Sea Kit
sea-kit.com
sea-kit.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXzaBixvL8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jeCwHViFGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvwPiiyY-_c
https://www.forces.net/ukraine/watch-dramatic-moment-russian...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1ag8...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/ukraine-cla...
But I wonder if for a normal navy a small submarine with a torpedo isn't more effective.
More so because right now there aren't thatany effective counter measures (some drunken sailors firing wildly in the dark), but that will change.
The last 2 points make this thing really very good in this specific war (surveillance assets can do whatever they want and russian captains seemed very complacent), but very inefficient anytime else. Also I'd say you should be able to easily adapt something like the various CIWSs (which currently have ancient designs...) to this threat. Also: once you notice the threat (which 2/3 last incident did?), why not level the playing field for your (hopefully not all drunken...) sailors and just flare up the whole environment (which should have helped here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXzaBixvL8 - also I don't really agree with this guy, that more ships help in defending against a swarming attack when they don't know how to kill the swarm...)
I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.
Are we supposed to believe that if the EU invaded Belarus, that Russia wouldn’t pass any intelligence to the Belarusian government?
It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.
That was in fact Mitterand's goal in late 1989 - early 1990, the other way round, that is, until the Americans (well, the honorable James Baker) freaked out and nothing came out of it. I still think from time to time what could have been if "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" had become real, just as Mitterand had wanted it. [1]
And second, it may sound as a paradox, but those authoritarian leaders are more connected with the masses and their needs (and vice-versa) compared to a pseudo-democratic and very opaque assembly composed of some hundreds of members (what are now called “parliaments”) of which no-one knows all that much, for that matter.
So a switch to an authoritarian leader would in effect, and comparatively speaking, mean a return of effective power to the masses, because it is on those masses that the legitimacy of said leader depends. Today’s parliamentarian regimes have long lost their legitimacy (notice senile 90+ years old ladies being parliament members in the most “democratic” country on Earth), it’s all a Glasperlenspiel [1] at this point, following prior moves blindly while the reason behind those moves has long been lost.
You can vote for your country's elections. You can also vote for the EU parliament.
And ever EU nation supports Ukraine, with the exception of Hungary. In this case the policy of the EU is very much aligned with the policy of ... pretty much the entire EU.
Because why should we waste hundreds of thousands of lives on protecting "just some land".
Ah, yes, when it is a Western border at risk it is totally fine, it's not fine if that is a Russian border.
Hypocrisy.
> Beginning with the reign of Ivan the Terrible in the sixteenth century, Russia managed to expand at an average rate of 50 square miles per day for hundreds of years, eventually covering one-sixth of the earth’s landmass.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2016-04-18/r...
Has EU, or more aptly the comprising countries thereof, declared war?
The only thing I hate more than warmongering are proxy wars.
I'm all for Ukraine winning, because if they lose then Putin and Russia are vindicated in warmongering as a proper form of diplomacy, but I'm sick and tired of proxy wars.
As an aside: Yes, as an American I stand with the Republicans in denying further aid to Ukraine if we're going to continue doing the same thing. If we're going to lend more aid, either we punt the money figures up a few orders of magnitudes or we send in American boots to settle it ourselves. No more halfassed "aid" that only prolongs the war indefinitely and enlarges the suffering of civilians.
And he is using a website made for the smarter kids. This election is going to be golden.
Being in a group that accepts people that say "this group is smart" annoys me to no end as the lowest form of circle jerk. Specially when it's not even true.
There's no IQ test to access this site, there's no merit on the part of the users, the merit is on the part of the moderation, since the user pool is the same as any public website written in english.
Regardless of the scale or nature of the aid, since Russia is directly involved, the Ukraine war can only be a "proxy war" if you believe it was instigated by the EU/NATO/the US, which is essentially assuming the Russian talking point that it was somehow forced to invade Ukraine because it felt threatened.
I disagree with that position and if you do to please do not describe it as a "proxy war" even if you think that other countries providing a limited amount of aid rather than getting actively involved will cause the war to be prolonged.
It makes sense, helping an ally who is attacked doesn't sound like a proxy war to me.
Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
Currently, Russia is paying an enormous price while the US risks no lifes and gets to send its old weapons to Ukraine. This might not be a winning strategy for Ukraine, but it sure sounds better than an open war between 2 major nuclear powers which puts billions of lifes at risk or draconian Russian occupation of large parts of Ukraine.
