Drones also obsolete *really* fast, so there's no point stockpiling thousands of them. Components like motors, possibly...
What's needed is production capacity, and the ability to innovate/iterate.
Before he got fired for not being a delusional optimist, Zaluzhny called the SMO "война одного шанса" lit. "The War of One Chance".
His point was that both sides would roll out some new system (he specifically referred to HIMARS) and then the other side would learn how to counter it so they only ever really got "one chance" to get the most out of anything.
So if the UK were going to spend more on defence, which they definitely shouldn't as 90% of it would be jizzed up the wall to no effect, then it would be better to spend the money on industrial and research capacity rather than shitloads of hardware that only has one chance to be fully effective.
Absolutely. Fucking Ajax, or Challenger III being good examples.
Some hardware - mortar bombs and 155mm shells, for example - doesn't obsolete quickly, though.
And the U.S. is building brand new systems (with BAE) using 2.75in rocket motors which were stockpiled maybe forty years ago.
What Dura_Ace describes happened in World War Two as well: The Zero was a great fighter in 1941; within a few years if was obsolete. The Spitfire only kept current through the war by having zillions of different upgrades. Radar and sonar changed massively. Not just tanks, but also entire tank systems and their usage.
What I'd like to see is stockpiling of long-lead, multi-purpose items. Chips, as an example. Move designs away from custom hardware ASICS and hand-wired breadboards (which the industry apparently *still* relies on too much) to more software-defined systems that offer greater flexibility.
AIUI turbine blades are a particularly long-lead item for jet engines. Order five years' worth and keep them in store. For ammunition, make loads of shell casings and don't fill them.
Even then, its not so much the stock as the manufacturing capacity, The Fairey Battle was useless come WWII - but the factories weren't.
Yes, which is why building up stocks helps with production and knowledge.
In all seriousness, I'd chuck JCB a few million to see what they could do in a hurry to produce (say) tanks or APCs. Yes, they don't do armour, but they have heavy construction and engine development experience. Ask them what the long-lead items would be, and see what can be done to fix those.
his solar giant is moving manufacturing back to the US Tariffs and IRA tax incentives are starting to reshape global supply chains—but vast challenges lie ahead, explains Shawn Qu, founder of Canadian Solar.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/23/1091665/canadian-solar-ira-manufacturing-us/ ..After decades of mostly manufacturing in Asia, Canadian Solar is pivoting back to the US because it sees a real chance for a solar industry revival, mostly thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed in 2022. The incentives provided in the bill are just enough to offset the higher manufacturing costs in the US, Qu says. He believes that US solar manufacturing capacity could grow significantly in two to three years, if the industrial policy turns out to be stable enough to keep bringing companies in. ..
Notice that message again - commercial companies need a predictable environment for the next few years in order to invest. Biden's industrial subsidies have worked to get some industries back into the US, but subsidies alone aren't enough in the longer run.
The US has benefited from several tailwinds in recent years and they are reaping the economic results now. They massively expanded their output of hydrocarbons with the fracking revolution and have become the world's largest oil producer, meaning cheap and reliable energy at home. They have had a string of fiscal stimuli since the financial crisis under both Rep and Dem administrations which have paid off in increased investment and growth, even whilst increasing the deficit to eye watering levels. They've been able to use national security measures to bring some important industries at least partially back home. Their demographics are younger and in much better shape than most Western peers. And they cut corporate tax at the same time the world's low tax nations were forced to come in from the cold as a result of the 2 phases of the BEPS project.
However there's a risk things start to move in the opposite direction soon. Rather like Germany's economic miracle is finally unwinding.
First, pay levels in the US are so much higher than the RoW that it's starting to have a noticeable effect on white collar hiring decisions in multinationals, including US ones. Second, the tax cuts and jobs act sunsets in 2025 and the only way any administration will be able to make the numbers add up is by hiking business taxation. The IRA is becoming extremely expensive and may be reined in too. Not as bad as the issues facing Germany or Japan or Korea or China (or us) but still a bit of a headwind.
Drones also obsolete *really* fast, so there's no point stockpiling thousands of them. Components like motors, possibly...
