Focuspuller wrote:

Then why did YOU bring it up? Just to discredit the straw man you built?

And for your edification, Isaac Asimov did NOT write "I, Robot".  Eando Binder (pseudonym of Earl and Otto Binder), did. Your ignorance is one thing, but the arrogance you display in defending and embellishing that ignorance is STAGGERING.

I mentioned "I, Robot" because it's been suggested by some defense writers that the US military should adopt Isaac Asimov's First Law on an official basis. Personally I think they would make themselves look pretty stupid if they did that.

JSouthworth wrote:
I mentioned "I, Robot" because it's been suggested by some defense writers that the US military should adopt Isaac Asimov's First Law on an official basis. Personally I think they would make themselves look pretty stupid if they did that.

it's been suggested by some defense writers that the US military should adopt Isaac Asimov's First Law on an official basis

Oh really, who exactly? And in what context?

JSouthworth wrote:

I mentioned "I, Robot" because it's been suggested by some defense writers that the US military should adopt Isaac Asimov's First Law on an official basis. Personally I think they would make themselves look pretty stupid if they did that.

Cite your "defense writers " who suggest that military weaponry "may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm".

Focuspuller wrote:

Cite your "defense writers " who suggest that military weaponry "may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm".

It does seem a little ridiculous when you put it that way.

JSouthworth wrote:

It does seem a little ridiculous when you put it that way.

Maybe when wars are fought solely between algorithms.

Focuspuller wrote:

Maybe when wars are fought solely between algorithms.

Trust me when I tell you that Isaac Asimov has plenty of fans in the military. They should read Harry Harrison or David Drake or Walter Jon Williams instead I think.

JSouthworth wrote:
Trust me when I tell you ....

No. 

JSouthworth wrote:
Members of US antiwar groups have recently appeared on TV demanding a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine from the US government, which would seem to make little sense, unless they think the US government and military are so powerful that Joe Biden can snap his fingers and end the war in Ukraine just like that. If they want to agitate for an end to the war, they need to do it in Moscow. The US government cannot negotiate a ceasefire or an end to a war in which the US military are not involved.

The US is not involved?  The US is not supplying weapons, training or political support?  The US government cannot negotiate a ceasefire or an end to a war?  Have you ever heard of the Good Friday Agreement? 

Apparently trump thinks he can snap his fingers and end the war- he says so often.  But he also said he could end the war in Afghanistan in a very short time- he didn't live up to that, but he did eventually surrender and withdrew, abandoning American partners and resources. 

trump being against people living free and trump being a supporter of dictatorial regimes, would certainly make it harder for those that Putin wants to subjugate and destroy.

JSouthworth wrote:
I'm also disturbed by the way some people are talking about the impact on animal life, for example on dolphins in the Black Sea as though they think that animal life is more important that human life. This can perhaps be related to the motivation of people in the environmental movement generally. Involvement in environmental politics allows them to think they are influencing the global situation without their having to deal directly with major issues affecting human beings, which would necessitate their accepting moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

You do not think that people should have to deal directly with issues, major or minor, that deal with non-human life and that they should not have to accept their moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions to the environment and all other life and the impacts that all other life has on human life?  Do you also think people should fail to address problems and eschew their moral responsibilities just because the consequences of their actions are imposed on someone else's land and environment?

Focuspuller wrote:
"I'm also disturbed by the way some people are talking about the impact on animal life, for example on dolphins in the Black Sea as though they think that animal life is more important that human life. "

Once again, no source cited.

Citing a specific source in this case would be pointless when it's all over the news, you can't avoid it. But do these people really imagine that Vladimir Putin gives a f**k about anything they say or do in the United States? Because if they do, they're deluded. If they want to make a difference to anything, if they want to end the war in Ukraine, they need to go to Moscow and protest against the regime that started it.

JSouthworth wrote:

Citing a specific source in this case would be pointless when it's all over the news, you can't avoid it. But do these people really imagine that Vladimir Putin gives a f**k about anything they say or do in the United States? Because if they do, they're deluded. If they want to make a difference to anything, if they want to end the war in Ukraine, they need to go to Moscow and protest against the regime that started it.

