|
The main thing this episode does it show other potential state/military buyers that their purchases are forever contingent on staying in the good graces of an eccentric mercurial businessman.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Another dawn is breaking in Kyiv, and it's still Ukrainian.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 05:21
|
|
|
Question about the theoretical NATO response to a WMD attack that I've not seen answered: How do they deal with the fact that Russia's terror bombing missiles - and most likely any WMD they choose to use on Ukraine - are launched from within Russian airspace? They're not going to start shooting down Russian planes over Russia. They could speed up the process of forcing Russia out of Ukraine, but if we're at the point where this discussion becomes more than theoretical then they're likely most of the way out anyway. Do they black the skies with interceptors and try to intercept everything that comes over the border? Fly around indefinitely hoping that, since he can't physically invade, Putin will eventually get bored? Sorry if this has been answered before, but I keep seeing a lot of takes that boil down to "if Putin uses WMDs then NATO will immediately end the war" when the proposed solution doesn't address a big part of the way Russia is terrorising Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
edit- I thought this was clancey chat thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 07:18
|
|
|
mrfart posted:They still do the Zinc coffins thing? fwiw, the first part was a real question. But I found a WP article about it, and yes, yes they do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 07:24
|
|
|
Nuclear use conditions on any intrusion of territory whatsoever are incredible and encourage violation precisely because they are not credible, which is exactly what has happened with the annexations in the 1999 Kargil conflict freshly nuclear Pakistan learnt that expansive declarations that it would deploy nuclear weapons to defend its territorial integrity were useless - India simply called its bluff. Two years later it revised its conditions down to more believable red lines defining what Islamabad felt to be really existential conditions so the likely answer (for an escalation hypothetical that is presently unlikely, mind) is that NATO would declare an exclusion zone that does span into Russian land and air space ronya fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:“Talked to Putin” thing stands on thin legs, as with many other Musk’s embellishments. Given that, I’d like to avoid overanalysing his politics in this thread, and focus on the more tangible, like this weird attempt to shake down Pentagon in order to garner negative PR for the Starlink service. As silly as it sounds, the most likely explanation here to me is that Musk irks really upset about getting ratioed by Zelenskyy in a poll on his own account. Given how much of an egotist Musk it sounds possible. I think the other real possibility is that since his court case to not buy Twitter collapsed, he has to pony up a load of money he doesn't really have. Thus what we are witnessing is an attempt to shake down the Pentagon for more money so Musk can execute an awful deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 07:50
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:“Talked to Putin” thing stands on thin legs, as with many other Musk’s embellishments. Given that, I’d like to avoid overanalysing his politics in this thread, and focus on the more tangible, like this weird attempt to shake down Pentagon in order to garner negative PR for the Starlink service. As silly as it sounds, the most likely explanation here to me is that Musk irks really upset about getting ratioed by Zelenskyy in a poll on his own account. Both Elon Musk and the Russians have denied that Musk actually talked directly to Putin, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:03
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/notabanderite/status/1580646785713721344 I would not say they 'created' a new method, as cutting off your enemy from reinforcement/supply is not exactly cutting edge. They do have the 'luxury' of fighting on their own turf in that they do not have to commit so many resources to secure and control their supply lines. And if your enemy is not motivated/trained enough to fight after being cut off it makes it all the more simple. When they start pushing deep into the Donbass and come in contact with the local populace that has not been so Kiev friendly the last decade or so we will see if these tactics continue to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
Dick Ripple posted:When they start pushing deep into the Donbass and come in contact with the local populace that has not been so Kiev friendly the last decade or so we will see if these tactics continue to work. Those local populaces, if I understand it correctly, will have had most of their conscriptable-age males wrangled up and chucked into meatgrinder fronts some time ago, and have experienced a number of other substantial issues which may otherwise impede the dual condition of "still there" and "still pro-russia"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
It's entirely possible that Starlink and Musk are being upfront about their costs and problems. Donations and at-cost provision is great, but a private company shouldn't really be expected to be bankrolling a foreign war to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's reasonable for them to ask for their costs to be covered. It's also reasonable for them to pitch for commercial funding rather than at-cost funding as an opening bid. Starlink was a good pr donation but it was done in March and there was probably an assumption of how long the war would go on for and how much the donation would cost the company that has subsequently changed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's entirely possible that Starlink and Musk are being upfront about their costs and problems. Donations and at-cost provision is great, but a private company shouldn't really be expected to be bankrolling a foreign war to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's reasonable for them to ask for their costs to be covered. It's also reasonable for them to pitch for commercial funding rather than at-cost funding as an opening bid. I believe that the sums that Musk is throwing around isn't the cost to SpaceX, but rather the retail customer price that those services would have cost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:44
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:I don't think Ukraine has any need to do that. Anyone who lives in the Antonivka suburb should probably get out while the getting is good, but once Ukraine captures that there is no point in actually fighting for the city itself. Ah yes, just capture the victory flag and the garrison will automatically capitulate. Bing bang bong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:46
