You put so much effort into that post, that I almost feel bad pointing out that you probably should have read the comment I was replying to… you know, the one above my comment.
But, if you’re having a hard time locating it, I pasted the relevant quote that I was responding to:
“…opportunity for a movie-like secret mission with a bag full of consumer drones…”
But yeah, I guess if you completely ignore the actual text I was responding to, you might of had a fair point.
Yes, and that’s what Ukraine is doing at the moment. But they’re doing it in the cities like Moscow that actually matter to Putin, and the Russian elites.
The comment I was responding to was talking about taking a lot small drones deeper into Russia, which are places that Putin couldn’t give a shit about.
So, if they aren’t useful for destroying critical infrastructure, and Putin and the Russian elite don’t care about any psychological impact on those civilians, what is the point? Which is why I covered using them to target civilians, and why that would be a bad idea.
Saboteurs and Ukrainian assets inside of Russia are not an unlimited resource. Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to use their time doing things that actually politically harm Putin, or impact the wider Russian war effort?
I know it’s been done on the unit or tactical level, but I wasn’t aware of another example of this level of it being operationalized at this scale before
If you have an example to reference, would you mind sharing? Not being sarcastic, I’d be interested in reading up more on how that is dealt with at scale.
That might be an unintended benefit, but no, the rationale is pretty sound.
Basically Ukraine identified the local IP ranges and mass scanned them for open webcams for intelligence gathering and scouting purposes.
It’s pretty ingenious and I am left wondering if this is the first time this tactic has been deployed at scale during a conventional war.
Regardless, I expect this is one of those things that we will see moving forward in any future conventional wars, including governments requesting their civilians turn off their IP cameras, or otherwise forcing them to.
I didn’t move any goal posts, I’ve been pretty clear about my views on the general ineffectiveness of using quadcopters to target infrastructure.
But like I said, maybe I’m wrong, and the Ukrainian MoD will have a “Eureka!” moment after reading your comments.
Again, I think you’re vastly overestimating the capability of a quadcopter drone to inflict serious damage on hard infrastructure.
But hey, maybe I’m not only wrong, but so are all of the Ukrainian sabotage teams and they’ll stumble across your advice here and realize what a great idea it is.
Acts of sabotage have been happening this entire time, whether or not they’re getting covered.
Ukraine has also been running a covert targeted assassination program, which unfortunately got some press coverage some months back due to their legally and morally questionable approach to target selection.
But, it’s an existential war for their survival, so I’m not going to moralize about it.
I think you’re vastly overestimating the damage possible from the explosive payload a tiny quadcopter can carry, unless your goal is strictly terrorism i.e. intentionally targeting civilians.
Civilians dying as collateral damage during an attack/assignation of a legitimate military target is one thing, targeting civilians is another.
And before you say Russia does, don’t forget that Ukraine is dependent upon continued Western support, which is already fragile. It’s doubtful that support would survive them explicitly targeting civilians with suicide drones deep inside Russia.
This is straight out of Monsanto playbook going back decades. There’s a reason why a lot of countries have either passed laws legally shielding local farmers from accidental cross-pollination, or just banning GM seeds, not for any pseudoscience rational, but because of the way agro business uses natural cross pollination as a vector for lawfare and predatory business practices.
This is not uplifting. This is a lose-lose as it’s the type of case that this particular Supreme Court loves to add to their docket.
Eventually, SCOTUS will either rule that this does in fact violate his religious rights, or they will make a ruling siding with the school district that destroys part of the civil rights act, which is cited all throughout his filing:
"…repeatedly cites the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its Title VII section prohibiting workplace discrimination”
Me? I’m an atheist.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
This ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of projection.
Isn’t that what all the priests used to say?
200 comments in 11 days?
JFC dude… I’ve never said this to anyone before, but I think you need Jesus.
Killing another country’s civilian is not casus belli, especially when considering both countries are allied.
These terms are steeped in legal precedent and tradition. You may not agree them, or respect them, but that alone doesn’t change how they’re defined.