"Citing a specific source in this case would be pointless when it's all over the news,"

How so very convenient.  😂

JSouthworth wrote:

Citing a specific source in this case would be pointless when it's all over the news, you can't avoid it. But do these people really imagine that Vladimir Putin gives a f**k about anything they say or do in the United States? Because if they do, they're deluded. If they want to make a difference to anything, if they want to end the war in Ukraine, they need to go to Moscow and protest against the regime that started it.

it's all over the news
In case anyone's wondering whether this might be true here in the UK, I can confirm that it's not. Yet more total BS from Southy I'm afraid.

P R E S T O N wrote:

it's all over the news
In case anyone's wondering whether this might be true here in the UK, I can confirm that it's not. Yet more total BS from Southy I'm afraid.

"...if they want to end the war in Ukraine, they need to go to Moscow and protest against the regime that started it..."

Great suggestion. No doubt Vlady is even now deploying extra border units at airports, train stations, and border crossings to better welcome and process thousands of foreigners intent on demonstrating in Moscow against the Putin war in Ukraine.

JSouthworth wrote:
Members of US antiwar groups have recently appeared on TV demanding a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine from the US government, which would seem to make little sense, unless they think the US government and military are so powerful that Joe Biden can snap his fingers and end the war in Ukraine just like that. If they want to agitate for an end to the war, they need to do it in Moscow. The US government cannot negotiate a ceasefire or an end to a war in which the US military are not involved.

I'm also disturbed by the way some people are talking about the impact on animal life, for example on dolphins in the Black Sea as though they think that animal life is more important that human life. This can perhaps be related to the motivation of people in the environmental movement generally. Involvement in environmental politics allows them to think they are influencing the global situation without their having to deal directly with major issues affecting human beings, which would necessitate their accepting moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

The idea of drawing parallels between environmentalism and anti-war protest might be convenient politically but it sets up certain contradictions at the same time. Environmentalists are constantly telling us how most environmental destruction is due to human overpopulation, without necessarily drawing the obvious logical inferences from that.

Blaming "militarism" for wars may seem obvious but what is militarism exactly? War is a social activity; essentially any society can fight a war. Social groups of primates sometimes fight battles against each other. So militarism can be defined as organisation for war. But in a modern technological context the difference between that and peaceful industrial activity is relatively small.

JSouthworth wrote:
The idea of drawing parallels between environmentalism and anti-war protest might be convenient politically but it sets up certain contradictions at the same time. Environmentalists are constantly telling us how most environmental destruction is due to human overpopulation, without necessarily drawing the obvious logical inferences from that.

Blaming "militarism" for wars may seem obvious but what is militarism exactly? War is a social activity; essentially any society can fight a war. Social groups of primates sometimes fight battles against each other. So militarism can be defined as organisation for war. But in a modern technological context the difference between that and peaceful industrial activity is relatively small.

-
-
Why do you quote yourself?  Do you find that your previous post was worthless and pointless and you need to develop a better argument?  Yet you don't?


"The idea of drawing parallels between environmentalism and anti-war protest might be convenient politically"

Many arguments are convenient politically, especially when you are deflecting because you can't make a good argument.  You understand that your statement also claims that drawing parallels between environmentalism and anti-war protest might NOT be convenient politically?  But tell me something there, Mr JSouthworth, why has putin targeted environmental targets and targets that will inflect environmental damage?  Hasn't the very fact that putin has destroyed cities created an environmental catastrophe?  Didn't the damage he caused to the sluice gates of the reservoir, then the uncontrolled rise in the reservoir level, then the explosion at the dam just before it ruptured- all led to an environmental catastrophe?  Why in war would someone create an environmental catastrophe that displaces thousands of people, disrupts homes and business, commerce and transportation?  Isn't that part of his stated goal to destroy Ukraine and erase Ukraine, her people and their society from the map?  That flood he caused has not impacted wildlife, fisheries and agriculture?

The environment is a non-issue in this war and that is why putin dangles the use of nuclear weapons?  Because he hopes that the world will grant him Ukraine and world domination because of the threat to make parts of the earth, or the entire planet, uninhabitable?

Do you suggest that protesting environmental harm should not be part of antiwar protests?

"Environmentalists are constantly telling us how most environmental destruction is due to human overpopulation, without necessarily drawing the obvious logical inferences from that.".