What's needed is production capacity, and the ability to innovate/iterate.
Before he got fired for not being a delusional optimist, Zaluzhny called the SMO "война одного шанса" lit. "The War of One Chance".
His point was that both sides would roll out some new system (he specifically referred to HIMARS) and then the other side would learn how to counter it so they only ever really got "one chance" to get the most out of anything.
So if the UK were going to spend more on defence, which they definitely shouldn't as 90% of it would be jizzed up the wall to no effect, then it would be better to spend the money on industrial and research capacity rather than shitloads of hardware that only has one chance to be fully effective.
Absolutely. Fucking Ajax, or Challenger III being good examples.
Some hardware - mortar bombs and 155mm shells, for example - doesn't obsolete quickly, though.
And the U.S. is building brand new systems (with BAE) using 2.75in rocket motors which were stockpiled maybe forty years ago.
What Dura_Ace describes happened in World War Two as well: The Zero was a great fighter in 1941; within a few years if was obsolete. The Spitfire only kept current through the war by having zillions of different upgrades. Radar and sonar changed massively. Not just tanks, but also entire tank systems and their usage.
What I'd like to see is stockpiling of long-lead, multi-purpose items. Chips, as an example. Move designs away from custom hardware ASICS and hand-wired breadboards (which the industry apparently *still* relies on too much) to more software-defined systems that offer greater flexibility.
AIUI turbine blades are a particularly long-lead item for jet engines. Order five years' worth and keep them in store. For ammunition, make loads of shell casings and don't fill them.
Even then, its not so much the stock as the manufacturing capacity, The Fairey Battle was useless come WWII - but the factories weren't.
Yes, which is why building up stocks helps with production and knowledge.
In all seriousness, I'd chuck JCB a few million to see what they could do in a hurry to produce (say) tanks or APCs. Yes, they don't do armour, but they have heavy construction and engine development experience. Ask them what the long-lead items would be, and see what can be done to fix those.
Drones also obsolete *really* fast, so there's no point stockpiling thousands of them. Components like motors, possibly...
What's needed is production capacity, and the ability to innovate/iterate.
Before he got fired for not being a delusional optimist, Zaluzhny called the SMO "война одного шанса" lit. "The War of One Chance".
His point was that both sides would roll out some new system (he specifically referred to HIMARS) and then the other side would learn how to counter it so they only ever really got "one chance" to get the most out of anything.
So if the UK were going to spend more on defence, which they definitely shouldn't as 90% of it would be jizzed up the wall to no effect, then it would be better to spend the money on industrial and research capacity rather than shitloads of hardware that only has one chance to be fully effective.
Absolutely. Fucking Ajax, or Challenger III being good examples.
Some hardware - mortar bombs and 155mm shells, for example - doesn't obsolete quickly, though.
And the U.S. is building brand new systems (with BAE) using 2.75in rocket motors which were stockpiled maybe forty years ago.
What Dura_Ace describes happened in World War Two as well: The Zero was a great fighter in 1941; within a few years if was obsolete. The Spitfire only kept current through the war by having zillions of different upgrades. Radar and sonar changed massively. Not just tanks, but also entire tank systems and their usage.
What I'd like to see is stockpiling of long-lead, multi-purpose items. Chips, as an example. Move designs away from custom hardware ASICS and hand-wired breadboards (which the industry apparently *still* relies on too much) to more software-defined systems that offer greater flexibility.
AIUI turbine blades are a particularly long-lead item for jet engines. Order five years' worth and keep them in store. For ammunition, make loads of shell casings and don't fill them.
Even then, its not so much the stock as the manufacturing capacity, The Fairey Battle was useless come WWII - but the factories weren't.
Yes, which is why building up stocks helps with production and knowledge.
In all seriousness, I'd chuck JCB a few million to see what they could do in a hurry to produce (say) tanks or APCs. Yes, they don't do armour, but they have heavy construction and engine development experience. Ask them what the long-lead items would be, and see what can be done to fix those.
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
Albi or Chartres Cathedral? Mont St. Michel? Rocamadour? Conques or indeed several other stops on the Chemin de St. Jacques? Taize? The Cote D´Or? The Cirque de Navacelles? the Pont de Millau?
