JoeSchmuckatelli

I'll quibble with the video. The initial presumption is that the exchange is solely between NATO and the RU Fed. I find this... a bit hopeful. I don't see a nuclear exchange on this scale that doesn't somehow involve China. Further, the strikes on the US are way lower than likely. The 'radiation death' part is also too much compressed in time. Aside from exposed persons getting directly irradiated from the explosions themselves, the radiation in the form of fallout will likely result in higher cancer rates - which may not show up until a person is in their 70s. Those persons directly irradiated in a strike - people who get too much too fast - will die in a short time, yes, but the general population won't just 'burn up' if they're outside a blast zone but later exposed to radioactive fallout. Finally, the "Nuclear Winter" scenario has been questioned as to whether it's actually likely.

That's interesting from a classic economics standpoint. If they're 'leaving money on the table' - why? Low prices often drive up demand; do you think that's what they're doing? * On a different note; satellite internet services certainly stand to be a money maker, given humanity's insatiable need for connectivity... but I don't think it is yet a profit center. It's also something that once saturated likely doesn't have much competition. So in that sense, Starlink is likely a brilliant hedge against sunk costs moving forward to keep developing SS. *Presumably they're making a profit, and clearly gaining in market-share... but if demand is there, just offering slightly lower prices along with their reliability makes them plenty of money (which is what I suspect will happen once Musk is no longer driving the show; you get the idealist/innovator out of the way - and the investors just care about profits).

Absolutely: what's been needed for a long time was a sea change. I'm just glad to be here to witness it. I'd assert that there already has been one, given SX's launch cadence... but it's not quite as dramatic as I'd imagined. As I started to write this, I looked up the difference between launches in 2000 (85) vs 2020 (114) - which is what? A 30% increase? (I figured it would be more dramatic). But then, 2021 (146)... and that's a 70% increase over two decades ago. Looking at that - I think you're right, again. We (humanity) need to see something like SS not only work, but exceed expectations. It, or something like it, being able to land on the Moon (or Mars), do work and bring stuff back here in some kind of economical way is going to be the game changer. We've got LEO down... we need the rest of the Solar System to become accessible to more than the occasional robotic probe. We always need a Fulton: Biography of Robert Fulton, Inventor of the Steamboat (thoughtco.com) (He didn't invent the Steamship, he built the first commercially successful one)

I love human innovation... and while, here, we are most likely to talk about tokomaks or StarShips... this is cool: Invented by an Indian farmer, it gives a little tech to a traditional, exceptionally physical method of harvesting tree nuts:

The concept of relative harm comes to mind. Would you rather a bunch of metal rain down randomly at terminal or a targeted crater maker strike your city and turn it into a hot lake?

This last few posts shows the problem SX will face once SS is up and running: lack of customers. Thank God for NASA and the Moon. Because I don't think anyone (outside of SX) will start speculatively building a payload for a speculated launch vehicle in time to take advantage of said vehicle's capacity once it comes on line... Which means you got a cart, but nuttin to put in it

One question is just how much of a knock is required to disable the warhead. You don't need to destroy it if you can just get it to not be able to detonate. Then it's just a falling rock with little to no boom That answer should let you know whether a bunch of smaller 'shot' would work or if you need a special warhead / missile for precision kills. Given the speeds - I like to think some small but dense pellets would do it

So - more like it's muted, but still the same sound? Remove the 'muffling' influence and it regains its original volume? Or - does it have a set amount of energy, and depending upon the media it will go the max speed at all times? Are either of these decent analogies?

A 'speed of light' question: If the speed of light in air is different from the speed of light in water - does it speed back up once it leaves the water? Also, is the speed of light slower within the termination shock bubble of the solar system given the difference in stellar vs interstellar space?

What's it do?

Thanks (maybe?) for this link (Found a whole rabbit Warren)

No one is prepared for the Final

FWIW - "Javelin Cages" are now a thing. Don't know yet if they work (My guess is 'Nope')

True - but its role is changing... and highly theater dependent. Europe, Africa and the Middle East (and NA, should it come to that) are all passable tank country. SEA and the Pacific? They have a role, but not a leading one. Yes, the high velocity penetrator is still king at killing other tanks... but against soft trucks? HE (variants) are still the way to go. If you really want to scare yourself, consider what drone swarms can do. Take an aircraft or missile capable of delivering a 2,000 lb bomb, have it pop a munition carrying 30-40 50lb drone bombs over an area; and you don't have banned cluster munitions, you have multiple precision guided munitions that not only find their own targets they coordinate with one another to maximize coverage. Give them a variable upgraded HE load, such that the warhead can 'choose' between shaped charge or not (smart warhead) depending on the target... and you've got big problems for exposed vehicles and troops. (For comparison, 40mm grenades weighing 1/2 lb can penetrate 3 inches of steel with a shaped charge). This is a trope in American (and possibly the world) militaries - we're always preparing to fight the last war.