But that also doesn’t change the fact that this should be a serious diplomatic row with serious bilateral consequences, but so should have untold numbers of other war crimes committed against the Palestinians in general, and more specifically, against countless American citizens within the occupation zones.
Also, I’m pretty sure Joe isn’t cognizant about much lately, and I would wager that he only appears lucid when talking about events that happened 50 years ago.
I’m aware that the Olympic boxer has DSD, and that it’s prevalent in an outsized portion of female combat sports athletes. I’m still of the opinion that they should not be discriminated against for using their genetic condition to their advantage in becoming a world class athlete. I see this as no different from how Michael Phelps has a condition where he produces a lot less lactic acid.
If you were implying that the Olympics should start genetic testing of athletes and screening them for these types of conditions, I am entirely against that, see my previous response.
Did you miss the part where I was very clearly and specifically talking about the case of trans women combat sports athletes? Those who had male levels of testosterone during their body’s development and who then transitioned.
This is a very niche subject, but for some reason people like the user I was responding to, insist on pretending that puberty as a male doesn’t matter if the adult athlete is on blockers, and that it does not give them an advantage in a combat sport. I’m not so much concerned about the advantage itself, as I am about the inherent danger to the other participants.
Striking blows from a musculature developed in male levels of testosterone, present an outsized risk of death, or permanent injury, to a female fighter/boxer. A risk that is significantly higher than the normal risks associated with combat sports.
No, I cited a very specific and highly relevant scientific rationale, and then followed up with an example of what happens when you choose to ignore that reality for the sake of, whatever it is you believe you’re doing.
Combat sports are combat sports…MMA, boxing, etc., they’re COMBAT sports.
But I can tell from your ignoring the scientific reality of the situation, and choosing instead to call me a discriminatory fuckwad, that you’re someone who should be taken seriously. Clearly I’m not up to that task…
What I’m going to say has nothing to do with the Algerian boxer, she was born a woman and if we started banning athletes from the Olympics whose rare genetics gave them an advantage, there’d be no reason to watch.
trans women are actually at a competitive disadvantage since hormone blockers also nullify the low levels of Testosterone that women produce naturally.
That is objectively false for combat sports. Blockers do not reverse the years of effects that testosterone has on their bodies development, such as skeletal structure and bone density.
I don’t understand this insistence on denying reality for the very niche topic of trans women competing in combat sports, it is dangerous.
If you don’t believe me, go listen to the interviews of female MMA fighters who Fallon Fox destroyed, and I’m talking like fractured skulls.
Oh my God… You really have no clue what you’re talking about, which I suspected earlier, but that reply is almost cringe-worthy.
You don’t understand or have any depth of knowledge of British politics and media, which is pretty clear.
You don’t even know what a police state is…
Wait… Are you really basing all of your views and analysis off of British media coverage…?
It’s almost like you don’t comprehend the situation any more than you were able to understand what I actually said.
The situation has been building for a couple of decades, but it was created almost entirely by politicians and the media. The same ones who are now pearl clutching, including Starmer.
The same politicians and media outlets who are writing with indignation and feigned horror at the “violent mobs”, will suffer no consequence, especially with the attitude you just expressed.
Because, at least in my view, being part of the media class or a politician shouldn’t protect you from the legal consequences of fomenting nationwide riots. Clearly you feel differently.
So yeah, this lady and those like her are shit buckets. I genuinely don’t care what happens to them, but I do care that people like you are pretending that they are the start and the end of this problem, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Oh and P.S., it’s already a police state. Look no further than their treatment of Muslims the past two decades, including stripping citizenship and imprisoning without trial, or that they’re the most surveilled country on earth… The fact that you think this is a new, or yet to come development, speak volumes.
Politics are complicated, especially in post-Soviet bloc countries e.g. the lingering effects of Russification. But anytime a ruling party is looking to dissolve all opposition parties, and label them as criminals, it’s because they feel threatened in some way.