Politics: The Undiscovered Country

[Hurlshort]

18 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Maybe where you live. Here in IL Ive paid for every single year so far. I need Sanders to give me that all back.

I don't know what your talking about, but I did notice this. https://wqad.com/2019/04/19/illinois-spends-more-per-student-on-school-administration-than-any-other-state-report-finds/

Yikes, you guys are swimming in paper pushers.

[Gfted1]

3 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I don't know what your talking about

Here in IL, every school year, you are required to pay a fee for every single child you enroll into school or college. Are you also a product of some affirmative action, or similar program, like some of our other posters? Do your kids get a free ride because youre an educator? 

[ShadySands]

Hmm, new tariffs by China and the president is trying to order private companies around because of it.

I thought trade wars were good and easy to win

Edited August 23, 2019 by ShadySands

[HoonDing]

He'll be re-elected.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

Here in IL, every school year, you are required to pay a fee for every single child you enroll into school or college. Are you also a product of some affirmative action, or similar program, like some of our other posters? Do your kids get a free ride because youre an educator? 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 hours ago, Maedhros said:

Bernie welcomes the hate, I rather like this move: https://berniesanders.com/anti-endorsements/

It'll probably be him, Warren or Biden in the end (even though the latter tries very hard not to impress anyone in the debates).

A real power move would have been to include David Koch.

Edited August 24, 2019 by KaineParker

[smjjames]

1 hour ago, KaineParker said:

A real power move would have been to include David Koch.

The David Koch that died earlier today/yesterday?

[Agiel]

On 8/22/2019 at 5:14 PM, Zoraptor said:

So, the US tested a land launched tomahawk missile on Tuesday after withdrawing from the INF Treaty which previously prohibited them and launchers capable of firing them. Not really news as such, except they used the same Mark 41 launcher for the test they insisted was INF compliant in Aegis Ashore. Nice of them to provide the proof they'd been abrogating the treaty for years, though one suspects the avalanche of media admitting Russia was right on the issue will be a trickle, if that.

Not something that can be blamed on Trump either this time, Aegis Ashore was to all practical purposes Obama's child (albeit it was GWB's baby) so the practical collapse of this treaty can be put at Obama's feet even if Trump did the actual withdrawal.

Or, Occam's Razor, such a set-up was the only viable arrangement given Bolton's desire to prove that US involvement in the treaty was dead on short notice since the only other launch platform for a Tomahawk are from Mk67 533mm torpedo tubes and vertical launch tubes from submarines, which are for obvious reasons rather difficult to test on land. 

 

The Mk41 launcher by itself is not evidence that it easily launch Tomahawk missiles because the whole system is so much more than the launch cells themselves. Look at a cross-section diagram and one realises that it is in fact simply a series of steel scaffolds to hold a launch canister; without the requisite electronics to put a Tomahawk canister in the Mk41 cells of the Aegis Ashore system one may as well have put in a giant bottle rocket for all the good that does it. The following diagram is essential because it establishes that the Tomahawk Weapon Control System is wholly separate from the Aegis Weapons system that is at the core of Aegis Ashore.

Evidence:

Here is a Mk41 VLS module on a warship. This is not an American vessel, It's Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate. Absolutely no-one thinks these are capable of launching Tomahawk missiles because the fire control system aboard does not support it.

Here are the Mk41 cells again. Is it on an American destroyer? One would be forgiven for thinking that it is, but that answer is wrong again. It's a Japanese Kongo-class destroyer. Very few serious people argue that the JMSDF is in breach of Japan's Post-War Constitution because of those cells, and curiously the Kremlin doesn't need much convincing that Japan hasn't abrogated on Article 9 either.

Which brings us back to my original assessment as to the chances that the US withdrawal and the recent test would ever lead to a deployed weapon, which remains "Extremely Low," which made Trump and Bolton's decision to leave the treaty doubly stupid in my own opinion, most US Air Force and Navy brass, and that of many experts in the field. As demonstrated by the April 2017 Tomahawk strikes, USS Ross and USS Porter had launched two and a half times the number of missiles than an Aegis Ashore facility has VLS cells (assuming that every one of them notionally contained Tomahawk canisters, which of course makes it virtually useless in its intended role). If the Trump administration tries to make its case for the necessary funding for why I'll presume they'll call Gryphon II, the GAO is going to look at the Tomahawk strike in 2018 and likely conclude that such is totally redundant (particularly as the Pacific theater is an almost entirely air and maritime domain), especially so as it would eat into funds from other projects that they will deem critical (hypersonic TBG and HCSW, B-21 Raider, LRSO, etc.)

Edited August 24, 2019 by Agiel

[Zoraptor]

We had this argument before and I suggested you go and actually read the INF Treaty then. It literally doesn't matter if the Mk41 is 'much more than just its launcher'. If it can launch intermediate range missiles like the tomahawk it was illegal to deploy on land whatever the context, because that's what the INF said. There simply isn't an exclusion for "doesn't have the right software" and similar situations. It's not exactly a revelation that the Mk41 can be used to fire tomahawks, all the test did was confirm that it can do so on land (duh) and thus was a banned launcher under INF and illegal to deploy in Aegis Ashore. And let's be brutally frank, if the situations were reversed and it was Russia deploying Aegis Ashore in Mexico we could 100% guarantee that would be regarded by the US as an infraction against INF.