But the west is interested in depleting and weakening Russia, which we can accomplish by prolonging this war as long as we can by supplying just enough aid to keep Ukraine from losing but not so much that Ukraine would win.
>Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
You know what is worse than war? An unnecessarily protracted war. The longer a war goes on, the exponentially worse the civilians caught in the crossfire suffer.
I want Ukraine to win for reasons already stated, but I also do not want to see this war go on any longer than it has to. The west is more than opulent enough to supply enough equipment to end this war sooner, and if we go as far as to send in our own boots we can end this war overnight.
But we don't. Instead we provide just enough aid to keep Ukraine afloat. It's now over 2 years since Russia began its invasion.
As an aside, the military industrial complex is making a killing (pun intended) selling new gear to replace the ones donated to Ukraine.
What the fuck.
So no, no more aid unless enough is provided to end this war in Ukraine's favor as soon as fucking possible. I do not agree to aid that is any less and would keep prolonging this war at great cost to civilians.
I still don't see how letting Russia conquer half of Ukraine minimizes civilian cost. Russia has a long history of deadly deportations and it has already established systematic torture in occupied Ukranian territory. A landlocked Ukraine will be very hard to stabilize. And will Russia stop or will it continue in Moldova, Georgia or Kazakhstan?
There's also the question if the link between Western aid and warmongering holds up. All aggression comes from Russia and it alone is responsible for this destruction. As long as the victims, the Ukraine people, ask for help to defend themselves the West should deliver. The current aid is not enough but it surely is better than fighting Russia alone.
The US has consistently advocated for a different strategy than what Zelensky is doing. If anything, it is Zelensky who is still trying to figure out how to fight this war.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/ukraine-war-u...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/us/politics/ukraine-count...
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/zelensky-bide...
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-wa...
[4]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/us/politics/ukraine-us-mi...
Syria was a proxy war. Ukraine is not. Invading a neighboring country is a direct threat to the EU’s security, as evidenced by the large number of Ukrainian refugees that the EU now has to support. Had Putin succeeded in installing a figurehead regime in Kyiv, what is to say he wouldn’t have started marching on Moldova as well? Europe has seen this before.
Declaring war is a bit passé nowadays anyway.
Meanwhile, the UK has opened to Ukrainian refugees (3 families in our street have accommodated refugees) and has pledged unconditional support.
We learnt our lesson that appeasing dictators, like Putin, does not work.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
At the time everyone was very nervous about proliferation of nuclear weapons and it seemed a sensible promise. But when push comes to shove it seems more complicated.
It's not that Ukrainian USV are making pinpoint attacks in a vast ocean, rather they are driving over to a port that a ship has been hanging around for months.
- Ivanovets, sunk in "Lake Donuzlav", where it had been for months - Tsezar Kunikov, sunk in sight of Alupka, and located right where drones would pass on their way around Crimea. - Sergey Kotov, sunk in the tiny confined space of the port next to a bridge it was guarding.
Although I guess the line between torpedo, mine and underwater drone gets blurry.
Drones, IMHO, have more loitering capability. It is very interesting to see how drone warfare develops.
The same way mythical armies of literature used champions to fight it out - causing less mysery, why not just simulate the war itself and figure out who wins?
I guess the main issue with this is that right now there's multiple components that help you win a war that are still super relevant, logistics, manufacturing and so on. Once algorithms become the dominant aspect and those other physically bound ones are no more, could we move war fully to the digital realm?
Meanwhile a delay in real time while the virtual war is prepared and fought would almost alway be significantly more beneficial to one side over the other.
So many other factors, but that’s a start.
I'm dead serious here.
There is the issue that Biden or any other elected leaders are answerable to their electorate, and other institutions in their country, in a way that authoritarians are not, so it’s a matter of the commitment of the nation too, but that’s not directly an issue with the simulated war concept. It’s nonsense for purely practical reasons.
It probably is :) Any other ideas you'd like us to come up with a Star Trek episode for? There are nearly a thousand to select from these days!
The same reason we don’t simulate Facebook Farmville plots to produce all of our food.
War isn’t some hobby soldiers play at to earn points for their side, it’s the continuation of policy by other means. There is no “simulating” it anymore than you can force someone to kill themselves and all their friends and family by asking nicely.
