Ukraine: The Aristoblyats

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Ukraine: The Aristoblyats

«‹›987 »

bennyfactor: Nov 21, 2008

Oscar Wilde Bunch posted:

Develop a HIMARS vehicle that launches Abrahams.

Is an Abrahams what happens when you shorten the barrel of an Abrams?

# ? Mar 6, 2024 16:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 20:23

A.o.D.: Jan 15, 2006

bennyfactor posted:

Is an Abrahams what happens when you shorten the barrel of an Abrams?

No, just when you trim the muzzle.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 16:17

PurpleXVI: Oct 30, 2011; Spewing insults, pissing off all your neighbors, betraying your allies, backing out of treaties and accords, and generally screwing over the global environment?
ALL PART OF MY BRILLIANT STRATEGY!

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29091

quote:

First-Time Use of High-Tech French HAMMER Bomb by Ukraine as Macron Urges Europe to Take on Putin

The French president has reversed his position on Ukraine since Russia invaded. The drop of a high-tech French bomb on Russian troops is the latest proof of Paris� newfound commitment to Kyiv.

France supplying some new bombs to Ukraine, and Macron doubling down on a willingness to send French troops even as pretty much everyone else in NATO either kept quiet or cried about what a terrible idea it was.

Mind you, it feels like the war in Ukraine is pretty unlike how war has been for most first-world nations for some decades, and thus presumably also the kind of war that's been trained/prepared for. If the French Army decided to roll up to Ukraine with some number of troops and help out, would they need extensive retraining first or would the training they'd already have prepare them for the kind of war they'd be joining?

# ? Mar 6, 2024 17:45

InAndOutBrennan: Dec 11, 2008

PurpleXVI posted:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29091

France supplying some new bombs to Ukraine, and Macron doubling down on a willingness to send French troops even as pretty much everyone else in NATO either kept quiet or cried about what a terrible idea it was.

Mind you, it feels like the war in Ukraine is pretty unlike how war has been for most first-world nations for some decades, and thus presumably also the kind of war that's been trained/prepared for. If the French Army decided to roll up to Ukraine with some number of troops and help out, would they need extensive retraining first or would the training they'd already have prepare them for the kind of war they'd be joining?

I mean France are pretty much uniquely equipped to send foreign troops to foreign places.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 18:05

psydude: Apr 1, 2008

PurpleXVI posted:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29091

France supplying some new bombs to Ukraine, and Macron doubling down on a willingness to send French troops even as pretty much everyone else in NATO either kept quiet or cried about what a terrible idea it was.

Mind you, it feels like the war in Ukraine is pretty unlike how war has been for most first-world nations for some decades, and thus presumably also the kind of war that's been trained/prepared for. If the French Army decided to roll up to Ukraine with some number of troops and help out, would they need extensive retraining first or would the training they'd already have prepare them for the kind of war they'd be joining?

NATO militaries conducted doctrinal training even during the GWOT era. The one thing they might not be prepared for is the higher sustained levels of both troop and materiel loss, along with the need to maintain much more stringent levels of OPSEC.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 18:06

lightpole: Jun 4, 2004; I think that MBAs are useful, in case you are looking for an answer to the question of "Is lightpole a total fucking idiot".

PurpleXVI posted:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29091

France supplying some new bombs to Ukraine, and Macron doubling down on a willingness to send French troops even as pretty much everyone else in NATO either kept quiet or cried about what a terrible idea it was.

Mind you, it feels like the war in Ukraine is pretty unlike how war has been for most first-world nations for some decades, and thus presumably also the kind of war that's been trained/prepared for. If the French Army decided to roll up to Ukraine with some number of troops and help out, would they need extensive retraining first or would the training they'd already have prepare them for the kind of war they'd be joining?

I'm assuming they have all the basics covered like how to shoot a rifle so it would be more updating their skills than trying to build from the ground up. So even if they need retraining it theoretically should be much faster than the training Ukrainians had to go through.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 18:29

InAndOutBrennan: Dec 11, 2008

lightpole posted:

I'm assuming they have all the basics covered like how to shoot a rifle so it would be more updating their skills than trying to build from the ground up. So even if they need retraining it theoretically should be much faster than the training Ukrainians had to go through.