Maybe you just don´t have a soul...
I’ve been to nearly all those. Also Lourdes, Lascaux, Cluny, et al
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
I would agree, but with two caveats: 1. we perhaps perceive British things as more numinous because of the ancestral and emotional resonance they hold for us, being born on these islands. 1. The romanesque chapels and churches of Southern Burgundy are an exception to the rule. Bien numineux, to me at least. Chapaize, La Chapelle des Moines, Anzy-le-Duc, Mazille etc.
EDIT: I see others have already addressed the first point
But I have experienced the Noom all over the world. Russia is stuffed with. It. Iceland possibly has as much Noom per capita as the UK.
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
Albi or Chartres Cathedral? Mont St. Michel? Rocamadour? Conques or indeed several other stops on the Chemin de St. Jacques? Taize? The Cote D´Or? The Cirque de Navacelles? the Pont de Millau?
Maybe you just don´t have a soul...
I’ve been to nearly all those. Also Lourdes, Lascaux, Cluny, et al
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
I'd be quite interested in your reaction to the chapel at Ronchamp by the Corb, and also when you are back in London St Paul the Apostle, Wightman Road, Harringay.
Have you been to All Saints' Church, Tudeley, Kent - that has a complete set of glass by Paul Chagall?
All those are numinous, but it depends what speaks to you. Personally, I especially enjoy modern stained glass.
Drones also obsolete *really* fast, so there's no point stockpiling thousands of them. Components like motors, possibly...
What's needed is production capacity, and the ability to innovate/iterate.
Before he got fired for not being a delusional optimist, Zaluzhny called the SMO "война одного шанса" lit. "The War of One Chance".
His point was that both sides would roll out some new system (he specifically referred to HIMARS) and then the other side would learn how to counter it so they only ever really got "one chance" to get the most out of anything.
So if the UK were going to spend more on defence, which they definitely shouldn't as 90% of it would be jizzed up the wall to no effect, then it would be better to spend the money on industrial and research capacity rather than shitloads of hardware that only has one chance to be fully effective.
Absolutely. Fucking Ajax, or Challenger III being good examples.
Some hardware - mortar bombs and 155mm shells, for example - doesn't obsolete quickly, though.
And the U.S. is building brand new systems (with BAE) using 2.75in rocket motors which were stockpiled maybe forty years ago.
What Dura_Ace describes happened in World War Two as well: The Zero was a great fighter in 1941; within a few years if was obsolete. The Spitfire only kept current through the war by having zillions of different upgrades. Radar and sonar changed massively. Not just tanks, but also entire tank systems and their usage.
What I'd like to see is stockpiling of long-lead, multi-purpose items. Chips, as an example. Move designs away from custom hardware ASICS and hand-wired breadboards (which the industry apparently *still* relies on too much) to more software-defined systems that offer greater flexibility.
AIUI turbine blades are a particularly long-lead item for jet engines. Order five years' worth and keep them in store. For ammunition, make loads of shell casings and don't fill them.
Even then, its not so much the stock as the manufacturing capacity, The Fairey Battle was useless come WWII - but the factories weren't.
Yes, which is why building up stocks helps with production and knowledge.
In all seriousness, I'd chuck JCB a few million to see what they could do in a hurry to produce (say) tanks or APCs. Yes, they don't do armour, but they have heavy construction and engine development experience. Ask them what the long-lead items would be, and see what can be done to fix those.
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
Albi or Chartres Cathedral? Mont St. Michel? Rocamadour? Conques or indeed several other stops on the Chemin de St. Jacques? Taize? The Cote D´Or? The Cirque de Navacelles? the Pont de Millau?
Maybe you just don´t have a soul...
I’ve been to nearly all those. Also Lourdes, Lascaux, Cluny, et al
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
I'd be quite interested in your reaction to the chapel at Ronchamp by the Corb, and also when you are back in London St Paul the Apostle, Wightman Road, Harringay.
Have you been to All Saints' Church, Tudeley, Kent - that has a complete set of glass by Paul Chagall?
All those are numinous, but it depends what speaks to you. Personally, I especially enjoy modern stained glass.
