That is correct. They entered into a memorandum with the US, UK, and Russia. The memorandum stated that, in return for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament, the US, UK, and Russia would not attack or threaten them with military force. And it included no prescribed penalties or commitment to defense on the part of anybody.
Ukraine didn't disarm?
Ukraine undertook and completed NUCLEAR disarmament, as agreed in the memorandum.
Russia didn't invade?
That is something of which there is no credible proof as yet.
"Hypersonic missile" is a term applied to hypersonic, maneuvering air-breathers. It is sometimes used to describe rocket-boosted hypersonic, maneuvering gliders. A "ballistic missile" is a rocket that flies in a predetermined arc. This was always a sloppy description, because all missiles HAVE to be inertially corrected during the initial unstable boost phase, though not for most of the flight. But it has become even more blurred, because some ballistic missiles now are actually quasi-ballistic. They have an inertially corrected boost phase (like all ballistic missiles), a free flight true ballistic arc for most of their flight (like all ballistic missiles), and a guided terminal phase (UNLIKE true ballistic missiles).
China is addressing the targeting of carriers with both hypersonic air-breathers and quasi-ballistic missiles. You can most definitely effectively attack them with either tech, and conventional explosives can do the job.
Err, China is already in the process of acquiring carriers, at least some of which definitely qualify for the "supercarrier" nonsense-name. They purchased the Soviet Varyag (67,500 tons, ski-jump takeoff, arrested landing, conventional steam propulsion), renamed Liaoning. J-15 mach 2.4 fighters first landed on Liaoning in 2012.
The Type 081 domestic build is 35,000+ tons, conventional propulsion, a helicopter/VTOL/troop carrier. The Type 089 will be 60,000+ tons, conventional propulsion. And the Type 085 will be 90,000+ tons, nuclear propulsion. Admittedly, we are talking multi-decade development and procurement process here.
Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.
You got that right. Credible citations are bloody well needed. And satellite photos are useless as hard evidence. They don't show what nationality is manning the vehicles. For example, supporting rebels with hardware and training is emphatically NOT mounting an invasion.
"Secret burials" is an absurd assertion. Either nobody not involved knows about them, or they were not secret. Elementary logic. Sorry, but just asserting there were secret burials does not count as genuine evidence, let alone proof.
Can you produce a link to the photo? Without even seeing it, I doubt all of what you call "tanks" were even tanks. Probably some or all of them were BMPs, armored cars, or something else. But that's just a wild ass guess; we can settle the facts if we see the photo.
A tank is a thickly armored tracked vehicle with a fully revolving turret mounting a large bore gun. Anything with a tiny looking gun, usually in a tiny turret, is something else.
T-72. A tank. Treads. Large turret. Big scary gun. Thick armor up to 28 cm. Takes suitable anti-tank weapons to knock out.
BMP-2. Not a tank. Treads. Tiny turret. Comparatively puny gun. Thin armor, 2.3-3.3 cm tops, . Can be knocked out easily.
German WW2 armored car shown in top photo. Runs on rubber tires but can have a gun as big as a contemporary tank. Not a real rotating turret. What looks like a turret is actually a fixed shield. There are certainly armored cars used by modern armies.
OK, Here is a current Russian model. Wikipedia's main picture is lousy. This is a good picture.
got locked up for "disobeying a police officer", which is a bit more ephemeral (and way too generalized)
In the US they call it "disorderly conduct" or - wait for it - "disobeying a police officer", and people are frequently taken into custody for it. 15 days lockup is fairly harsh, overnight would be more usual, but I doubt it would be difficult to find people locked up for that long in the US on equivalent charges.
That's not an answer. That just says they made a stupid choice. Face it. Anybody with half a brain buys the BeagleBone anyway. What's an extra $10-20? One or two pizzas.
Your post is quite silly to put it gently. Russia has been rolling all those things into the Ukraine. What you naively fail to consider is that it is rolling them in numbers only necessary to reestablish control. None of the armed interventions in eastern europe during the soviet era were full scale invasions. They used only the forces they needed to. And so they do once again. Being far better equipped and organized means you can accomplish strategic goals with only 1,000.
But you are not willing to present a single shred of credible evidence of any Russian military formations rolling into Ukraine. You also suffer from an amusing mania in which you view Russian military prowess not just in due earned respect, but positive awe as some kind of superhumans. How you expect 1000 troops with no air support to have any significant effect against a nation of 50 million is just baffling. That is, if that nation were motivated. But we all know the Ukraine military is not motivated, not trained, not equipped, and not capable, don't we?
Here's a tip, my Russian friend, blah blah remove the little telltale signs that your native language is Russian blah blah
Funny, grandparent did not show me any "telltale signs" at all, and I am pretty sensitive to awkward phraseology one finds in non native speakers. Not that being a non native speaker is in any way naughty or evil. His post is actually well composed, thoughtful, highly cogent (unlike yours), and makes excellent points.
Perhaps you would be good enough to elaborate on these "telltale signs". You can regard that as calling bullshit if you so wish.
It is parent who strikes me as being very partisan. That's not a bad thing per se, except when you believe you are accomplished anything by spouting blather and no meaningful debate.
My considered opinion is that the Ukrainian military is not motivated, not trained, not equipped, not professional, and not reliable. They are heading for the hills because they can't endure the battle which is their duty. They will have a long, long, long wait if they wait for mommy in the form of "international reaction" to punish their bullies.
My assessment does not rely on the completely unsupported phantasm of OMG Russian troops. I don't give it because it pleases me that the situation is this way, but I decline to warp my view of the situation to fit my fantasy of how things ought to be.
You mean like the TSX-NI instructions that can increase performance of certain highly threaded workloads up to 40%?
Oh, so sorry. Intel spectacularly bit the big one on that rollout. Completely busted. So bad that the latest microcode update completely disables those instructions.
1994 Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia and the USA to disarm its nuclear arsenal in return for a treaty that guaranteed Russia and USA would come to their aid if they were ever invaded.
Sorry, didn't happen. Please do not make stuff up. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by the US, Russia, the UK and Ukraine was (in return for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament) a "promise" by Russia, the US and the UK not to use force or threaten military or other coercive action against Ukraine. It did not commit any of them to any kind of response in the event the promise was violated or some third party attacked Ukraine. It is not a treaty. There is no enforcement provision. The most it demands is that the signatories "consult" if TSHTF.
Yeah, the ratio of populations is about 3:1, but the ratio of personnel under arms is twice that high, and the ratio of military effectiveness is about 100:1 or 1000:1. If Russia wanted to be in Kyiv they could get it done in a few days with practically no casualties because the Ukraine military would all light out for the hills the first day of battle.
The Ukraine military can't even make it look like they can effectively engage a few ragtag rebels.
Amusing as it may be to contemplate some kind of strange anachronistic WW3 playing out like WW2 with gigantic armies of conscripts slugging it out, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Not that way. Nobody could afford to support that kind of effort, nor is the scenario stable. Prohibitive economics aside, long before the world could logistically even begin to mobilize, train and equip tens of millions of soldiers, someone would set off some nukes and civilization would become an historical oddity.
you might almost be willing live next to it, but you don't want to ingest it for sure
I grew up playing in the back yard near a bed of Lilies of the Valley. Every part of those flowers is highly toxic. I don't remember ever being warned about eating them, but I must have got inculcated with the idea that it is super dumb to eat random things growing in nature. I never touched them, and neither did any of the neighborhood kids.
I mean touch as in ingest. We did pick bouquets of them and put them in glasses of water in the house.
Dropping hard drives tends to destroy them too, but that doesn't rule them out. Basically if you fling tapes around, you're doing it wrong. Have a care.