|
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:I believe that the sums that Musk is throwing around isn't the cost to SpaceX, but rather the retail customer price that those services would have cost. It's entirely reasonable for them to calculate the cost as being the opportunity cost of lost revenue, particularly given that this is the start of a commercial negotiation they are doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's entirely possible that Starlink and Musk are being upfront about their costs and problems. Donations and at-cost provision is great, but a private company shouldn't really be expected to be bankrolling a foreign war to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's reasonable for them to ask for their costs to be covered. It's also reasonable for them to pitch for commercial funding rather than at-cost funding as an opening bid. All this is probably true, but the fact that Musk is trying to get his funding so publicly, and in the immediate aftermath of a smack down, is what is really costing him what little respect he was due for it. He was probably in backroom deals to get the cash, but once his ego was bruised he's brought it out in public to try and embarass Ukraine. It's the actions of a tantruming child. (Musk.txt, I know)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's entirely possible that Starlink and Musk are being upfront about their costs and problems. Donations and at-cost provision is great, but a private company shouldn't really be expected to be bankrolling a foreign war to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's reasonable for them to ask for their costs to be covered. It's also reasonable for them to pitch for commercial funding rather than at-cost funding as an opening bid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:30
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:It's also reasonable to nationalize systems that are vital to conducting war. If your long term national strategy for winning wars is to maintain a technology and innovation advantage over your opponents then this would be a terrible thing to do, particularly if you aren't actually conducting the war in question. e: nationalising also doesn't solve the problem of needing to pay to keep the thing running Alchenar fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:36
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:It's also reasonable to nationalize systems that are vital to conducting war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:38
|
|
|
Some russia.txt humour. https://t.me/wargonzo/8702 quote:Again hunting for military correspondents and bloggers. As they say, not even six months have passed. From reliable sources in various types / types of power structures of the Russian Federation, information has once again reached us about lists of channels and journalists lowered from above by individual generals and military leaders that allegedly discredit the SMO and the activities of the Ministry of Defense. To which it is planned (or someone really wants to) apply criminal / administrative measures. The widest profile Once again, and without surprise, we found the @wargonzo Charlotte Hornets fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1580542597092675584
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:56
|
|
|
Once again Starlink currently sells a $5000/month package to rich people with yachts (and like, oil rig platforms and stuff) which lines up with the numbers being thrown around. It is not unreasonable for a company to want to get paid for their services. Elon Musk is an asshat. Ukraine cannot nationalize a US company. The US is not conducting a war which would require nationalizing a company to help conduct said war. All of these things above are true. Elon Musk is easy to hate on and rightfully so but it doesn’t help anyone to get so emotional about it when he’s involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:57
|
|
|
Confirmed losses have passed the 7k mark https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1580265335147855872
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:Some russia.txt humour. Wargonzo is one of the 'military journalists' who, while at times criticising Putin's mobilisation effort and general lack of military successes, was really positive about Prigozhin and Wagner. It's true that only Wagner have any sort of success near Bakhmut, but it seems to me Prigozhin does have some political ambitions now, and not everyone likes it. Alternatively, Prigozhin and Putin both want there to be an appearance of this internal conflict, where Prigozhin is a real political figure the far-right supporters of the war can latch on to, in order to appease them without actually giving them any power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:14
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Once again Starlink currently sells a $5000/month package to rich people with yachts (and like, oil rig platforms and stuff) which lines up with the numbers being thrown around. Perhaps a more reasonable approach for SpaceX would be to state they will deliver the services they're paid to deliver - the lower tier subscription - and not ask the Pentagon pay for the higher tier subscription SpaceX has so far opted to provide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:15
|
|
|
Musk is a tantrum throwing idiot, but he also has a lot of good ideas, or at least has been able to hire a lot of people with good ideas and have effective managers. Throwing money at the problem is obviously not the only way of doing it, see: Bezos & Branson. Also what on earth at the idea of nationalizing Starlink because of ??? reasons instead of just paying the honestly quite fair commercial operator fees. Also if Starlink is nationalized, there will be zero service for Starlink in 5 years because the government has no way of sending up new satellites on their own and the minisatellites don't last very long in LEO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If your long term national strategy for winning wars is to maintain a technology and innovation advantage over your opponents then this would be a terrible thing to do, particularly if you aren't actually conducting the war in question. And it does solve the problem of Musk loving around with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:19
|
|
|
An interesting thread re Starlink. https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:23
|
|
|
NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:Question about the theoretical NATO response to a WMD attack that I've not seen answered: How do they deal with the fact that Russia's terror bombing missiles - and most likely any WMD they choose to use on Ukraine - are launched from within Russian airspace? They're not going to start shooting down Russian planes over Russia. So back in the early months of the war this was a huge part of the discussion over establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, to wit, that a lot of the general public calling for the US and NATO to "do something" like establishing a no-fly zone did not understand that establishing that no-fly zone would effectively mean bombing Russian air defenses and airfields in Russia, because the idea of establishing air superiority while allowing a SAM battery sitting on the border to pew pew at your planes with impunity was inherently silly. Presumably if a nuclear strike triggered a conventional NATO response that would go out the window and targeted strikes to disable Russian air defenses in Russia and, yes, to shoot down Russian planes in Russia would be on the table. I'm not sure if targeting cruise missile launch facilities would be in the cards given that this might look dangerously close to disabling Russia's strategic launch capabilities which could be seen as an existential threat, but it's not ENTIRELY out of the question. Edit: Oh for gently caress's sake, if he just kept his mouth shut this could have been spun as a reasonable, if somewhat odious commercial demand and nothing more, now it's hard to see this as anything but a giant pissbaby throwing a tantrum. vvv Tomn fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:37
|
|
|
I said that with the understanding that SAM sites will have to be destroyed  Russia launches cruise missiles from ships, submarines in the Black Sea and airplanes. All of those are fine to blow up. As for why Starlink might need to be nationalized: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:43
|
|
|
Russia losing effectively its entire army is such a devastating consequence that it should be a sufficient deterrent, and the fact that it doesn't require nuclear weapons or any invasion of Russia makes it more credible. I don't think there's much point in wargaming it beyond that - it's obviously a dangerous scenario but it shouldn't ever come to it as long as Putin believes NATO will make good on its threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:53
|
|
|
Rule #1 of business club: do not piss of the government of the United States of America. Musk may be used to pissing off the FSA and suffer only financial slaps on the wrist. Some other parts of the government are less lenient. He is currently making several of those really upset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 11:01
|
|
|
Musk could probably have had the US government finance the whole thing with some backdoor negotiations, while simultaneously being able to take full credit for it on Twitter as charity work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 11:04
|
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:Musk could probably have had the US government finance the whole thing with some backdoor negotiations, while simultaneously being able to take full credit for it on Twitter as charity work. The US/Polish governments and volunteers are financing it - just not the $5000 luxury yacht subscription. They're mostly using a basic $60 subscription. I don't know how much better yacht internet is? I would assume basic comms and sending images would overwhelmingly be the most important features - they don't need to stream 4K Netflix while playing Xbox in the trenches. It's not obvious that SpaceX has made the agreement to supply yacht internet with all those volunteers who bought and donated the terminals and subscriptions - it seems like it was just something SpaceX decided to do. Which was great. But it doesn't make sense to provide $5000 internet to someone who bought $60 internet and then suddenly tell the Pentagon to pay the difference because now you don't want to do it anymore. At any rate $5000 internet is not something that can reasonably be supplied to every squad or platoon. For key locations and command posts sure but that's not 25000 terminals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 11:30
|
|
|
Re: Musk, hope he likes investigations, because he’s going to have a lot of them coming up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 11:33
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Once again Starlink currently sells a $5000/month package to rich people with yachts (and like, oil rig platforms and stuff) which lines up with the numbers being thrown around. Is there a massive backlog of starlinks for luxury yachts? They're only worth $5000/month if they're actually sold for that. Otherwise they're just sales they did not make and would not make and their value is exactly the manufacturing/delivery/running costs and SpaceX is not losing money, they're just not earning money. They're not upset they're not being paid for their services, they're just upset they're not being paid as much as they feel like they deserve. And aside from the practicalities, Ukraine isnt a billionaire with a yacht they want to watch netflix from, they're a country with limited resources fighting a defensive war against a genocidal neighbour. They should not be charged billionaire-with-a-yacht prices, especially not by the billionaire with a yacht. It's fine to be upset that one of the worlds richest people is trying to make a big profit skimming government funds that should be helping to mitigate the suffering of tens of millions of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 11:45
|
|
|
I pay about $140 Australian monthly for my Starlink. It is incomparably better than the old Sat internet connection. Life changing really. Just a shame I have to buy it from Elon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:The US/Polish governments and volunteers are financing it - just not the $5000 luxury yacht subscription. They're mostly using a basic $60 subscription. I don't know how much better yacht internet is? I would assume basic comms and sending images would overwhelmingly be the most important features - they don't need to stream 4K Netflix while playing Xbox in the trenches. Genuinely not sure of the mechanics of any of this, but streaming might actually be important? For EG live drone recon or the like? Or are drones controlled through other systems?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Genuinely not sure of the mechanics of any of this, but streaming might actually be important? For EG live drone recon or the like? Or are drones controlled through other systems? Most drones don't have internet access, so just radio?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I said that with the understanding that SAM sites will have to be destroyed  Of course it's more stupid than being Putin's Reek: the Human wax statue exhibit of Apartheid got his fee fees hurt. If Trump, Putin, and Musk all dropped dead right now the world would become exponentially better in 2 hours. Just investigate this piece of poo poo Defense Department. So what are the actual odds on the nationalization of Starlink from this? TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 12:57
|
|
