pretty much unlimited supply of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, with supplies of heavy offensive weapons coming across the border shortly.
Comments
Should be said an appeal of the Commissioner's ruling has to be on a point of law, rather than on his judgement of public interest
I have my doubts Ministers will bother to challenge..
But noteworthy the FM refused to commit outright to publish it, instead saying they will consider the ruling (which doesn't leave much wiggle room) and on the line the Government will comply fully with the law
Any further appeal by the Scot Gov would go to the Court of Session
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1521078694772719622
I’m also reading the fantastically-titled “This Is How They Tell Me The World Ends” by Nicole Perlroth, about the rise in cyber-weapons. My summary of that book is designed to scare the sh!t out of them (and give me an enhanced cybersecurity budget for next year!).
The explosives were hand poured. Then machined on converted machine tools. A guy with a dentists drill drilled into void to fill them. Some gaps were finessed with - tissue paper….
From after the effort to make the fissile material, it was all small shop engineering of the day.
These days casting explosives to interesting shapes is standard engineering - not even necessarily military engineering. There are software programs for designing shaped charge effects.
Hi speed X-ray filming (largely invented for the Manhattan project) is standard hi end university kit. With that, you can video the internals of test implosions - tune your design.
2 point implosion requires the ability to cut wires to the same length - that’s all. Even if you go old school and want 96 point implosion - go to a really good hifi shop for switching components…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_Primer
Given the decay rate of tritium, for a start, the helium contamination problem would have made the weapons (assuming all h bombs) duds in short order. A year or 2. Pulling the tritium capsules (if possible) would turn them (maybe) into very low yield a bombs, but that would require knowledge of the design to know if that would work
The FSB published that in the 90s as part of trying to prove how clever they had been in their spying.
@Stocky: I don't know the answer to your question. The best I can say is you never get to choose who you fight with, but you can choose where to fight. We fight him in Ukraine or in the next stones...
@TimT: Here's a booklist for Zeihan: "The Accidental Superpower" (2014), "The Absent Superpower" (2017), "Disunited Nations" (2020) , "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" (2022)
I'll leave you with the YouTubes:
* Mackinder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL8TLiOcF6c , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSlRr1Hw70
* Spykman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4_AexxUQfo , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5U6-qjdwQ
* Dugin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrafXfDL2CA , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z98moTOa7Y
* Nazarbayev: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgvfb-E8Tm8 (warning: very dull State release)
* Putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkrLUFAcjH0
* Zeihan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMq-OREx5Zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0CQsifJrMc , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_QvRX41Las, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kch4Z1GpNOQ
* Next Stop Moldova: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKZLrf9fQvU , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLZFzuTuiRQ
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/02/opinion/trump-georgia-fulton-county.html
I don’t think he’s the real problem, so much as the entrenched consensus of the last thirty years.
Indeed he should be encouraged for his gradual change of mind, as much as critiqued for past mistakes.
I do hope that 'Being sent to Izyum' will become the new euphemism for senior Russian military types 'being sent to the Gulag'.
I won't believe he'll face prosecution let alone conviction until it happens though.
Many thanks again.
It was only after my own undergraduate years that I realised what he was getting at - he could do the maths with ease, but what it *meant* was quite something else.
If I have any core political belief, it is the importance of pluralism. While having democracy is an important part of encouraging that, you need resilient institutions well beyond just holding elections every few years.
But here is why I love coming back to MD, even after the most interesting of trips. The view from my office this morning:
Taken through the fly screen, so apologies for that.
PS From the deck:
Full employment
Pay rises
Affordable housing
New housing estates being built everywhere
Nice new pubs and restaurants opening
These places are often far more affluent than they've ever been before, with the exception of high street shops.
Now there are still many deprived people living in such places - but they didn't vote Conservative before in any case.
And hearing talk about people struggling in the Waitrose belt doesn't hurt the Conservatives in the red wall.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-61297190
Or is it heated water ?
There are many quotes like this from many eminent scientists.
“Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense” - Roger Penrose
It must be genuinely stressful to work in a science which completely contradicts your common sense. Like being an atheist employed as a priest.