This made me laugh - and I agree wholeheartedly! This is an interesting thing. On one hand, if your infantry is inside the vehicle, not only are they in grave danger... they're arguably not infantry (you simply have an AFV until you have a hot communal coffin). ... <Much pontificating about warfare deleted> ... I think what you can expect from the future is that along with Tanks, AFVs and other 'infantry' assets are there to transport you and keep you somewhat alive between the battlegrounds, which most will be urban areas moving forward. This is to the detriment of us all. Fighters engaged in asymmetrical warfare have learned to cling to difficult terrain for their own defense... and currently that's cities; where the civilians live. A 'clean' war (myth) is one where militaries meet outside the cities and resolve their differences with little harm to civilian populations. That bubble is being popped. .... EDIT: Damnit - I wish this had not merged! . ... I love stories of humans making plows out of swords! Thanks!

Things are consequences of other things... One argument for why Age of Empire Europeans were able to out compete other civilizations is how nasty the competition between countries within Europe. This leads to the argument that despite the hardship of 'competition' between nations... Where they don't annihilate one another - its kinda good for the species. Or perhaps we (as a species) are simply good at making good things out of bad; people may have developed Radar to help them become better at killing other people... But now I can use that tech to heat up my burrito. ... So - if you posit an absence of a Cold War between the West and Soviets... What fills the vacuum? When looking at the absence of a WW2 - you have to ask whether Europe was willing to continue with the results of WW1... And do you need to change the ending of WW1 (plus the follow-on political and economic realities) to prevent WW2... And so what does that world look like?

Point of order acknowledged. I knowingly conflated the two because both are hard on infantry - to make that point. (I started out as an Infantry Officer before I became an Armor Officer - so I have legacy sympathies against killing Blue Team grunts!).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_(countermeasure) But yeah - for reasons I suspect few have been deployed

Ummm... There is some hope for Active Defense moving forward... But there are lots of pictures of tanks without turrets popping up on the internet these days - and some have AD systems (or at least reactive armor). The tradeoff is that the AD system (and reactive armor) that saves the tank from a hit kills the friendly infantry. And in an urban or mixed environment, a tank without infantry support is a dead thing. FWIW, infantry really like having tanks with them in the fight... But not if they are in as much danger from the friend as the enemy. (if anyone is going to solve these issues - it would most likely be the Israelis. They have some really innovative stuff).

Yeah and as a tanker I was glad they had not proliferated while I was in the cone of fire. The RU had developed some pretty badA traditional HEAT during my time - marginal effectiveness vs Abrams - but this top attack is a game changer. Armor and anti armor are often on a tick-tock development path... But I'm starting to think things are going to be in 'tock' for a long time.

Depends on the definition of of 'hit' I guess. -- angled explosive jet detonated just so it hits the weakest armor and the turret pops? Yeah, Tango Down. It's developments like this that 'comfort' me about the Marines' decision to stand down Armor.

That's the $64,000 question... and I'm of the opinion that 'not likely'. Big sky, little bullet. Also: There's a real difference between a stray bolt hitting an unarmored satellite and knocking out a key system, and that same bolt hitting a small, possibly armored/steel&ceramic encased warhead and disabling it. I'm guessing that most Soviet MIRVs are relatively tough and designed back when folks overdesigned stuff to just make it work.

So... shooting a tank with an anti-aircraft missile would not be my first choice. Better than using a pistol, but still. Figure that the designers of Anti-Armor and Anti-Aircraft weapons have tailor-made the warheads for the given target. Typically the Anti-Aircraft weapon just has to get close and go boom. The Anti-Armor? Close isn't good enough.* *I know the caveats.

Where can I get access to satellite images updated daily? Not interested in Google Maps b/c old. Don't need up to the minute... but would like the ability to look at various places with relatively recent information and clarity. Does such exist?

I'm with you. Sometime in there.