Slashdot Mirror
That is correct. They entered into a memorandum with the US, UK, and Russia. The memorandum stated that, in return for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament, the US, UK, and Russia would not attack or threaten them with military force. And it included no prescribed penalties or commitment to defense on the part of anybody.
Ukraine undertook and completed NUCLEAR disarmament, as agreed in the memorandum.
That is something of which there is no credible proof as yet.
"Hypersonic missile" is a term applied to hypersonic, maneuvering air-breathers. It is sometimes used to describe rocket-boosted hypersonic, maneuvering gliders. A "ballistic missile" is a rocket that flies in a predetermined arc. This was always a sloppy description, because all missiles HAVE to be inertially corrected during the initial unstable boost phase, though not for most of the flight. But it has become even more blurred, because some ballistic missiles now are actually quasi-ballistic. They have an inertially corrected boost phase (like all ballistic missiles), a free flight true ballistic arc for most of their flight (like all ballistic missiles), and a guided terminal phase (UNLIKE true ballistic missiles).
China is addressing the targeting of carriers with both hypersonic air-breathers and quasi-ballistic missiles. You can most definitely effectively attack them with either tech, and conventional explosives can do the job.
Err, China is already in the process of acquiring carriers, at least some of which definitely qualify for the "supercarrier" nonsense-name. They purchased the Soviet Varyag (67,500 tons, ski-jump takeoff, arrested landing, conventional steam propulsion), renamed Liaoning. J-15 mach 2.4 fighters first landed on Liaoning in 2012.
The Type 081 domestic build is 35,000+ tons, conventional propulsion, a helicopter/VTOL/troop carrier. The Type 089 will be 60,000+ tons, conventional propulsion. And the Type 085 will be 90,000+ tons, nuclear propulsion. Admittedly, we are talking multi-decade development and procurement process here.
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.
Needs more work. Links to google searches are not the same as direct links to credible documented proof.
I'm not saying the proof doesn't exist; just that I have not seen it ANYWHERE. Double-damn certainly not anywhere in this discussion.
OK, they all agreed on the evidence of WMDs in 2003, and they all (as well as the administration and numerous other agencies) turned out to be wrong.
You got that right. Credible citations are bloody well needed. And satellite photos are useless as hard evidence. They don't show what nationality is manning the vehicles. For example, supporting rebels with hardware and training is emphatically NOT mounting an invasion.
"Secret burials" is an absurd assertion. Either nobody not involved knows about them, or they were not secret. Elementary logic. Sorry, but just asserting there were secret burials does not count as genuine evidence, let alone proof.
Can you produce a link to the photo? Without even seeing it, I doubt all of what you call "tanks" were even tanks. Probably some or all of them were BMPs, armored cars, or something else. But that's just a wild ass guess; we can settle the facts if we see the photo.
A tank is a thickly armored tracked vehicle with a fully revolving turret mounting a large bore gun. Anything with a tiny looking gun, usually in a tiny turret, is something else.
T-72. A tank. Treads. Large turret. Big scary gun. Thick armor up to 28 cm. Takes suitable anti-tank weapons to knock out.
BMP-2. Not a tank. Treads. Tiny turret. Comparatively puny gun. Thin armor, 2.3-3.3 cm tops, . Can be knocked out easily.
German WW2 armored car shown in top photo. Runs on rubber tires but can have a gun as big as a contemporary tank. Not a real rotating turret. What looks like a turret is actually a fixed shield. There are certainly armored cars used by modern armies.
OK, Here is a current Russian model. Wikipedia's main picture is lousy. This is a good picture.
In the US they call it "disorderly conduct" or - wait for it - "disobeying a police officer", and people are frequently taken into custody for it. 15 days lockup is fairly harsh, overnight would be more usual, but I doubt it would be difficult to find people locked up for that long in the US on equivalent charges.
That's not an answer. That just says they made a stupid choice. Face it. Anybody with half a brain buys the BeagleBone anyway. What's an extra $10-20? One or two pizzas.