Or even Marc Chagall. He also has a small window in Chichester Cathedral.
Drones also obsolete *really* fast, so there's no point stockpiling thousands of them. Components like motors, possibly...
What's needed is production capacity, and the ability to innovate/iterate.
Before he got fired for not being a delusional optimist, Zaluzhny called the SMO "война одного шанса" lit. "The War of One Chance".
His point was that both sides would roll out some new system (he specifically referred to HIMARS) and then the other side would learn how to counter it so they only ever really got "one chance" to get the most out of anything.
So if the UK were going to spend more on defence, which they definitely shouldn't as 90% of it would be jizzed up the wall to no effect, then it would be better to spend the money on industrial and research capacity rather than shitloads of hardware that only has one chance to be fully effective.
Absolutely. Fucking Ajax, or Challenger III being good examples.
Some hardware - mortar bombs and 155mm shells, for example - doesn't obsolete quickly, though.
And the U.S. is building brand new systems (with BAE) using 2.75in rocket motors which were stockpiled maybe forty years ago.
What Dura_Ace describes happened in World War Two as well: The Zero was a great fighter in 1941; within a few years if was obsolete. The Spitfire only kept current through the war by having zillions of different upgrades. Radar and sonar changed massively. Not just tanks, but also entire tank systems and their usage.
What I'd like to see is stockpiling of long-lead, multi-purpose items. Chips, as an example. Move designs away from custom hardware ASICS and hand-wired breadboards (which the industry apparently *still* relies on too much) to more software-defined systems that offer greater flexibility.
AIUI turbine blades are a particularly long-lead item for jet engines. Order five years' worth and keep them in store. For ammunition, make loads of shell casings and don't fill them.
Even then, its not so much the stock as the manufacturing capacity, The Fairey Battle was useless come WWII - but the factories weren't.
Yes, which is why building up stocks helps with production and knowledge.
In all seriousness, I'd chuck JCB a few million to see what they could do in a hurry to produce (say) tanks or APCs. Yes, they don't do armour, but they have heavy construction and engine development experience. Ask them what the long-lead items would be, and see what can be done to fix those.
What makes you say that? Both Ukraine and Russia would rather argue the opposite.
“We” don’t really need tanks. If we are in a situation where an enemy is landing tanks and other military in the UK where having our own tanks would have been useful then we are already doomed.
Our European mainland allies need tanks - they need to be able to stop a theoretical attack by Russia across the European plains.
What we should be doing is focussing on kit that defends Britain - air defences and sea defences and kit and troops who can work in conjunction with our NATO allies if this Russian invasion ever happened.
There is absolutely no point in us having a few hundred tanks in the UK and trying to send them over to Europe in the event of emergency and so otherwise we would need to base them, and support, in Europe which is a big pointless expense.
We have apaches which can be useful combined with what other NATO militaries have on the ground already, we could boost our air power instead of such piddling amounts of trained pilots and quality jets. We have good infantry soldiers who can fit in with other troops and give bolster in quality or special situations.
We can use a strong navy, especially a big sub fleet to block off the Baltic to stop any potential Russian threat getting out.
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
Albi or Chartres Cathedral? Mont St. Michel? Rocamadour? Conques or indeed several other stops on the Chemin de St. Jacques? Taize? The Cote D´Or? The Cirque de Navacelles? the Pont de Millau?
Maybe you just don´t have a soul...
I’ve been to nearly all those. Also Lourdes, Lascaux, Cluny, et al
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
Meh... If you feel nothing in Chartres then you really have no soul. Hope you got a good price for it when you sold it to Old Nick...
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
Albi or Chartres Cathedral? Mont St. Michel? Rocamadour? Conques or indeed several other stops on the Chemin de St. Jacques? Taize? The Cote D´Or? The Cirque de Navacelles? the Pont de Millau?
Maybe you just don´t have a soul...
I’ve been to nearly all those. Also Lourdes, Lascaux, Cluny, et al
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
I'd be quite interested in your reaction to the chapel at Ronchamp by the Corb, and also when you are back in London St Paul the Apostle, Wightman Road, Harringay.
