Oh good grief, this summary is both farcical and tragic: also, Trump has fucked air travel for at least the next two years, never mind automobiles and logistics.
-
@isaackuo @cstross The US adventure in Afghanistan was undertaken while trying to do nation-building and while following the laws of war. (the much-complained about JAG representatives checking legitimacy of airstrike targets, etc.) It was seen as a fight.
If you don't do that and bomb power plants, food stocks, oil refineries, water infrastructure, etc. with specific genocidal intent, you get different results. There's a circulating narrative around "could have won if" about this approach.
@isaackuo @cstross There's also the definite problem that everyone making decisions on both sides is incapable of doing a quantitative analysis. (They may have access to such analysis; it might be quite good, even. That doesn't mean they have any ability to believe it or to incorporate it into their understanding.)
Something does not have to have a high probability of success to be adopted as a strategic goal; it has to feel right to these specific terrible people.
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@bontchev/116271481696841313
Oh good grief, this summary is both farcical and tragic: also, Trump has fucked air travel for at least the next two years, never mind automobiles and logistics. The supply chain shock will get as bad as 2022 within a couple of months—then keep getting worse.
@cstross on one level Trump has done more for Open Source software and renewable energy in a few months than the Democrats did in years. Nothing like being a clueless despot for making people think about what they buy and how they do things...
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@bontchev/116271481696841313
Oh good grief, this summary is both farcical and tragic: also, Trump has fucked air travel for at least the next two years, never mind automobiles and logistics. The supply chain shock will get as bad as 2022 within a couple of months—then keep getting worse.
@cstross Our future is in the hands of a greedy, self-absorbed madman. Frightening.
-
@isaackuo @cstross Well, something in Iranian possession is clearly at least somewhat capable of targeting US planes. It is likely that the systems have been modified throughout the years, it is also quite likely that there are quite a few "knobs" one can turn in order to adjust what kind of radar signature the systems should look for. A lot of modern stealth really only defeats the defaults configuration.
@NohatCoder @cstross Iran does indeed have a wide range of SAM systems, including some hopelessly outdated stuff but also including systems introduced within the last ten years.
Anyway, defeating stealth is not as simple as turning a knob. It's low level physics that extremely little signal is reflected back to the radar. But it's also physics that stealth aircraft still can be detected and tracked by radar at very short range.
And there are IR/optical SAM systems which don't rely on radar.
-
@isaackuo @cstross The US adventure in Afghanistan was undertaken while trying to do nation-building and while following the laws of war. (the much-complained about JAG representatives checking legitimacy of airstrike targets, etc.) It was seen as a fight.
If you don't do that and bomb power plants, food stocks, oil refineries, water infrastructure, etc. with specific genocidal intent, you get different results. There's a circulating narrative around "could have won if" about this approach.
@graydon @cstross Well, I can certainly believe that various people who are stupid (if not AS stupid as Trump) wishfully believing in that sort of genocidal theory.
I just don't think it would actually work.
I mean, of course the sort of people who would fall for this sort of theory tend to not be the most stable minds to begin with...
-
@NohatCoder @cstross Iran does indeed have a wide range of SAM systems, including some hopelessly outdated stuff but also including systems introduced within the last ten years.
Anyway, defeating stealth is not as simple as turning a knob. It's low level physics that extremely little signal is reflected back to the radar. But it's also physics that stealth aircraft still can be detected and tracked by radar at very short range.
And there are IR/optical SAM systems which don't rely on radar.
@NohatCoder @cstross In particular, older IR missiles depended on the target being hot compared to the background noise, to be able to detect/track the target.
But more modern IR missiles just need the target to be different from the background in at least one of two different wavelengths. It's like color vision where the target just needs to be a different color or brightness than the background.
Stealth aircraft tend to try and reduce IR signature by mixing in ambient air to the exhaust, but
-
@NohatCoder @cstross In particular, older IR missiles depended on the target being hot compared to the background noise, to be able to detect/track the target.
But more modern IR missiles just need the target to be different from the background in at least one of two different wavelengths. It's like color vision where the target just needs to be a different color or brightness than the background.
Stealth aircraft tend to try and reduce IR signature by mixing in ambient air to the exhaust, but
@NohatCoder @cstross this is just plain less effective against more modern IR/optical missiles. Against 1970s era IR missiles? Sure. Against 2010s era IR missiles? Probably no effect whatsoever.
-
@graydon @cstross Well, I can certainly believe that various people who are stupid (if not AS stupid as Trump) wishfully believing in that sort of genocidal theory.
I just don't think it would actually work.
I mean, of course the sort of people who would fall for this sort of theory tend to not be the most stable minds to begin with...
@isaackuo @cstross Which is kinda the problem; someone sensible won't do this even if they're certain it will work because it affects everyone's planning for centuries thereafter, and the cost of that is greater than any present gain can possibly be.
That's different from saying that it won't be tried, and there is certainly both a profit motive and a structural desire for revenge involved.
(Oil has an extraction price; this gets the commodity price much higher than the extraction price.)
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@bontchev/116271481696841313
Oh good grief, this summary is both farcical and tragic: also, Trump has fucked air travel for at least the next two years, never mind automobiles and logistics. The supply chain shock will get as bad as 2022 within a couple of months—then keep getting worse.
I particularly enjoyed the timed breakdown of T's self-contradictions in his speech.