Are you aware of other man made causes to environmental degradation?  Are environmentalists ever telling us the other reasons the environment is being destroyed?  Are we to be focused on just one reason while other causes run rampant and unchecked?  Are you so desperate to make a point that you have to make complex matters inane?

What is the logical inference you refer to?  That war reduces the population and therefore war is good for the environment?  Is that why you danced around stating the conclusion?  Because even to you, it is an utterly stupid conclusion and you know not to make it?

JSouthworth wrote:
Here's an article by someone who thinks that F16 fighter aircraft would make a big difference to the Ukrainian counteroffensive by attacking the Russian artillery. In the early 1970s, perhaps; today they'd be too vulnerable to air defense systems.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine … S&IR=T

YAWN.
Yet more gormless drivel by Southy who knows SFA about anything but tries to impress the impressionable by disputing those who do. I wonder if it's working...

JSouthworth wrote:

I can only give you my opinion, that's right. If you want somebody else's opinion, well then you'll just have to ask somebody else.

While you are waiting for a request for your non expert opinion, you may want to read:

MEET THE F-16V: THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED 4TH GENERATION FIGHTER IN THE WORLD
https://lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/f … ation.html

And this:
F-16 FLEET UNDERGOING LARGEST MODIFICATION WORK IN HISTORY
https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/NEWS/Article- … n-history/

And this:
US AIR FORCE MODERNIZING OVER 600 F-16 AIRCRAFT
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/03/ … izing-f16/

JSouthworth wrote:
Here's an article by someone who thinks that F16 fighter aircraft would make a big difference to the Ukrainian counteroffensive by attacking the Russian artillery. In the early 1970s, perhaps; today they'd be too vulnerable to air defense systems.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine … S&IR=T

Talking about the early 1970s, most people remember the chart hits of the period but the 1973 Arab-Israeli War was the conflict that demonstrated the vulnerability of jet tactical fighters to an integrated air defense system, the Israelis losing around 80 aircraft to the Egyptians' SA6 SAMs and ZSU 23-4 self propelled quad 23mm anti-aircraft guns, mostly in the first two days. Tactical errors by the Egyptians and an urgent airlift of airborne ECM equipment from the United States subsequently helped to reduce losses from this unacceptable level, but it would be fair to say that the writing was on the wall 50 years ago as far as the manned tactical fighter was concerned. What we see today is the law of diminishing returns in effect, with the individual cost of the manned fighter spiralling to stratospheric levels and thereby reducing affordable numbers of new-build aircraft to levels which are almost trivial, without successfully addressing the problem of vulnerability to ground based missile systems in particular. The solution to the problem may be to build and operate large numbers of inexpensive, expendable but nevertheless far more effective combat drones instead.


Useful article here about the 1973 war;  https://www.timesofisrael.com/newly-ope … ippur-war/

JSouthworth wrote:

Talking about the early 1970s, most people remember the chart hits of the period but the 1973 Arab-Israeli War was the conflict that demonstrated the vulnerability of jet tactical fighters to an integrated air defense system, the Israelis losing around 80 aircraft to the Egyptians' SA6 SAMs and ZSU 23-4 self propelled quad 23mm anti-aircraft guns, mostly in the first two days. Tactical errors by the Egyptians and an urgent airlift of airborne ECM equipment from the United States subsequently helped to reduce losses from this unacceptable level, but it would be fair to say that the writing was on the wall 50 years ago as far as the manned tactical fighter was concerned. What we see today is the law of diminishing returns in effect, with the individual cost of the manned fighter spiralling to stratospheric levels and thereby reducing affordable numbers of new-build aircraft to levels which are almost trivial, without successfully addressing the problem of vulnerability to ground based missile systems in particular. The solution to the problem may be to build and operate large numbers of inexpensive, expendable but nevertheless far more effective combat drones instead.


Useful article here about the 1973 war;  https://www.timesofisrael.com/newly-ope … ippur-war/

The 1973 war is IRRELEVANT to the capabilities of the F-16, as it was not delivered to the USAF for flight test until 1978.

https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article … tem_id=141

Focuspuller wrote:
The 1973 war is IRRELEVANT to the capabilities of the F-16, as it was not delivered to the USAF for flight test until 1978.

https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article … tem_id=141

The F16 is a product of 1970s thinking and USAF experience in Vietnam, the original idea was to produce a "lightweight fighter" which would be effective in air-to-air combat.

JSouthworth wrote:
The F16 is a product of 1970s thinking and USAF experience in Vietnam, the original idea was to produce a "lightweight fighter" which would be effective in air-to-air combat.

On April 13, 1972 General Dynamics were awarded a contract for two prototypes of the Light Weight Fighter (LWF), designated YF-16.

The USAF weren't happy with the performance of the F4 Phantom in air-to-air combat in Vietnam and thought that a smaller, more maneuverable aircraft would be better. But air-to-air combat had very little effect on the outcome of the Vietnam War (there wasn't any for much of the time) and it hasn't been a deciding factor in any conflict since then, including the war in Ukraine, where virtually all aircraft losses have been to missile based air defence systems.

JSouthworth wrote:
The F16 is a product of 1970s thinking and USAF experience in Vietnam, the original idea was to produce a "lightweight fighter" which would be effective in air-to-air combat.

Since you ignore contrary evidence, TO REPEAT:

MEET THE F-16V: THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED 4TH GENERATION FIGHTER IN THE WORLD
https://lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/f … ation.html

And this:
F-16 FLEET UNDERGOING LARGEST MODIFICATION WORK IN HISTORY
https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/NEWS/Article- … n-history/

And this:
US AIR FORCE MODERNIZING OVER 600 F-16 AIRCRAFT
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/03/ … izing-f16/

Focuspuller wrote:

Since you ignore contrary evidence, TO REPEAT:

MEET THE F-16V: THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED 4TH GENERATION FIGHTER IN THE WORLD
https://lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/f … ation.html

And this:
F-16 FLEET UNDERGOING LARGEST MODIFICATION WORK IN HISTORY
https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/NEWS/Article- … n-history/

And this:
US AIR FORCE MODERNIZING OVER 600 F-16 AIRCRAFT
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/03/ … izing-f16/

More evidence of your apparently total inability to see through defense industry advertising blurb.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Looks like civil war is getting ready to bust out in the Soviet Union...er...Russia.

Tanks and troops are moving into Moscow. Wagner PMC is looking to retaliate after Russian forces attacked their own mercenaries. It's getting all sparkly over there tonight!

Let's hope this means the end of Putin and the start of peace for everyone over there.

That would be cool.

JSouthworth wrote:
More evidence of your apparently total inability to see through defense industry advertising blurb.

Or....maybe your total inability to internalize information contrary to the unsupported conclusions populating your fantasy world based on outdated and irrelevant field manual minutia and obsolete tactical dogma from 50 year-old military thinking.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Looks like civil war is getting ready to bust out in the Soviet Union...er...Russia.

Tanks and troops are moving into Moscow. Wagner PMC is looking to retaliate after Russian forces attacked their own mercenaries. It's getting all sparkly over there tonight!

Let's hope this means the end of Putin and the start of peace for everyone over there.

Putin is now saying that the rebel Wagner mercenaries will not be prosecuted. In the Soviet Union they would not have been prosecuted, they would have been killed or "disappeared" and I assume that is what Putin has in mind, although at present his priority is to stabilize the situation. This is a huge blow to his credibility which makes it questionable whether he can continue as president of Russia for much longer. The effect on the Russian war effort in Ukraine is harder to predict, but this will not help them in any way.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Looks like civil war is getting ready to bust out in the Soviet Union...er...Russia.

Tanks and troops are moving into Moscow. Wagner PMC is looking to retaliate after Russian forces attacked their own mercenaries. It's getting all sparkly over there tonight!
Let's hope this means the end of Putin and the start of peace for everyone over there.

Careful what you wish for. Prigozhin is no freedom-lover. And aside from his brutal mercenary campaigns...

"He was also active elsewhere. In February 2018, Mr. Prigozhin was one of 13 Russians indicted by a federal grand jury for interfering in the American election through the Internet Research Agency, a troll factory that spread falsehoods and waged information warfare against the United States, in support of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.

The United States imposed sanctions against Mr. Prigozhin in December 2016."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/23/worl … -coup.html

So no, it would not really be "cool" if Prigozhin actually managed a  coup d'etat and installed someone worse than Putin, like himself. And it looks very unlikely that will happen.