Wether you like it or not, Boris Johnson’s new number 10 team are busy doing fantastic work saving big dog. Since he has put the Save Big Dog unit together he has gone from shaky position to safe. Off the record they have attacked the Gray Report authors as biased, taking the political sting out of it if Tory’s dare to use it to remove Boris they are in league with Labour. They are hollowing out Labours Partygate attack with Beergate, making it seem in voters minds Labour were doing much the same thing - not just the Tory press, the BBC and Sky keep asking this same question of Starmer legitimising it as a mainstream question. You may not like all the policy’s, but the government are fizzing with ideas and policy - Dorries privatising everything that can be and even what can’t, Patel sending to Rawanda anyone trying to get into UK illegally, right to buy is back, a law has been passed that means statues called racist and offensive can no longer be touched.
You say it’s dead government? we are only half way through a parliament and there’s lots going on, and save Big Dog make him great again Unit of the Dark Arts are very talented you must concede.
Also, it needs to be said for any Nigel’s calling the party over, here in mid term unpopularity experts are saying Labour piling up votes where they don’t need them, struggling in their heartlands, as this weeks votes could yet prove?
https://news.sky.com/story/local-elections-2022-growing-divide-in-england-predicted-as-cities-could-swing-to-labour-while-tories-likely-to-hold-on-in-towns-12603868
If the voters in Labour Red Wall heartlands are still sticking with charismatic Alpha Male Boris against over his uncharismatic opponents, Big Dog could still be there in the 2030s!
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/03/russia-stops-tank-production-because-it-cant-get-parts-ukraine-says/
Given that they are losing 8-13 tanks per day in the war, and clearly hadn’t planned for a protracted conflict that might require stockpiling equipment, it does appear that they are rapidly becoming short of them in the field.
I’m no expert on tank manufacturing timescales, but would have thought that weeks-per-tank was a more likely measure of a factory’s output than tanks-per-week.
Mark Hertling
@MarkHertling
Our doctrine teaches commanders & subordinates to build battlefield relationships centered upon seven principles of mission command:
Competence
Mutual trust
Shared understanding
Commander's intent
Mission orders
Disciplined initiative
Risk acceptance with mitigation. 11/
Stalin’s complicity in the empowerment of the most brutal elements of the states he occupied is not dissimilar to that of Hitler, though its targets were different.
Ta
On the subject of Heartland Expansionism, the Times is reporting (££) that Russia is about to attack Moldova, so it can invade Ukraine from the west, as well
As the next GE is likely to be 2024 is it sensible for her to try and push indyref2 by end of 2023? Why not wait until the very real prospect of a hung parliament?
And if by some chance Labour did pull off an outright victory, would Keir Starmer really resist calls for a second referendum?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-says-scots-will-still-vote-in-favour-of-independence-despite-polling-dip-3677014
In 1 tweet he managed to unity his entire constituency party against him for being completely stupid.
Possibly production could be ramped up, but on the other hand sanctions could bite.
So 5 tanks per week in the whole of Russia prior to the war.
Minus the T72 factory that shut down.
Plus whatever they can ramp up at other factories (presumably older designs without the electronics), or older tanks in storage they can ‘recondition’ (which seems to be an oil change and add ammo).
Presumably, the 1,200 tanks sent on the invasion were the best 1,200 they could get their hands on, in the same way as most of the troops sent were from the better-trained units, rather than recent recruits and conscripts. They’ve lost more than half of the tanks, and more than half of the men, in only 70 days. Meanwhile, Ukraine has more tanks than at the start of the war, and some serious reinforcements coming in the next few weeks for which they are already training in Poland.
“The only true self identification is where you identify with the self that forms a perfect part of the society we are building.”
Has the Times bothered to look at a map ?
His wife was a prostitute called “Una Wing”. And he was eventually arrested by TV broadcaster Alan Whicker (who was a British officer at the time)
And his trial lasted 8 minutes?!
Bravo, Bravo
https://twitter.com/il_kanguru/status/1521081766743838721
Someone is making a point.
https://twitter.com/NoneOfY60793932/status/1521100432613031936
Congratulations to the Russian Navy on another historical first - after being the first Navy to lose a flagship to a nation with no Navy, they are now the first Navy to lose a ship (two, actually!) to a drone.
Bur underlying fundamentals still exist.
Which is why the Conservatives have longer term problems in much of the south than in many of the places they did well in at GE2019.
Apparently the plan is to foment unrest in Moldova, do a couple of false flags, then send in Russian troops from Trans-nistria to occupy the place. Moldova’s army is tiny: 3,500 men
This military gossip comes from Ukrainian intel and could be: Russians simply trying to scare everyone, or Ukrainians trying to agitate the West to provide more help
Alternatively, it could be true. With Putin, we have learned this to our cost. However mad something sounds, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY DO IT
How much occupying do you think they're capable of ?