-
@NohatCoder @cstross this is just plain less effective against more modern IR/optical missiles. Against 1970s era IR missiles? Sure. Against 2010s era IR missiles? Probably no effect whatsoever.
@isaackuo @NohatCoder @cstross
Thank you for the valuable education. -
@cstross @isaackuo I think its even simpler - Iranian leadership has been planning for this for 50 years and are clearly prepared to extract maximum pain from the world until the us is stopped.
Meanwhile us leadership appears to have thrown out 50 years of knowledge about Iran, strategic alliances, soft economic power, and every other advantage they had that wasn't "more expensive weapons" and started a war with about 5 seconds of thought
More planning went into the Iraq War for fucks sake
-
@blotosmetek @cstross @isaackuo yup, it's why the joke is that the only country to ever successfully conquer Iran, is the country of Iran, and even they weren't that successful. (That itself is a long ugly story.)
@rootwyrm @blotosmetek @cstross @isaackuo
I guess the Arabs kind of conquered it but in the process it conquered them. Hence Baghdad.
-
@Edelruth Strava is a GPS-enabled exercise tracking app. It identified the ship's position because the sailor was running laps of the flight deck.
B7 is *I assume* a snarky joke riffing on the game "Battleships".
Thank you, Charles.
-
@isaackuo @cstross Which is kinda the problem; someone sensible won't do this even if they're certain it will work because it affects everyone's planning for centuries thereafter, and the cost of that is greater than any present gain can possibly be.
That's different from saying that it won't be tried, and there is certainly both a profit motive and a structural desire for revenge involved.
(Oil has an extraction price; this gets the commodity price much higher than the extraction price.)
@graydon @isaackuo I see us getting into a feedback cycle.
Oil/gas war in the Gulf -> skyrocketing oil/gas prices.
High fossil prices -> PV/battery more profitable
Profitable renewables -> less demand for fossils
Sinking demand -> increases incentive for war in the Gulf to keep prices high (before fossil energy fields become stranded assets)
So we're getting into end-of-oil scarcity wars, with the added twist that there's no overall energy shortage, it's just a capitalism extinction burst.
-
@graydon @isaackuo I see us getting into a feedback cycle.
Oil/gas war in the Gulf -> skyrocketing oil/gas prices.
High fossil prices -> PV/battery more profitable
Profitable renewables -> less demand for fossils
Sinking demand -> increases incentive for war in the Gulf to keep prices high (before fossil energy fields become stranded assets)
So we're getting into end-of-oil scarcity wars, with the added twist that there's no overall energy shortage, it's just a capitalism extinction burst.
-
@cstross on one level Trump has done more for Open Source software and renewable energy in a few months than the Democrats did in years. Nothing like being a clueless despot for making people think about what they buy and how they do things...
-
@mavu @graydon @isaackuo Well, the silver lining is that the end stage of this prediction is that we'll phase out fossil fuels *faster* than might otherwise have happened. The leaden side is that the transition will be bumpy and a bit bangy on the side, with unforseeable side-effects (hopefully limited to billionaires swinging from lamp-posts, but we're unlikely to get off that lightly).
-
@graydon @isaackuo I see us getting into a feedback cycle.
Oil/gas war in the Gulf -> skyrocketing oil/gas prices.
High fossil prices -> PV/battery more profitable
Profitable renewables -> less demand for fossils
Sinking demand -> increases incentive for war in the Gulf to keep prices high (before fossil energy fields become stranded assets)
So we're getting into end-of-oil scarcity wars, with the added twist that there's no overall energy shortage, it's just a capitalism extinction burst.
@cstross @graydon @isaackuo Possible side quest for those of us keeping a classic vehicle pet going on the side:
With the cost of dino fluid skyrocketing, it might actually make synthetic fuel look reasonable by comparison, and as that happens that might even get cheaper due to more demand.
Context: The 2.71 euro per liter of euro98 I had to pay 2 weeks ago was a bit yikes, and it'll likely cross 3 euro per liter by the end of the week.
-
@cstross @graydon @isaackuo Possible side quest for those of us keeping a classic vehicle pet going on the side:
With the cost of dino fluid skyrocketing, it might actually make synthetic fuel look reasonable by comparison, and as that happens that might even get cheaper due to more demand.
Context: The 2.71 euro per liter of euro98 I had to pay 2 weeks ago was a bit yikes, and it'll likely cross 3 euro per liter by the end of the week.
@Tubemeister @graydon @isaackuo Synthetic fuel via Fischer-Tropsch reaction, as long as the H2 is from electrolysis and the CO is by reduction of CO2 from the air, can be carbon-neutral (if energetically much less efficient than straight solar PV to battery power). If the CO is from coal or reformed natural gas, that's a lot less of a good thing.
-
@Tubemeister @graydon @isaackuo Synthetic fuel via Fischer-Tropsch reaction, as long as the H2 is from electrolysis and the CO is by reduction of CO2 from the air, can be carbon-neutral (if energetically much less efficient than straight solar PV to battery power). If the CO is from coal or reformed natural gas, that's a lot less of a good thing.
@cstross Yeah it all depends ofcourse, but there's at least a chance to get something a bit cleaner than straight petrol.
Until recently that still fell into the firmly way too expensive bucket if you wanted to fill something bigger than a lawnmower, but times they are a changing.
I mean for the daily commute and other dumb A-B stuff an EV makes a ton more sense obviously...
