Russian invasion of Ukraine

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

How much would the average person in the U.K. save if we weren’t subsidising a bloated and corrupt arms industry?

The Saudis pay a fortune for our toys, can't beat them for precision targeting market places and buses.

[Boo Khaki]

7 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Nice to wake up to a good news story on this thread. Great work from the Hibs fans behind this charity and quite a few others.

 

 

Don't know if anyone else caught the BBC News channel's piece on this today (they might still be running it), but what I found curious was that I concluded they must have been reporting on some other random but similar group of Ukranian children, because the piece completely omitted any reference to Scots involvement in this, mentioned that they had 'landed in the UK', showed plenty of folk waving union flags, interviewed a few folk but seemingly couldn't find an actual Scot to talk to. It was only in the final 10 seconds of the piece when they showed a group photo that the big tall lad from the Hibs organisation was part of, and they finally mentioned that the kids were in Scotland and would be settled with families in Edinburgh that I realised they were actually reporting on the same group of children.

You'd assume from the BBC's coverage that this was some sort of humanitarian effort on the part of the UK government, with the kids ending up in Scotland purely by accident. Pretty fucking disgraceful tbh.

[williemillersmoustache]

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

Don't know if anyone else caught the BBC News channel's piece on this today (they might still be running it), but what I found curious was that I concluded they must have been reporting on some other random but similar group of Ukranian children, because the piece completely omitted any reference to Scots involvement in this, mentioned that they had 'landed in the UK', showed plenty of folk waving union flags, interviewed a few folk but seemingly couldn't find an actual Scot to talk to. It was only in the final 10 seconds of the piece when they showed a group photo that the big tall lad from the Hibs organisation was part of, and they finally mentioned that the kids were in Scotland and would be settled with families in Edinburgh that I realised they were actually reporting on the same group of children.

You'd assume from the BBC's coverage that this was some sort of humanitarian effort on the part of the UK government, with the kids ending up in Scotland purely by accident. Pretty fucking disgraceful tbh.

I'm sure that's true but there's been way too may folk wanting to "claim" them and get some PR and I'm just glad they made it here.

[Detournement]

Where are the orphans going to live?

[Melanius Mullarkey]

3 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Where are the orphans going to live?

Somewhere safer than Dnipro wheres theres a good chance they will die I would imagine. 

[Detournement]

8 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkay said:

Somewhere safer than Dnipro wheres theres a good chance they will die I would imagine. 

Obviously but none of the stories explain if they are now legally in the Scottish care system or the five carers are guardians to the 40 odd kids. 

The only detail is that accomodation has been arranged. 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Obviously but none of the stories explain if they are now legally in the Scottish care system or the five carers are guardians to the 40 odd kids. 

The only detail is that accomodation has been arranged. 

Quote

Dnipro Kids has arranged accommodation for the children, who range in age from one to late teens, as well as two older "sisters" and their seven legal guardians.

They will stay in a rural hostel while they acclimatise to life in Scotland, then move to Edinburgh to live within the smaller household groups they had at home in Dnipro until it is safe for them to return to Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60850379

[williemillersmoustache]

Imagine looking for a "taking orphans out of a war zone is actually bad because Scotland" angle.  I'm involuntarily, physically sneering.

[DiegoDiego]

Oh, if only he had had the intelligence to think of that line himself rather than a script writer and six hours of coaching.

It's not that intelligent. The tent's empty, if they hit a camel in the arse then their $2 million missile can't even hit a tent. Not the best propaganda.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

19 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The only detail is that accomodation has been arranged. 

Thats good enough for me. Why do you or the wider  public need to know more? 

[beefybake]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

Who exactly is breaking up the fight in this very stupid analogy? You armchair chumps by screaming for NATO escalation? 

^^^^^ salad eating surrender monkey.

  

[dirty dingus]

7 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Oh, if only he had had the intelligence to think of that line himself rather than a script writer and six hours of coaching.

It's not that intelligent. The tent's empty, if they hit a camel in the arse then their $2 million missile can't even hit a tent. Not the best propaganda.

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Oh, if only he had had the intelligence to think of that line himself rather than a script writer and six hours of coaching.

It's not that intelligent. The tent's empty, if they hit a camel in the arse then their $2 million missile can't even hit a tent. Not the best propaganda.

I think the idea was the missile going through an empty tent and up a camel's arse, it's possible the transcript I found was edited for public consumption. He was taking the pish out of Clinton sending them to blow up a milk factory in Sudan and the like.

Edited March 24, 2022 by welshbairn

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkay said:

Thats good enough for me. Why do you or the wider  public need to know more? 

There are loads of examples of American charities and churches removing children from conflict and  disaster then exploiting them.

I don't think wondering what precautions the UK state is taking to protect 40 orphans is unreasonable. 

[Dan Steele]

[welshbairn]

They'll be quite safe in the cellar connecting Bute House and Papa John's.

[renton]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

The West rarely uses them unless the cameras are rolling, they're hugely expensive. As George Dubya said immediately after 9/11, "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.”.

I'm not sure that's right. In '99 in Kosovo, only 25% of the munitions dropped by UK aircraft would fit the description of being a precision, targeted munition.

By 2003 that figure was over 80%, in 2022 it'll be close to 90 odd percent, cluster munitions were replaced by Brimstone, and you have stand of cruise missiles like Tomahawk or Storm Shadow for bigger static targets and even the free fall bombs are all laser guided.

Far from any moral considerations, they offer far more scope and flexibility to troops on the ground, and a much higher degree of certainty.

Take the Brimstone missile for example. In the 60s and 70s, the primary anti tank aircraft munition was still an unguided rocket. It was suggested that a rocket firing Jaguar aircraft had about a 20 to 1 chance of taking out a tank. In the late 70s/80s those were superseded by cluster bombs and the calculated success rate against any individual tank went from 20 to 1 to 7 to 1. The advent of the Brimstone missile radically altered the odds. The RAF gives them a 90% success rate of hitting the thing you aim them at. They can be fired in swarms and a Typhoon or Protector can carry 12-18 of them. So, say a Protector drone spots a large gathering of armour, and launches its whole wing load of Brimstones at them. You've gone from 20 to 1, to 7 to 1, to 1 in 10. 

That's a radical step change. Believe me, if the Russians had the combination of precision weapons and situational awareness tools needed to target them adequately, they'd use them. Not to spare suffering but because they'd actually be good at degrading their opponent's abilities.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, renton said:

I'm not sure that's right. In '99 in Kosovo, only 25% of the munitions dropped by UK aircraft would fit the description of being a precision, targeted munition.

By 2003 that figure was over 80%, in 2022 it'll be close to 90 odd percent, cluster munitions were replaced by Brimstone, and you have stand of cruise missiles like Tomahawk or Storm Shadow for bigger static targets and even the free fall bombs are all laser guided.

Far from any moral considerations, they offer far more scope and flexibility to troops on the ground, and a much higher degree of certainty.

Take the Brimstone missile for example. In the 60s and 70s, the primary anti tank aircraft munition was still an unguided rocket. It was suggested that a rocket firing Jaguar aircraft had about a 20 to 1 chance of taking out a tank. In the late 70s/80s those were superseded by cluster bombs and the calculated success rate against any individual tank went from 20 to 1 to 7 to 1. The advent of the Brimstone missile radically altered the odds. The RAF gives them a 90% success rate of hitting the thing you aim them at. They can be fired in swarms and a Typhoon or Protector can carry 12-18 of them. So, say a Protector drone spots a large gathering of armour, and launches its whole wing load of Brimstones at them. You've gone from 20 to 1, to 7 to 1, to 1 in 10. 

That's a radical step change. Believe me, if the Russians had the combination of precision weapons and situational awareness tools needed to target them adequately, they'd use them. Not to spare suffering but because they'd actually be good at degrading their opponent's abilities.

If you need to target individual tanks maybe, but it's a hugely expensive way of flattening a city the size of Mosul when you can just carpet bomb it with cheap as chips gravity bombs. Same with attacking tank and troop formations in both Iraq wars.

Edited March 24, 2022 by welshbairn

[WhiteRoseKillie]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

I've no idea what your argument is supposed to be here. It is just a Catherine wheel of self-righteous outrage without a salient point. 

Save that pish for Twitter. 

There's no argument in my post - simply pointing out that you are trying your usual "I know better than everyone else" pish on a subject you have no qualification to speak on, or real understanding of.

2 hours ago, virginton said:

Who exactly is breaking up the fight in this very stupid analogy? You armchair chumps by screaming for NATO escalation? 

You are the one who is trying to frame this subject as some kind of binary argument where your opinion is the one which matters because of your superior intellect, and anyone who disagrees must be your inferior. Exactly the same MO as you've used ad nauseum in the Covid thread.

Still, as long as you rack up the greenies, eh, champ?

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Pizzagate init