Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. 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.

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.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
89 Posts 35 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • isaackuo@spacey.spaceI isaackuo@spacey.space

    @NohatCoder @cstross Iran does indeed have a wide range of SAM systems, including some hopelessly outdated stuff but also including systems introduced within the last ten years.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@spacey.spaceI This user is from outside of this forum
    isaackuo@spacey.spaceI This user is from outside of this forum
    isaackuo@spacey.space
    wrote last edited by
    #60

    @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

    isaackuo@spacey.spaceI 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • isaackuo@spacey.spaceI isaackuo@spacey.space

      @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

      isaackuo@spacey.spaceI This user is from outside of this forum
      isaackuo@spacey.spaceI This user is from outside of this forum
      isaackuo@spacey.space
      wrote last edited by
      #61

      @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.

      burrland01@mastodon.worldB 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • isaackuo@spacey.spaceI isaackuo@spacey.space

        @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...

        graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
        graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
        graydon@canada.masto.host
        wrote last edited by
        #62

        @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.)

        cstross@wandering.shopC 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

          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.

          edelruth@mastodon.onlineE This user is from outside of this forum
          edelruth@mastodon.onlineE This user is from outside of this forum
          edelruth@mastodon.online
          wrote last edited by
          #63

          @cstross

          I particularly enjoyed the timed breakdown of T's self-contradictions in his speech.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • isaackuo@spacey.spaceI isaackuo@spacey.space

            @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.

            burrland01@mastodon.worldB This user is from outside of this forum
            burrland01@mastodon.worldB This user is from outside of this forum
            burrland01@mastodon.world
            wrote last edited by
            #64

            @isaackuo @NohatCoder @cstross
            Thank you for the valuable education.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • jer@chirp.enworld.orgJ jer@chirp.enworld.org

              @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

              faduda@mastodon.ieF This user is from outside of this forum
              faduda@mastodon.ieF This user is from outside of this forum
              faduda@mastodon.ie
              wrote last edited by
              #65

              @Jer @cstross @isaackuo All those "so-called experts" were woke, you see. The loyalty purges were necessary to placate the Beast of Mar a Lago.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • rootwyrm@weird.autosR rootwyrm@weird.autos

                @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.)

                glc@mastodon.onlineG This user is from outside of this forum
                glc@mastodon.onlineG This user is from outside of this forum
                glc@mastodon.online
                wrote last edited by
                #66

                @rootwyrm @blotosmetek @cstross @isaackuo

                I guess the Arabs kind of conquered it but in the process it conquered them. Hence Baghdad.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                  @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".

                  edelruth@mastodon.onlineE This user is from outside of this forum
                  edelruth@mastodon.onlineE This user is from outside of this forum
                  edelruth@mastodon.online
                  wrote last edited by
                  #67

                  @cstross

                  Thank you, Charles.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                    @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.)

                    cstross@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                    cstross@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                    cstross@wandering.shop
                    wrote last edited by
                    #68

                    @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.

                    mavu@mastodon.socialM tubemeister@mstdn.socialT fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF 3 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                      @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.

                      mavu@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                      mavu@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                      mavu@mastodon.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #69

                      @cstross @graydon @isaackuo that sounds dangerously like a prediction!
                      And i thought we all agreed that you're not allowed to do that anymore, for being way too accurate..

                      cstross@wandering.shopC 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • drajt@fosstodon.orgD drajt@fosstodon.org

                        @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...

                        netraven@hear-me.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                        netraven@hear-me.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                        netraven@hear-me.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #70

                        @drajt @cstross cue people claiming that was his secret strategy the whole time.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • mavu@mastodon.socialM mavu@mastodon.social

                          @cstross @graydon @isaackuo that sounds dangerously like a prediction!
                          And i thought we all agreed that you're not allowed to do that anymore, for being way too accurate..

                          cstross@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                          cstross@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                          cstross@wandering.shop
                          wrote last edited by
                          #71

                          @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).

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                            @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.