Have you been to All Saints' Church, Tudeley, Kent - that has a complete set of glass by Paul Chagall?
All those are numinous, but it depends what speaks to you. Personally, I especially enjoy modern stained glass.
Modern glass is akin to Common Worship. Dumbing down started in the 50s
Drones also obsolete *really* fast, so there's no point stockpiling thousands of them. Components like motors, possibly...
What's needed is production capacity, and the ability to innovate/iterate.
Before he got fired for not being a delusional optimist, Zaluzhny called the SMO "война одного шанса" lit. "The War of One Chance".
His point was that both sides would roll out some new system (he specifically referred to HIMARS) and then the other side would learn how to counter it so they only ever really got "one chance" to get the most out of anything.
So if the UK were going to spend more on defence, which they definitely shouldn't as 90% of it would be jizzed up the wall to no effect, then it would be better to spend the money on industrial and research capacity rather than shitloads of hardware that only has one chance to be fully effective.
Absolutely. Fucking Ajax, or Challenger III being good examples.
Some hardware - mortar bombs and 155mm shells, for example - doesn't obsolete quickly, though.
And the U.S. is building brand new systems (with BAE) using 2.75in rocket motors which were stockpiled maybe forty years ago.
What Dura_Ace describes happened in World War Two as well: The Zero was a great fighter in 1941; within a few years if was obsolete. The Spitfire only kept current through the war by having zillions of different upgrades. Radar and sonar changed massively. Not just tanks, but also entire tank systems and their usage.
What I'd like to see is stockpiling of long-lead, multi-purpose items. Chips, as an example. Move designs away from custom hardware ASICS and hand-wired breadboards (which the industry apparently *still* relies on too much) to more software-defined systems that offer greater flexibility.
AIUI turbine blades are a particularly long-lead item for jet engines. Order five years' worth and keep them in store. For ammunition, make loads of shell casings and don't fill them.
Even then, its not so much the stock as the manufacturing capacity, The Fairey Battle was useless come WWII - but the factories weren't.
Yes, which is why building up stocks helps with production and knowledge.
In all seriousness, I'd chuck JCB a few million to see what they could do in a hurry to produce (say) tanks or APCs. Yes, they don't do armour, but they have heavy construction and engine development experience. Ask them what the long-lead items would be, and see what can be done to fix those.
What makes you say that? Both Ukraine and Russia would rather argue the opposite.
“We” don’t really need tanks. If we are in a situation where an enemy is landing tanks and other military in the UK where having our own tanks would have been useful then we are already doomed.
Our European mainland allies need tanks - they need to be able to stop a theoretical attack by Russia across the European plains.
What we should be doing is focussing on kit that defends Britain - air defences and sea defences and kit and troops who can work in conjunction with our NATO allies if this Russian invasion ever happened.
There is absolutely no point in us having a few hundred tanks in the UK and trying to send them over to Europe in the event of emergency and so otherwise we would need to base them, and support, in Europe which is a big pointless expense.
We have apaches which can be useful combined with what other NATO militaries have on the ground already, we could boost our air power instead of such piddling amounts of trained pilots and quality jets. We have good infantry soldiers who can fit in with other troops and give bolster in quality or special situations.
We can use a strong navy, especially a big sub fleet to block off the Baltic to stop any potential Russian threat getting out.
So we need a lot but Tanks, no thanks.
Britain has used large numbers of tanks in five wars, I believe. WWI WWII Korea Gulf War I Gulf War II I don't think that the fundamentals of warfare have changed so much that we wouldn't need tanks again in any similar future conflicts.
The single most numinous place on earth (with the possible exception of Antarctica but that’s numinous in an inhuman way, which is different) is the Solovetsky Islands in Russia, lost in the White Sea by the Arctic Circle
Settled in the 15th century by a combination of angels and orthodox monks. Then became an intense focus of Russian religiosity. They built utterly enormous monasteries which still resound with faith
Then in the 1920s the commies converted it into the first and worst gulag. Colloquially known as “the elephant”. Being “sent to the elephant” meant you’d got ten years in one of the worst places on earth. They turned some of the loveliest churches into torture chambers. Now they are churches again, rising above the astonishing sub arctic beauty
Wear your Noomblock and put on your Noomshades. It is tremendous. But also tremendously hard to get to, which adds to the whole thing
Britain has used large numbers of tanks in five wars, I believe. WWI WWII Korea Gulf War I Gulf War II I don't think that the fundamentals of warfare have changed so much that we wouldn't need tanks again in any similar future conflicts.