Don't think anyone is thinking about sending non Ukrainian fighters to the front. But if France and others can post up with people along the border to Belarus that would free up a lot of troops for other duties.

Also air defense.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 18:52

Kaiser Schnitzel: Mar 29, 2006; Schnitzel mit uns

PurpleXVI posted:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29091

France supplying some new bombs to Ukraine, and Macron doubling down on a willingness to send French troops even as pretty much everyone else in NATO either kept quiet or cried about what a terrible idea it was.

Mind you, it feels like the war in Ukraine is pretty unlike how war has been for most first-world nations for some decades, and thus presumably also the kind of war that's been trained/prepared for. If the French Army decided to roll up to Ukraine with some number of troops and help out, would they need extensive retraining first or would the training they'd already have prepare them for the kind of war they'd be joining?

On the one hand, Britain and France potentially sending a combined force to a war caused by Russian imperial ambitions might cause a rebirth in poetry as a popular art, on the other hand it might bring back the huge bushy beards that are finally fading out of fashion.

Seeing the Foreign Legion fighting Russians would be pretty wild tbh. Poles are already a pretty heft contingent in the FFL and I wouldn't be surprised if enlistment skyrocketed. I know the Legion at least to recruit pretty heavily from eastern Europe but I have no idea if that includes Russia proper as well.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 19:00

lightpole: Jun 4, 2004; I think that MBAs are useful, in case you are looking for an answer to the question of "Is lightpole a total fucking idiot".

InAndOutBrennan posted:

Don't think anyone is thinking about sending non Ukrainian fighters to the front. But if France and others can post up with people along the border to Belarus that would free up a lot of troops for other duties.

Also air defense.

But thats what the quoted post was about??

France isn't the only one being more vocal about sending troops either, the Czechs were making noise too.

Edit: maybe I misread the Czechs sending shells and not troops

lightpole fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Mar 6, 2024

# ? Mar 6, 2024 19:11

InAndOutBrennan: Dec 11, 2008

lightpole posted:

But thats what the quoted post was about??

France isn't the only one being more vocal about sending troops either, the Czechs were making noise too.

Mea culpa. Reading quick, thinking slow.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 19:15

lightpole: Jun 4, 2004; I think that MBAs are useful, in case you are looking for an answer to the question of "Is lightpole a total fucking idiot".

Putin has threatened nuclear conflict and pushed fallacious arguments too long and people are starting to lose fear it sounds like. They want the bullshit to stop.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 19:27

Fearless: Sep 3, 2003; DRINK MORE MOXIE

lightpole posted:

Putin has threatened nuclear conflict and pushed fallacious arguments too long and people are starting to lose fear it sounds like. They want the bullshit to stop.

The threats had more oomph when it wasn't as clear that the Russian military is an unending gong-show hollowed out by corruption and where the grand prize is tragedy.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 20:09

bennyfactor: Nov 21, 2008

lightpole posted:

Putin has threatened nuclear conflict and pushed fallacious arguments too long and people are starting to lose fear it sounds like. They want the bullshit to stop.

France's nuclear posture is traditionally rather different from the other NATO nuclear powers (US, UK). I think the "escalate-to-deescalate" rhetoric that Putin has used does work (theoretically; without the paper tiger issue of the RF in practice) as a deterrent to the latter two nuclear powers' respective strategies of MAD and last-resort. France's traditional posture isn't so much "escalate-to-deescalate" as "oh a trip wire, quel dr�le, fire ze missiles". Putin's (hollow) threat of a less harsh nuclear posture than France's own isn't that much of a threat to them.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 20:30

Kazinsal: Dec 13, 2011

French nuclear doctrine for the longest time has been "if physics says it can carry a nuclear missile, it should be able to at a moment's notice". I'm pretty sure that even today their general-purpose fighters can launch cruise missiles with strategic warheads.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 20:44

lightpole: Jun 4, 2004; I think that MBAs are useful, in case you are looking for an answer to the question of "Is lightpole a total fucking idiot".

bennyfactor posted:

France's nuclear posture is traditionally rather different from the other NATO nuclear powers (US, UK). I think the "escalate-to-deescalate" rhetoric that Putin has used does work (theoretically; without the paper tiger issue of the RF in practice) as a deterrent to the latter two nuclear powers' respective strategies of MAD and last-resort. France's traditional posture isn't so much "escalate-to-deescalate" as "oh a trip wire, quel drôle, fire ze missiles". Putin's (hollow) threat of a less harsh nuclear posture than France's own isn't that much of a threat to them.