                            tubemeister@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                            tubemeister@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                            tubemeister@mstdn.social
                            wrote last edited by
                            #72

                            @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@wandering.shopC 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • tubemeister@mstdn.socialT tubemeister@mstdn.social

                              @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@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                              cstross@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                              cstross@wandering.shop
                              wrote last edited by
                              #73

                              @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@mstdn.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                                @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@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                                tubemeister@mstdn.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                                tubemeister@mstdn.social
                                wrote last edited by
                                #74

                                @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...

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • drajt@fosstodon.orgD drajt@fosstodon.org

                                  @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...

                                  fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF This user is from outside of this forum
                                  fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF This user is from outside of this forum
                                  fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.net
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #75

                                  @drajt @cstross and he is doing his best to accelerate the migration to renewables he hates so much.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  1
                                  0
                                  • drajt@fosstodon.orgD drajt@fosstodon.org shared this topic
                                  • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                                    @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.

                                    fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF This user is from outside of this forum
                                    fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF This user is from outside of this forum
                                    fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.net
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #76

                                    @cstross @graydon @isaackuo the demand destruction is what the Saudis are most afraid of.

                                    graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • nohatcoder@mastodon.gamedev.placeN nohatcoder@mastodon.gamedev.place

                                      @isaackuo @cstross Yes, all the other planes are also way too expensive. When Iran has only been able to shoot down 2 planes, the reason is that US and Israel have attacked primarily with land/ship-launched missiles, and possibly some plane-launched missiles and glide bombs. The planes are too vulnerable to get close to any target with a working AA system, that includes 1970's USSR spec.

                                      fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF This user is from outside of this forum
                                      fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF This user is from outside of this forum
                                      fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.net
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #77

                                      @NohatCoder @isaackuo @cstross the Serbians were able to shoot down a F-117 with Soviet-era S-125 air defenses. I would bet the F-117 is much more stealthy than the F-35.

                                      Link Preview Image
                                      How A Dogged Serbian Commander Shot Down The Stealthy US F-117 Nighthawk In 1999

                                      While the F-117's shootdown was a lucky shot, it was one of two Nighthawks hit by Serbian air defense.

                                      favicon

                                      Simple Flying (simpleflying.com)

                                      isaackuo@spacey.spaceI 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
                                      • fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.netF fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.net

                                        @cstross @graydon @isaackuo the demand destruction is what the Saudis are most afraid of.

                                        graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        graydon@canada.masto.host
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #78

                                        @fazalmajid @cstross @isaackuo I can well believe it.

                                        A sea mine as generally imagined is 19th century technology and not in any way efficient.

                                        Today, there are ocean gliders with many month's endurance; it would not be hard to make these crisscross shipping lanes and preferentially attack propellers. One state-level actor doing the design work is all it takes, and it's not easy to believe no one has.

                                        Clearing such things would be a selection of novel challenges.

                                        cstross@wandering.shopC isaackuo@spacey.spaceI 2 Replies Last reply
                                        0
                                        • graydon@canada.masto.hostG graydon@canada.masto.host

                                          @fazalmajid @cstross @isaackuo I can well believe it.

                                          A sea mine as generally imagined is 19th century technology and not in any way efficient.

                                          Today, there are ocean gliders with many month's endurance; it would not be hard to make these crisscross shipping lanes and preferentially attack propellers. One state-level actor doing the design work is all it takes, and it's not easy to believe no one has.

                                          Clearing such things would be a selection of novel challenges.

                                          cstross@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                                          cstross@wandering.shopC This user is from outside of this forum
                                          cstross@wandering.shop
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #79

                                          @graydon @fazalmajid @isaackuo And then there are CAPTOR mines. The US has had then since 1979; it's as mature a technology as cruise missiles—a homing torpedo in a can. Sits on the sea floor for weeks to months, listening for the blade count characteristic of a designated target. When a target drives by, the torpedo pops out and makes a speed run at it.

                                          I am *certain* Iran has the chops to build its own version. And the Straits are narrow enough to make a database of targets easy to build.

                                          graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups