1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

You don't even remotely know what you are talking about. ATACMS was designed for an open battlefield, not attacking a target with serious air defense systems. When applied against the designed-for targets, they work just fine, as "greatawakening99" has pointed out.

2
killerspacerobot 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are guided all right, just not externally controlled. And they are Fast. Air defense systems always have problems with targets that are Fast. And have low radar cross-sections.

But to answer your question, Ukrainians at the behest of their U.S. handlers. The best weapon has poor performance against the wrong target in the wrong environment.

6
killerspacerobot 6 points ago +6 / -0

When there is no crystal ball, and our present position is to be the "X" on the target map, it is folly not to move. In fact, this now becomes a deadly game of who can move the fastest and the more drastically. It is important to throw Biden out of the game and disrupt the other side. If Harris is swept up in the conviction (she had a constitutional obligation to prevent Biden from this action), she is out for the count and Speaker of the House becomes president.

But hey, if you think leaving Biden in charge is the best of all possible worlds, don't complain about what happens next.

To be candid, I don't think any of these measures can beat the clock. But the military has an obligation to prevent unconstitutional actions that commit the nation to an undeclared war, so it may come down to how loyal the military is. Which gets us into "the military is the only way."

9
killerspacerobot 9 points ago +9 / -0

And Russia knows darn well.

Now it comes down to whether Putin was merely beating his chest or decides to put the show on the road. It could simply mean stepping on the accelerator for all present operations in Ukraine, with an emphasis of totally knocking out all the Ukrainian command-and-control infrastructure. Kiev may bounce...

To make matters clear, he may announce that this demonstrates U.S. involvement as a belligerent, and declare that U.S. military assets in the vicinity may be targeted ad libitum. And then go quail hunting (i.e., engaging all U.S. drones over Ukarine and the Black Sea).

2
killerspacerobot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Speaking as a Jaguar-owner since 2004, I can say assuredly they are not. Along with their companion brand, Land Rover, which I have also and presently own.

Their recent history is instructive. Their ownership under Ford tutored them in modern quality control (freeing them from the jokes about Joseph Lucas being the Prince of Darkness). Tata Motors is arguably the largest producers of automobiles in the world. The then Chairman, Ratan Tata, agreed in 2008 to purchase Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford, partly out of his enthusiasm for the brands as a young man. His vision was to encourage their growth and well-being. They are doing well. They really don't need airhead advertising.

2
killerspacerobot 2 points ago +2 / -0

So reconcile the two. Or open your mind to the possibility that there is more here than can be painted in one color. Words over actions? So far, in this deadly debacle, Putin has been the straight-speaker.

3
killerspacerobot 3 points ago +3 / -0

The key word is "was." Are you aware he made Solzhenitsyn's "The GULag Archipelago" required reading for high school? Actions speak louder than words.

1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

The problem I foresee is the disconnect between any cancellation of agencies and the legislation which created the functions. Properly, one would enact a nullification of the original enabling legislation, and then the agency would go "poof." They can probably do much by comparing the requirements of the enabling legislation against the work patterns of the agency, and boil things down to the bone. One might also apply the principle that, if a function has been legislated which is not within the specified powers of the Legislature, it is null and void. By this means, the ATF could be eliminated (with some possible question over matters pertaining to alcohol and the 21st amendment).

1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, then you are blind to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate functions. The legitimate functions still need to be performed. You wouldn't happen to be a radical anarchist, by any chance?

1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I brought it up because it was a traumatic experience of her childhood, about which she was continually sensitive. It was not off-putting to me, or I wouldn't have fallen in love with her. Why would you be any different from the people who were unkind to her, as you are unkind to Alex Jones? It is hard for me to tell, since you make a great defense of blurting out uncompassionate remarks about Jones after he has gone through a hugely stressing experience.

1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

You are conspicuously failing to distinguish between those who chose to be Nazis because they agreed with the ideology and those who were compelled to become members of the Nazi Party in order to be employed, or as a necessity of the specific employment. It was quite parallel to the Communist Party in Soviet Russia, where there was no "out" option. You don't bother at all to refer to von Braun's personal history in this regard, which simply means you are ignorant of it.