Cost/benefit is an issue in this discussion, though - we're seeing in Ukraine that both sides are losing very expensive tanks to very cheap drones in large numbers. They're obviously better than nothing in a close combat situation, but if our defence budget is £X, I suspect it may be better spent on aircraft, drones, electronic warfare and cyberwarfare.
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
Albi or Chartres Cathedral? Mont St. Michel? Rocamadour? Conques or indeed several other stops on the Chemin de St. Jacques? Taize? The Cote D´Or? The Cirque de Navacelles? the Pont de Millau?
Maybe you just don´t have a soul...
I’ve been to nearly all those. Also Lourdes, Lascaux, Cluny, et al
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
Meh... If you feel nothing in Chartres then you really have no soul. Hope you got a good price for it when you sold it to Old Nick...
I think I must lacking soul too because I admit I don't feel much in French cathedrals. Impressive places, but there's something a bit hollow there. An equivalent in Britain is Hampton Court Palace: emptied out and, despite the lovely architecture, lacking something.
I get the same feeling throughout the religious sites of Italy. Too confected, too Catholic, too showy. The pilgrimage sites in particular: Assisi, Loreto etc. Whereas the old Roman sites have an unmistakeable aura.
But the little chapels and churches of Southern Burgundy have it.
Drones also obsolete *really* fast, so there's no point stockpiling thousands of them. Components like motors, possibly...
What's needed is production capacity, and the ability to innovate/iterate.
Before he got fired for not being a delusional optimist, Zaluzhny called the SMO "война одного шанса" lit. "The War of One Chance".
His point was that both sides would roll out some new system (he specifically referred to HIMARS) and then the other side would learn how to counter it so they only ever really got "one chance" to get the most out of anything.
So if the UK were going to spend more on defence, which they definitely shouldn't as 90% of it would be jizzed up the wall to no effect, then it would be better to spend the money on industrial and research capacity rather than shitloads of hardware that only has one chance to be fully effective.
Absolutely. Fucking Ajax, or Challenger III being good examples.
Some hardware - mortar bombs and 155mm shells, for example - doesn't obsolete quickly, though.
And the U.S. is building brand new systems (with BAE) using 2.75in rocket motors which were stockpiled maybe forty years ago.
What Dura_Ace describes happened in World War Two as well: The Zero was a great fighter in 1941; within a few years if was obsolete. The Spitfire only kept current through the war by having zillions of different upgrades. Radar and sonar changed massively. Not just tanks, but also entire tank systems and their usage.
What I'd like to see is stockpiling of long-lead, multi-purpose items. Chips, as an example. Move designs away from custom hardware ASICS and hand-wired breadboards (which the industry apparently *still* relies on too much) to more software-defined systems that offer greater flexibility.
AIUI turbine blades are a particularly long-lead item for jet engines. Order five years' worth and keep them in store. For ammunition, make loads of shell casings and don't fill them.
Even then, its not so much the stock as the manufacturing capacity, The Fairey Battle was useless come WWII - but the factories weren't.
Yes, which is why building up stocks helps with production and knowledge.
In all seriousness, I'd chuck JCB a few million to see what they could do in a hurry to produce (say) tanks or APCs. Yes, they don't do armour, but they have heavy construction and engine development experience. Ask them what the long-lead items would be, and see what can be done to fix those.
What makes you say that? Both Ukraine and Russia would rather argue the opposite.
“We” don’t really need tanks. If we are in a situation where an enemy is landing tanks and other military in the UK where having our own tanks would have been useful then we are already doomed.
Our European mainland allies need tanks - they need to be able to stop a theoretical attack by Russia across the European plains.
What we should be doing is focussing on kit that defends Britain - air defences and sea defences and kit and troops who can work in conjunction with our NATO allies if this Russian invasion ever happened.