Putin has set unreasonable nuclear lines though. This was fine when he had a theoretical military that could accomplish his will but holding a gun to the world's head and continuously threatening to pull the trigger means that someone will have to confront him eventually. It only works until someone calls him on it and then its put up or shut up. Macrons calculus is probably that at this point they can push a return to borders at a much lower risk.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 20:57

Orthanc6: Nov 4, 2009

O__O

Go-pro footage from ONBOARD the Cesar Kunikov as it was attacked. Sound cuts out from time to time, no one seen getting hurt, but of course some were when the drone explodes out of frame, so take care deciding if you want to watch:

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1765366468001018325?s=20

# ? Mar 6, 2024 21:59

Steezo: Jun 16, 2003; Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

Fearless posted:

The threats had more oomph when it wasn't as clear that the Russian military is an unending gong-show hollowed out by corruption and where the grand prize is tragedy.

My money is on the rocket fuel for their nukes has been replaced with sawdust, as the quartermasters sold or drank it all.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 22:05

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

I don't think even Russians would drink UDMH.

# ? Mar 6, 2024 22:10

The Door Frame: Dec 5, 2011; I don't know man everytime I go to the gym here there are like two huge dudes with raging high and tights snorting Nitro-tech off of each other's rock hard abs.

Steezo posted:

My money is on the rocket fuel for their nukes has been replaced with sawdust, as the quartermasters sold or drank it all.

Forget fuel, what about maintenance? Even unused aerospace components have to be swapped out as the material degrades over time, but that also goes for the actual explosive part of the nuke

Despite plutonium and uranium being radioactive basically forever, hydrogen embrittlement is a massive issue and the fissile materials want to interact with their environments much more than you'd expect, forming all sorts of oxides and weird compounds that further degrade the warhead. Ideal storage gives you a roughly 30 year lifespan for a warhead before it starts to become too unpredictable for comfort, ironically about the amount of time that Russia has been looking after the USSR's nukes. I'd be surprised if Russia made sure that all of the warheads stayed dry over the years, let alone spent the billions needed to maintain a stockpile as large as theirs

E: they have enough nukes for a 50% dud rate to still end human life, but it's worth noting that we can't be certain that a single oncoming nuke would actually detonate on impact

The Door Frame fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 6, 2024

# ? Mar 6, 2024 22:59

Cannon_Fodder: Jul 17, 2007; "Hey, where did Steve go?"
Design by Kamoc

Orthanc6 posted:

O__O

Go-pro footage from ONBOARD the Cesar Kunikov as it was attacked. Sound cuts out from time to time, no one seen getting hurt, but of course some were when the drone explodes out of frame, so take care deciding if you want to watch:

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1765366468001018325?s=20

It's that phosphorus hitting the water and coming up like a pissed off firefly? Wild

# ? Mar 7, 2024 03:59

PurpleXVI: Oct 30, 2011; Spewing insults, pissing off all your neighbors, betraying your allies, backing out of treaties and accords, and generally screwing over the global environment?
ALL PART OF MY BRILLIANT STRATEGY!

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1765511460422132011

quote:

Russian servicemen received "humanitarian" aid from Moscow, but instead of foodstuffs, they found hundreds of bottles of expired sanitising hand gel in the boxes.

Content: Russian graft and grift still continue, soldiers complain that volunteers send them what they need while Moscow just ladles garbage on to them.

https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1765468681356599643

quote:

Russian forces are reportedly operating a �black market� to sell Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs), including to Russian paramilitary groups that may be conducting their own POW exchanges with Ukraine.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 04:00

cult_hero: Jul 10, 2001

PurpleXVI posted:

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1765511460422132011

Maybe it's made with ethanol?