As for the rest, I am quite aware of all of it. The Azovites are ideological Nazis dedicated to anti-Russian genocide. Good riddance to them. There are millions of German citizens that had Nazi Party membership thrust upon them, against their desire. Are you going to tell me they are the same thing?

The fascist agenda began with Mussolini, which began with Marx. I am well aware of this. My father fought in the Navy against the German forces, under bombardment in Brussels from V-1s and V-2s. This is all history. But apparently the history you are determined to repeat is collectivism, where you cannot seem to distinguish between Germans and Nazis. Through my maternal grandfather I am a quarter German. Does that make me a quarter Nazi? That's not a rhetorical question, either. I would like you to put yourself on the table regarding your collectivist prejudice.

1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

There, I would agree. I always had the sense that his books were padded. And I lost the suspension of disbelief in reading "The Stand" when he had one character troubling over the "safety catch" of a revolver. About as meaningful as the xylophone on an automobile.

1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, the history goes back to 1896 and involves a series of temporary agencies and renaming and mergers of agencies. The FBI has jurisdiction over interstate crimes, federal crimes, and crimes committed on federal lands. The problem with criminals crossing state lines is that they move into territory that would have no jurisdiction over them.

There is a difference in recognizing that the FBI performs a needed function---and recognizing that it is out of control.

2
killerspacerobot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Von Braun's "Nazi record" was left behind with the ruins of Nazi Germany. It had no influence on his work for the V-2 program, which was originally sponsored by the German Army. He has no place in this discussion. Of all the Peenemunde group, I think only one of them retained any Nazi sympathy and he was eventually deported back to Germany.

You want to make the Paperclip operation out to be an importation of Nazi ideology, but it wasn't. All you are doing is making the sweeping equation of German = Nazi.

1
killerspacerobot 1 point ago +1 / -0

The meaning of "off putting" is to be repellent or disconcerting. It would apply to situations where someone's chosen demeanor or behavior is contrary to normal etiquette. Whatever was going on with Jones was clearly involuntary. What happens in an accident, of events or of birth, is clearly involuntary, Even in the events you describe, you were not repelled, because you went to aid the person in trouble.

This is only as big as you want it to be, so own up to your own involvement. What "virtue" was I "signaling"? (You don't have to answer. Don't want to make this bigger, you know.)

3
killerspacerobot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Emotional stress can definitely affect tics. If the body's adrenaline is high, then muscle reflexes can be exaggerated. So, if you came across an auto accident and a victim is gory and bleeding, you could find that "off putting"? It would only mean that you have no compassion and are unwilling to cut some slack for the absence of a beautiful appearance.

By the way, I was commenting ONLY on your reaction to his appearance. My late spouse had a congenital birth defect in which her right hand was no more than a paw. It was traumatic growing up with that. She had to learn how to do anything dextrous (like writing) with her left hand. Adults were decent enough not to mention it in public. I can only imagine you would find that "off putting."

12
killerspacerobot 12 points ago +12 / -0

"Off putting"? The guy goes through one a hell of a day of totally high-stakes legal combat and comes out of it...probably nerves shot, but still able to speak coherently, and you think that's "off putting"? Just amazing.

3
killerspacerobot 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Sig Sauer P320 is a striker-fired pistol (different from a hammer-fired pistol). The typical mechanism of a striker-fired pistol is that, upon loading, the striker is partially cocked. Any subsequent shot will result in a reload and a reset of the striker. This is done in order for the trigger pull to require less force than for a full double-action-type pull. This feature is common among striker-fired pistols, including Glocks.

It seems that the "foolproof" mechanism is subject to an as-yet-unknown failure mode, and there should be a thorough forensic disassembly and analysis of the involved pistols. Frankly, I think the only convincing rectifications of this problem would be to (a) add a manual safety to the mechanism, (b) revert to a double-action trigger, or (c) both the previous. I think also that any such design change should be accompanied by a withdrawal of the P320 model from sales.

Sig Sauer has a brand reputation for quality and durability, by which qualities it was chosen as the new service sidearm. I am sure they would want to correct this horrendous problem swiftly---but their lawyers seem interested in waving away the evidence with court findings. Not a good face to put before the shooting public.

by raxlore
4
killerspacerobot 4 points ago +4 / -0

R. Lee Ermey, RIP (2018)

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›