There is absolutely no point in us having a few hundred tanks in the UK and trying to send them over to Europe in the event of emergency and so otherwise we would need to base them, and support, in Europe which is a big pointless expense.
We have apaches which can be useful combined with what other NATO militaries have on the ground already, we could boost our air power instead of such piddling amounts of trained pilots and quality jets. We have good infantry soldiers who can fit in with other troops and give bolster in quality or special situations.
We can use a strong navy, especially a big sub fleet to block off the Baltic to stop any potential Russian threat getting out.
So we need a lot but Tanks, no thanks.
I fundamentally disagree with this on a number of levels.
"Defending Britain" - and particularly its interests - might best be done *not in Britain*. As we found very well in WW2.
Tanks are functionally irrelevant when we are not at war - but so are many other weapons systems. But having a couple of hundred tanks, trained crews, operations with ourselves and our partners - gives us potential to build up a force that we need in the future. Or, as with the aircraft carriers, we are left with a massive learning and knowledge gap.
The Solovetsky islands are what you’d get if you put Auschwitz 1 inside Durham Cathedral, or Tuol Sleng within Avebury. It’s… too much numinosity. It becomes unbearable
Also they do really good fish and chips and these guys served me a decent wine as they wondered what the F a Brit was doing on their mad archipelago
Britain has used large numbers of tanks in five wars, I believe. WWI WWII Korea Gulf War I Gulf War II I don't think that the fundamentals of warfare have changed so much that we wouldn't need tanks again in any similar future conflicts.
Cost/benefit is an issue in this discussion, though - we're seeing in Ukraine that both sides are losing very expensive tanks to very cheap drones in large numbers. They're obviously better than nothing in a close combat situation, but if our defence budget is £X, I suspect it may be better spent on aircraft, drones, electronic warfare and cyberwarfare.
Ask Ukraine and Russia if they want more, or fewer, tanks. The answer is the former, despite their vulnerability.
As suggested earlier, aircraft, drones, electronic warfare and cyberwarfare - particularly the final three - are getting outdated quickly, and £x wasted on fleets of them (as opposed to R&D...) today is probably going to be wasted. But tanks are pretty much a constant in much warfare.
France almost completely lacks the numinous. The UK Is stuffed with numinosity. We have an embarrassment of numinousness, they have nearly none
Even the great French cathedrals. Pas de numinous. Compare with Durham or Ely. Or Carnac - meh. Callanish - wow. Likewise All the churches - scoured clean of Le Numine. Almost any Medieval English church - bonkers NOOM
Why? The Revolution? Secularism? Cartesian logic? But it is true.
Albi or Chartres Cathedral? Mont St. Michel? Rocamadour? Conques or indeed several other stops on the Chemin de St. Jacques? Taize? The Cote D´Or? The Cirque de Navacelles? the Pont de Millau?
Maybe you just don´t have a soul...
I’ve been to nearly all those. Also Lourdes, Lascaux, Cluny, et al
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
Meh... If you feel nothing in Chartres then you really have no soul. Hope you got a good price for it when you sold it to Old Nick...
Issue re: Chartres Cathedral possibly LACK of serious death cult appeal?
In contrast to Henry Adams (another "twat?) who saw Chartres as affirmation of life and love.
During lockdown, I wrote 30k words about VAR and measurement theory. No-one wanted to publish it - they all said it was mad. But offsides like this Coventry one mean I can't stop thinking about it. 3 major issues."
Was with her until she brought up right wing and left wing into it. The biggest problem with VAR, as implemented, is it makes the spectacle worse for fans in the stadium. At a minimum they should be hearing the referee-VAR discussion live on the PA system.
But that would just confirm most people's suspicion that they don't know what they're doing.
Comments
What makes you say that? Both Ukraine and Russia would rather argue the opposite.
However there's a risk things start to move in the opposite direction soon. Rather like Germany's economic miracle is finally unwinding.