Horseshit. I've had 1300 open. I am over 400 a large proportion of time. Not everyone is an irrelevant lightweight.
But you are not willing to present a single shred of credible evidence of any Russian military formations rolling into Ukraine. You also suffer from an amusing mania in which you view Russian military prowess not just in due earned respect, but positive awe as some kind of superhumans. How you expect 1000 troops with no air support to have any significant effect against a nation of 50 million is just baffling. That is, if that nation were motivated. But we all know the Ukraine military is not motivated, not trained, not equipped, and not capable, don't we?
Funny, grandparent did not show me any "telltale signs" at all, and I am pretty sensitive to awkward phraseology one finds in non native speakers. Not that being a non native speaker is in any way naughty or evil. His post is actually well composed, thoughtful, highly cogent (unlike yours), and makes excellent points.
Perhaps you would be good enough to elaborate on these "telltale signs". You can regard that as calling bullshit if you so wish.
It is parent who strikes me as being very partisan. That's not a bad thing per se, except when you believe you are accomplished anything by spouting blather and no meaningful debate.
My considered opinion is that the Ukrainian military is not motivated, not trained, not equipped, not professional, and not reliable. They are heading for the hills because they can't endure the battle which is their duty. They will have a long, long, long wait if they wait for mommy in the form of "international reaction" to punish their bullies.
My assessment does not rely on the completely unsupported phantasm of OMG Russian troops. I don't give it because it pleases me that the situation is this way, but I decline to warp my view of the situation to fit my fantasy of how things ought to be.
You mean like the TSX-NI instructions that can increase performance of certain highly threaded workloads up to 40%?
Oh, so sorry. Intel spectacularly bit the big one on that rollout. Completely busted. So bad that the latest microcode update completely disables those instructions.
Sorry, didn't happen. Please do not make stuff up. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by the US, Russia, the UK and Ukraine was (in return for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament) a "promise" by Russia, the US and the UK not to use force or threaten military or other coercive action against Ukraine. It did not commit any of them to any kind of response in the event the promise was violated or some third party attacked Ukraine. It is not a treaty. There is no enforcement provision. The most it demands is that the signatories "consult" if TSHTF.
"apparently it is to pursue a new opportunity that Stevens just could not pass up"
They always say that. They make you say that. It's part of the severance package.
Actually there are minor fascist elements in Ukraine. And in Russia. And in the US. And every other place in the world.
They certainly aren't controlling any of those countries though, or any cuntries of much consequence.
Yeah, the ratio of populations is about 3:1, but the ratio of personnel under arms is twice that high, and the ratio of military effectiveness is about 100:1 or 1000:1. If Russia wanted to be in Kyiv they could get it done in a few days with practically no casualties because the Ukraine military would all light out for the hills the first day of battle.
The Ukraine military can't even make it look like they can effectively engage a few ragtag rebels.
Parent AC is one of very few posts on this page making any sense at all.
Amusing as it may be to contemplate some kind of strange anachronistic WW3 playing out like WW2 with gigantic armies of conscripts slugging it out, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Not that way. Nobody could afford to support that kind of effort, nor is the scenario stable. Prohibitive economics aside, long before the world could logistically even begin to mobilize, train and equip tens of millions of soldiers, someone would set off some nukes and civilization would become an historical oddity.
Wrong.
I grew up playing in the back yard near a bed of Lilies of the Valley. Every part of those flowers is highly toxic. I don't remember ever being warned about eating them, but I must have got inculcated with the idea that it is super dumb to eat random things growing in nature. I never touched them, and neither did any of the neighborhood kids.
I mean touch as in ingest. We did pick bouquets of them and put them in glasses of water in the house.
Whoosh.
Dropping hard drives tends to destroy them too, but that doesn't rule them out. Basically if you fling tapes around, you're doing it wrong. Have a care.