The point is eventually all that matters is algorithms. If everything is automated, if a lot of war is cyber war etc, you know already that the best algorithms applied to physical stuff will win, so why not just pit them against each other virtually?
As for the argument of "why wouldn't they just go at it in the physical world next", well they could, but after 10 or 20 wars where you see the outcome is going to be aligned to the algorithmic winner anyway you see there's no point other than to kill your own population.
For what it's worth I don't think this happens in 10 or even 100 years - it's stretching it to a much longer timespan.
But that's not the point: the point is "who's going to make me?" when our disagreements are significant.
And significant is minor details like "I believe I own this land" and "I have a right to exist".
EDIT: it's also worth noting that we resolve wars by simulation all the time - that's what diplomacy and it's supporting institutions are. Both sides present their objectives, tend to outline their military forces and escalation priorities to each other, and then go away and decide if they believe the outcome is substantially worse then what could be achieved by negotiation - which with war it usually is.
That’s not how that works. The nation that gets to impose its will is the one that can put boots on the ground and hold them there. Doesn’t matter if they’re cyborg or robot boots, but they have to physically be there. That’s a lesson as old as history.
I understand what you’re getting at, and maybe someday smaller powers will participate in “simulated warfare” (which means something else) in lieu of total destruction like some hunter-gatherer and monkey tribes do, but it will always be in the physical world and involve death or destruction.
Otherwise, why would anyone go to war even now? If any other mechanism other than physical violence would have worked, we wouldnt go to war.
If you don't invade, you haven't taken control.
Or putting it from other perspective, you could run the simulation between 2 parties, be the winner and "impose" your will. But I don't think that the other side will now leave their houses and leave their own city voluntarily, at that point you need to invade anyways.
Early eSport if you will.
This only works if the consequences of losing are no big deal.
If all that changes is which set of leaders get to collect taxes vs having to swear off politics and go into industry or whatever, then sure.
If instead the losing population is removed to provide more land for the winners? Maybe expecting them to do as the simulated result says is a bit much
.
Also on a vaguely related topic, I'd like to note that bank robberies are still a thing despite being well known to be approximately impossible to get away with.
How do you prove the fidelity of the simulation with respect to actual military capabilities? How do you prevent a party from claiming capability in the simulation that they do not actually possess? Countries like Russia constantly churn out supposed super-weapons that are routinely found out in real combat.
If war became all about simulation engineering rather than actual capability, a country is going to recognize the arbitrage opportunity and take advantage of it in the physical world.
It is a bit like conflating e-sports with the real thing. One is not a substitute for the other because the constraints and incentives are fundamentally different, optimizing for very different things in execution.
Not if we can't even get belligerents and defenders to uphold their treaty agreements.
War is effectively just an escalation of using force to impose one's will over another. You don't need a war if you're China and trying to get your shipping passage rights through Suez or Panama. You'd need a war it you're Russia trying to obtain land illegally from your neighbors.
Which is why I found it ironic that the software architecture was done in an overtly wasteful "throw hardware at it" style. Some basic attention to software performance engineering could have increased efficiency by an integer factor. It was quite the contradiction.
Just let me strap a multibeam and some deep water towed chemical sensors to it and leave me in peace.
Also, what chemical sensors are you talking about? I am currently building a small buoy for data logging on sweetwater lakes and would be curious what chemical sensors I could include :)
Have a look at these though! https://atlas-scientific.com/
Ukraine’s military on Tuesday claimed another successful attack on a Russian warship, marking the latest in a string of naval defeats for Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet that Kyiv says has reduced its numbers by more than a third since the start of the war.
The Defense Intelligence of Ukraine said maritime drones operated by its Group 13 special unit struck and sank the 1,300-ton Russian patrol ship Sergei Kotov in the Black Sea, near the Kerch Strait that separates occupied Crimea from the coast of southwest Russia.
“As a result of the strike by Magura V5 maritime drones, the Russian ship Project 22160 ‘Sergei Kotov’ sustained damage to the stern, starboard and port sides,” sparking a fire aboard the vessel, a statement said. The military later confirmed the ship had sunk.
[0]https://news.usni.org/2022/03/25/satellite-images-confirm-ru...
I am not aware however if mapping ever get combined with environmental studies.
Not saying I like how we spend so much on warfare, just being a realist.