# ? Mar 7, 2024 04:09

Kaiser Schnitzel: Mar 29, 2006; Schnitzel mit uns

The Door Frame posted:

Forget fuel, what about maintenance? Even unused aerospace components have to be swapped out as the material degrades over time, but that also goes for the actual explosive part of the nuke

Despite plutonium and uranium being radioactive basically forever, hydrogen embrittlement is a massive issue and the fissile materials want to interact with their environments much more than you'd expect, forming all sorts of oxides and weird compounds that further degrade the warhead. Ideal storage gives you a roughly 30 year lifespan for a warhead before it starts to become too unpredictable for comfort, ironically about the amount of time that Russia has been looking after the USSR's nukes. I'd be surprised if Russia made sure that all of the warheads stayed dry over the years, let alone spent the billions needed to maintain a stockpile as large as theirs

E: they have enough nukes for a 50% dud rate to still end human life, but it's worth noting that we can't be certain that a single oncoming nuke would actually detonate on impact

The Thin Red Line podcast actually just did a really interesting episode on this. The tl;dr:

Russia actually has a much larger, robust, and more capable (at least in terms of volume) nuclear weapons supply chain than the US. The rest of the Russian military suffered huge budget cuts etc. in the 90's, but the Strategic Rocket Forces stayed relatively well funded. Despite the mess that has been Russia for the last 30 years or so, the people in charge have pretty much always realized that a credible nuclear deterrent was what kept them nominally at the superpower table. Lack of investment in the nuclear weapons supply chain since the end of the Cold War is actually a larger problem for the US than for Russia. We went all in on the peace dividend and pretty well dismantled our ability to refurbish/replenish nuclear pits while Russia largely kept up with refurbishment. Our strategic nuclear forces have been a dead-end backwater for the last 30 years, whereas the strategic rocket forces have maintained a certain level of prestige-they are their own branch in Russia. Add on to that China is massively building up their nuclear infrastructure too and the US is majorly playing catch-up. Modernizing our nukes and delivery systems is gonna cost like $1.5 trillion dollars over the next 20 or so years and is gonna be a very significant chunk of defense spending for a while.

All that being said and even if only 10% of Russia's missiles work and 1% of their warheads work, we still have to assume that 100% of them work.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 04:29

Kazinsal: Dec 13, 2011

cult_hero posted:

Maybe it's made with ethanol?

Yeah, I was gonna say, it's still food, just food for the still. Boil off the real gnarly poo poo and you only have a one in ten chance of going blind! :yum:

# ? Mar 7, 2024 06:26

Oscar Wilde Bunch: Jun 12, 2012; Grimey Drawer

Though, I need to find it again, the actual personnel of the rocket forces are just as hosed as the rest of the military. I remember reading that, encouraged by Putin apparently, the Russian Mob regularly extorts the rank and file rocket forces for protection money.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 13:36

Alan Smithee: Jan 4, 2005; A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms.

Enthusiasms, enthusiasms...

Kaiser Schnitzel posted:

The Thin Red Line podcast actually just did a really interesting episode on this. The tl;dr:

Russia actually has a much larger, robust, and more capable (at least in terms of volume) nuclear weapons supply chain than the US. The rest of the Russian military suffered huge budget cuts etc. in the 90's, but the Strategic Rocket Forces stayed relatively well funded. Despite the mess that has been Russia for the last 30 years or so, the people in charge have pretty much always realized that a credible nuclear deterrent was what kept them nominally at the superpower table. Lack of investment in the nuclear weapons supply chain since the end of the Cold War is actually a larger problem for the US than for Russia. We went all in on the peace dividend and pretty well dismantled our ability to refurbish/replenish nuclear pits while Russia largely kept up with refurbishment. Our strategic nuclear forces have been a dead-end backwater for the last 30 years, whereas the strategic rocket forces have maintained a certain level of prestige-they are their own branch in Russia. Add on to that China is massively building up their nuclear infrastructure too and the US is majorly playing catch-up. Modernizing our nukes and delivery systems is gonna cost like $1.5 trillion dollars over the next 20 or so years and is gonna be a very significant chunk of defense spending for a while.

All that being said and even if only 10% of Russia's missiles work and 1% of their warheads work, we still have to assume that 100% of them work.

must be why they sent rocket troops to the front since they were sitting too pretty

# ? Mar 7, 2024 17:14

Borscht: Jun 4, 2011

Yeah, it just so happens that the one part of the Russian military that hasn�t had the chance to show their rear end is actually the competent one.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 17:18

Saukkis: May 16, 2003; Unless I'm on the inside curve pointing straight at oncoming traffic the high beams stay on and I laugh at your puny protest flashes.
I am Most Important Man. Most Important Man in the World.

Kaiser Schnitzel posted:

whereas the strategic rocket forces have maintained a certain level of prestige-they are their own branch in Russia.

What are the chances that the prestige is because there is even more opportunity for grifting than in the other branches.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 17:43

Bone Crimes: Mar 7, 2007

Kaiser Schnitzel posted:

The Thin Red Line podcast actually just did a really interesting episode on this. The tl;dr:

Russia actually has a much larger, robust, and more capable (at least in terms of volume) nuclear weapons supply chain than the US. The rest of the Russian military suffered huge budget cuts etc. in the 90's, but the Strategic Rocket Forces stayed relatively well funded. Despite the mess that has been Russia for the last 30 years or so, the people in charge have pretty much always realized that a credible nuclear deterrent was what kept them nominally at the superpower table. Lack of investment in the nuclear weapons supply chain since the end of the Cold War is actually a larger problem for the US than for Russia. We went all in on the peace dividend and pretty well dismantled our ability to refurbish/replenish nuclear pits while Russia largely kept up with refurbishment. Our strategic nuclear forces have been a dead-end backwater for the last 30 years, whereas the strategic rocket forces have maintained a certain level of prestige-they are their own branch in Russia. Add on to that China is massively building up their nuclear infrastructure too and the US is majorly playing catch-up. Modernizing our nukes and delivery systems is gonna cost like $1.5 trillion dollars over the next 20 or so years and is gonna be a very significant chunk of defense spending for a while.

All that being said and even if only 10% of Russia's missiles work and 1% of their warheads work, we still have to assume that 100% of them work.

Did they have any data/info other than budgets and position papers? I don't actually know the answer, but I recall that budgets not being cut for nuclear stuff was partly non-proliferation, not just strategic development and maintenance. The US paid upwards of $1B a year to dismantle stuff and keep nuclear scientists engaged from the 90's through the mid 2010s at least, which kind of says that maybe they didn't have the budget to create new stuff? Also I'd be interesting in any new Russian warheads or platforms developed in the last 30 years.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 18:30

Midjack: Dec 24, 2007

Lmao yeah I bet a lot of people would be interested in those deets.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 18:37

The Door Frame: Dec 5, 2011; I don't know man everytime I go to the gym here there are like two huge dudes with raging high and tights snorting Nitro-tech off of each other's rock hard abs.

Kaiser Schnitzel posted:

The Thin Red Line podcast actually just did a really interesting episode on this. The tl;dr:

Russia actually has a much larger, robust, and more capable (at least in terms of volume) nuclear weapons supply chain than the US. The rest of the Russian military suffered huge budget cuts etc. in the 90's, but the Strategic Rocket Forces stayed relatively well funded. Despite the mess that has been Russia for the last 30 years or so, the people in charge have pretty much always realized that a credible nuclear deterrent was what kept them nominally at the superpower table. Lack of investment in the nuclear weapons supply chain since the end of the Cold War is actually a larger problem for the US than for Russia. We went all in on the peace dividend and pretty well dismantled our ability to refurbish/replenish nuclear pits while Russia largely kept up with refurbishment. Our strategic nuclear forces have been a dead-end backwater for the last 30 years, whereas the strategic rocket forces have maintained a certain level of prestige-they are their own branch in Russia. Add on to that China is massively building up their nuclear infrastructure too and the US is majorly playing catch-up. Modernizing our nukes and delivery systems is gonna cost like $1.5 trillion dollars over the next 20 or so years and is gonna be a very significant chunk of defense spending for a while.

All that being said and even if only 10% of Russia's missiles work and 1% of their warheads work, we still have to assume that 100% of them work.

But the SMT shuffle in the 90's and early 00's eliminated tons of regulators, industrial capacity, and personnel responsible for everything related to their rockets and warheads. It's unclear how much of that was replaced, or if the replacement quality was anything close to what it needed to be. And the most recent RSVN commander who was actively fighting budget cuts aimed at nuclear stockpile maintenance was replaced more than a decade ago by people who played nicer with Vlad and his associates. Most of their active missiles are supposed to have been decommissioned by next year at the latest as part of their nearly complete nuclear modernization strategy that has not put a new missile or modernized variant into service yet and seems to mostly consist of shuffling paperwork. Prestige or not, it's still part of the Russian military and is not immune to corruption and political meddling

I would be happy to be wrong about the mishandling of nuclear weapons, but considering that Shoigu is the one saying that the rockets have never been better, I have reason to be suspicious of their quality and readiness. I'm actually more suspicious considering the statements are meant to back Putin's posturing, but have been made after meeting almost no milestones on the project he's been responsible for since he took office 12 years ago

# ? Mar 7, 2024 18:43

PurpleXVI: Oct 30, 2011; Spewing insults, pissing off all your neighbors, betraying your allies, backing out of treaties and accords, and generally screwing over the global environment?
ALL PART OF MY BRILLIANT STRATEGY!

https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1765788634425266457

quote:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr #Zelensky has approved the candidacy of former Ukrainian army chief Valeriy #Zaluzhny for the position of #Ukraine's ambassador to the United Kingdom, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A bit of a cap on the Zaluzhny saga, I suppose this somewhat puts paid to the whole "ZELENSKY ONLY REMOVED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS A POLITICAL RIVAL!!!"-bullshit that was going around.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 19:02

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

PurpleXVI posted:

https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1765788634425266457

A bit of a cap on the Zaluzhny saga, I suppose this somewhat puts paid to the whole "ZELENSKY ONLY REMOVED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS A POLITICAL RIVAL!!!"-bullshit that was going around.

I would say not necessarily. While maximalist grinding your enemies into the dirt is in vogue these days, the truism about keeping your enemies closer still applies outside that context. Ambassadorial positions are prestigious, but do temporarily remove someone from the domestic politics sphere.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 19:07

Herman Merman: Jul 6, 2008

PurpleXVI posted:

I suppose this somewhat puts paid to the whole "ZELENSKY ONLY REMOVED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS A POLITICAL RIVAL!!!"-bullshit that was going around.

Yeah no giving out prestigious and well-paying but politically irrelevant jobs is an extremely traditional way of bribing your political rivals

# ? Mar 7, 2024 19:55

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

I would say not necessarily. While maximalist grinding your enemies into the dirt is in vogue these days, the truism about keeping your enemies closer still applies outside that context. Ambassadorial positions are prestigious, but do temporarily remove someone from the domestic politics sphere.

It�s still good practice. �You weren�t working out in this position but you�re still valuable so here�s a spot for you to succeed.�

# ? Mar 7, 2024 19:55

tiaz: Jul 1, 2004; PICK UP THAT PRESENT.

Zelensky's Zealots

I recall hearing about an effort to re-develop "fogbank", a secret material that is somehow critical to US nuclear weapons, because the knowledge of how to create it had been lost. On the other hand, that means there was awareness of the need and the effort was apparently successful, so I couldn't say what that means with regards to US nuclear industrial capability now.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:03

Powered Descent: Jul 13, 2008; We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.

Ambassadorships can be a political oubliette, but in this case the ambassador to the UK is probably under some pressure to try and obtain a few more of His Majesty's Challenger 2s.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:04

Crab Dad: Dec 28, 2002; behold i have tempered and refined thee, but not as silver; as CRAB

He may simply be tired of war and could use a breather.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:07

A.o.D.: Jan 15, 2006

It lends credibility to the notion that there was a difference in philosophy on how to prosecute the war, but also that the firing was not motivated by suspicions of incompetence or treachery.

# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 20:23

Qtotonibudinibudet: Nov 7, 2011; Omich poluyobok, skazhi ty narkoman? ya prosto tozhe gde to tam zhivu, mogli by vmeste uyobyvat' narkotiki

tiaz posted:

I recall hearing about an effort to re-develop "fogbank", a secret material that is somehow critical to US nuclear weapons, because the knowledge of how to create it had been lost. On the other hand, that means there was awareness of the need and the effort was apparently successful, so I couldn't say what that means with regards to US nuclear industrial capability now.

they didn't exactly forget how to make it: the original process resulted in an impurity they couldn't get rid of back in the day, but modern chemistry processes did manage to clear the impurity. the impurity ended up being integral to the proper function of the stuff

https://www.lanl.gov/orgs/padwp/pdfs/nwj2_09.pdf

the author of that bulletin article 100% owns multiple katanas

# ? Mar 7, 2024 20:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Ukraine: The Aristoblyats

«‹›987 »