And even if they could how do they then attack Ukraine from the west ?
https://twitter.com/GLNoronha/status/1520198049724833793
15 MPs have announced retirement at next GE:
Nigel Adams, Con, Selby & Ainsty
Crispin Blunt, Con, Reigate
Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne
Margaret Beckett, Lab, Derby South
Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central
Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter
Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North
Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston
Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham
Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking
Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield
Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test
Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. No SNP, no Lib Dems, no NI.
🤷♂️🤷♂️
Look at a map like that, and maybe you could see it. But where is the terrain and weather overlay, along with the correction for the obvious bollocks of using the Mercator projection for the world (making the north look at lot bigger than the south).
Russia is very big, but is also very very empty and for good reason. It's cold and wet. This is not ideal for a superstate when over half your territory is uninhabited and uninhabitable.
Russia has long been seen (wrongly) as either a great power or a superpower. But in reality is a lot weaker than commonly believed. WWI showed it up as a paper tiger. Germany defeated it, whilst Germany was also fighting France and the UK!
WWII probably would've done the same, but the SU got a lucky break in that it was supported by the US and UK. It was still far too close for comfort.
Maybe in the 1950s, it truly achieved superpower status, but lost it again after Brezhnev took over.
The current Ukraine war has again shown it up, like it was shown up in WWI. It's never going to be able to conquer all of Ukraine now (and even miracle of miracles it did, it'd face a 20 year insurgency before they will be forced out). The only thing left to decide is how and when it's able to 'declare victory' and either nibble bits away or just be defeated wholesale (but Putin will still shout 'Victory! We're leaving now.")
Simon Kuper has a book out called Chums. All about Oxford university in the 80s. The list of people passing through from the mid to late 80s is quite extraordinary: Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Simon Stevens, Frank Luntz, Jacob Rees Mogg. Conservatives tended to be active in the Union but the Labourites weren't: Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, the Milibands and post graduate Starmer tended to focus on campaigns for the miners etc. Perhaps they never learned to speak well as a result?
A newer generation appears to arrive at the end of the decade including George Osborne, Dominic Cummings and Daniel Hannan. It's a fascinating angle to take for an explanation of the frivolity of our ruling classes but judging by the reviews it seems as if Kuper has focused on it as an explanation for Brexit.
The Russians, of all people, should know this from what happened, oh, about a month ago north of Kiev.
With that said, the combined Western world almost certainly has both more manufacturing capabilities, and more inventory than dos Russia. And I suspect attackers suffer greater materiel loss than defenders.
But that puts your machining capability back to the 1950s - a modern CNC multi-axis machine needs proper tools and eats them at a steady rate.
That’s exotic alloys, heat treating. Russia has limited ability to make such things.
Romania is in NATO, Moldova is not. That’s the red line here. If Romania wades in, that’s direct NATO-Russia warfare and it’s Hello WW3
Neither side wants that, so if Putin IS planning an assault on Moldova he’s probably calculating NATO will still stand aside (other than supplying arms) and he’s probably right
As @another_richard notes, however, that doesn’t make “invading Moldova” easy for Putin. He lacks weapons, men, access
However he might just try it to cause more chaos and confusion? (And divert Ukrainian efforts to their western border)
Even if every single MP standing down was replaced by a female candidate, and won, they'd be miles off.
Unless this is code for "disproportionately greater numbers of our male MPs are going to lose at the next election" of course. And that is unlikely given that female MPs are (I believe) disproportionately represented in more marginal seats - though I haven't verified that claim recently.
* Yeah, I know it'll make no difference
Age, first elected
Adams - 55, 2010
Blunt - 62, 1997
Walker - 54, 2005
Beckett - 79, 1974
Blomfield - 68, 2010
Bradshaw - 61, 1997
Cunningham - 67, 2010
Green - 62, 2010
Harman - 71, 1982
Hodge - 74, 1994
Sheerman - 82, 1979
Whitehead - 72, 1997
Winterton - 63,1997
Ross - 39, 2017
David - 64, 2001
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Putin believed his own bullshit, and thinks Russia is brimming with ready reserves to throw into battle.
I wonder if it will become a defining book on this political era.
Some are smart and funny and admit Trump is a bit dangerous and crazy, they just believe the Woke Dems are even crazier and more dangerous. They are particularly agitated by soaring crime
https://twitter.com/jimmysecuk/status/1521113814158168069