First, pay levels in the US are so much higher than the RoW that it's starting to have a noticeable effect on white collar hiring decisions in multinationals, including US ones. Second, the tax cuts and jobs act sunsets in 2025 and the only way any administration will be able to make the numbers add up is by hiking business taxation. The IRA is becoming extremely expensive and may be reined in too. Not as bad as the issues facing Germany or Japan or Korea or China (or us) but still a bit of a headwind.
Collins' successor Aujard seems afflicted with a similar set of deficiencies to hers.
Yep. No numinosity. Nul points. It is a thing
That said I did just get a tiny hit of the Noom here. I walked into a room and the guide said “this is where Gauguin lived” (I’m in Pont Aven) and they showed me quite a famous still life he painted in that room and you can still see the fireplace he painted. It’s there, see. Look at the tiny reproduction of the painting on the mantel
However it was Noom Factor 1. You don’t need to wear Noomblock as you do in a truly Noomy place
And remember people call me rhe “Noel Gallagher of Noom” because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t
Also Millau viaduct is the Sublime. That’s completely different you twat
So it’s not coz I’m British
Have you been to All Saints' Church, Tudeley, Kent - that has a complete set of glass by Paul Chagall?
All those are numinous, but it depends what speaks to you. Personally, I especially enjoy modern stained glass.
https://www.army-technology.com/news/british-armys-ajax-armoured-vehicle-programme-from-promise-to-peril/
Ukraine could probably get them running.
The rest might be ready around the end of the decade, assuming they sort out the remaining problems.
Or you could just cancel it.
Our European mainland allies need tanks - they need to be able to stop a theoretical attack by Russia across the European plains.
What we should be doing is focussing on kit that defends Britain - air defences and sea defences and kit and troops who can work in conjunction with our NATO allies if this Russian invasion ever happened.
There is absolutely no point in us having a few hundred tanks in the UK and trying to send them over to Europe in the event of emergency and so otherwise we would need to base them, and support, in Europe which is a big pointless expense.
We have apaches which can be useful combined with what other NATO militaries have on the ground already, we could boost our air power instead of such piddling amounts of trained pilots and quality jets. We have good infantry soldiers who can fit in with other troops and give bolster in quality or special situations.
We can use a strong navy, especially a big sub fleet to block off the Baltic to stop any potential Russian threat getting out.
So we need a lot but Tanks, no thanks.
WWI
WWII
Korea
Gulf War I
Gulf War II
I don't think that the fundamentals of warfare have changed so much that we wouldn't need tanks again in any similar future conflicts.
Settled in the 15th century by a combination of angels and orthodox monks. Then became an intense focus of Russian religiosity. They built utterly enormous monasteries which still resound with faith
Then in the 1920s the commies converted it into the first and worst gulag. Colloquially known as “the elephant”. Being “sent to the elephant” meant you’d got ten years in one of the worst places on earth. They turned some of the loveliest churches into torture chambers. Now they are churches again, rising above the astonishing sub arctic beauty
Wear your Noomblock and put on your Noomshades. It is tremendous. But also tremendously hard to get to, which adds to the whole thing
NEW THREAD
I get the same feeling throughout the religious sites of Italy. Too confected, too Catholic, too showy. The pilgrimage sites in particular: Assisi, Loreto etc. Whereas the old Roman sites have an unmistakeable aura.
But the little chapels and churches of Southern Burgundy have it.
"Defending Britain" - and particularly its interests - might best be done *not in Britain*. As we found very well in WW2.
Tanks are functionally irrelevant when we are not at war - but so are many other weapons systems. But having a couple of hundred tanks, trained crews, operations with ourselves and our partners - gives us potential to build up a force that we need in the future. Or, as with the aircraft carriers, we are left with a massive learning and knowledge gap.
"We have good infantry soldiers..."
And tanks were developed to help infantry.
Also they do really good fish and chips and these guys served me a decent wine as they wondered what the F a Brit was doing on their mad archipelago
As suggested earlier, aircraft, drones, electronic warfare and cyberwarfare - particularly the final three - are getting outdated quickly, and £x wasted on fleets of them (as opposed to R&D...) today is probably going to be wasted. But tanks are pretty much a constant in much warfare.
In contrast to Henry Adams (another "twat?) who saw Chartres as affirmation of life and love.