My opinion of INF is not particularly high as a document since it certainly does, technically, also apply to stuff it wasn't intended to- but it's that way specifically because it doesn't have exploitable loopholes for 'software not installed and we pinky promise not to deliver tomahawks' situations.

[Agiel]

14 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

 It literally doesn't matter if the Mk41 is 'much more than just its launcher'.

I should have clarified that the Aegis Ashore system is "much more than just its launcher," as the point I was making with the rest of the post is that the Mk41 cells really cannot be taken alone as evidence that they are capable of launching Tomahawks (see original post, vis-à-vis Fridtjof Nansen frigates, Kongo destroyers, plus many other allied vessels). If the existence of the cells on land was enough to have been in violation of INF, then the definition of "launcher" would be so hopelessly vague as to encompass a bewildering number of wholly unrelated hardware (including civilian). Take for instance the M901 launcher vehicle component of a Patriot battery:

And compare to a cross-section of a Mk41 VLS module:

The cells of both the M901 and the Mk41 are in essence some cabling and steel scaffolding meant to prop up a canister containing the missile. For the former the missiles cannot launch without the necessary equipment, full stop (in its case the fire-control radar and the command vehicle). For the latter it's the TWCS, of which the Aegis Ashore facilities lack. Even if one is utterly convinced of perfidy of military planners so surreptitious as to pass beneath the notice of Congress or the host country one would still have to answer the question of "what's the point?". As mentioned before each cell that does not contain an interceptor makes it correspondingly worse at its intended role, and even if it theoretically maxed out at 24 Tomahawks it's still far fewer effective munitions that can be carried than by other platforms which the Russian military would have a much harder time keeping a watchful eye on (a Flt II Los Angeles Class submarine has 12 VLS tubes for Tomahawks and can carry up to 25 additional missiles that can be launched from its re-loadable torpedo tubes, to say nothing of the Ohio-class guided missile subs which has 154 vertical launch tubes).

[Zoraptor]

None of that is really relevant though, at best it's an argument for Aegis Ashore not violating the 'spirit' of INF which is- at very best- a nebulous concept when it comes to international treaties. Fact is that the INF banned intermediate range missiles and their launchers from land deployment, and the Mk41 deployed to land is covered by that. The INF is prescriptive enough that both sides accused each other (with just cause; it is a prescriptive document) of technical violations due to land based testing of naval systems, dummy/ target missiles etc. There simply isn't a loophole the Mk41 can slip through as violation of the INF only required two basic things: (1) a launcher capable of firing banned missiles, which the Mk41 definitely can do, deployed on land and (2) said potentially infringing missiles to be available.

A bit OT, but deployment of cruise missiles to an inland facility in Romania does make potential sense for certain scenarios. Montreux puts severe restrictions on US ships in the Black Sea, albeit those restrictions must ultimately be enforced by Turkey, a nominal US ally; and a inland site hundreds of km inside sovereign territory is a lot more 'safe' and secure than a few ships that can only be 12nm away from potential monitoring at any given time. Sure, if it's a general conflict it's irrelevant, but that certainly isn't the only scenario.

[Raithe]

On the non military matters...

The thought for the day:

[ktchong]

Some observations and thought about the situation in Hong Kong:

1. Here is a reminder: Hong Kong did NOT have democracy or general election when it was under British rule for 155 years. For 155 years, British did NOT allow Hong Kong people to have democracy or elect their own leader. The UK simply appointed undemocratic, unelected “Governors” to lord over Hong Kong, and the Governors filled all the top political positions in Hong Kong.

2. When Hong Kong people were under British rule, they DID want democracy and elections. Hong Kong people had protested and demanded democracy/elections/independence/self-rule numerous times under British rule, particularly during the 1960s. However, British ruthlessly cracked down and crushed the Hong Kong protests with bloodshed. So, British/the UK/the West/white people did not give “freedom” and “democracy” to Hong Kong when it was under their rule, but now they want freedom and democracy for Hong Kong when it is no longer under their rule.

3. Hong Kong people finally got the general election they had wanted… in 2004. A reminder of the timeline: Hong Kong was handed back from British to China in 1997, so Hong Kong was already under Chinese rule in 2004. So, British did NOT give democracy to Hong Kong. It was actually CHINA that allowed Hong Kong to have a general election for the very first time in 2004.

4. As for the current protests/riots/whatever in Hong Kong: it is difficult to understand why China still has not cracked down on the protests/riots. So Here is my conjecture. The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has done the political calculus and decided, ultimately, the protests/riots in Hong Kong do NOT pose a threat to the stability of China and the power of the CCP .

5. For the protests/riots in Hong Kong to grow into a real threat to the CCP, the protests/riots will have to spread into China, and then cause massive uprisings all over the mainland. That means the Hong Kong protestors would have to gain some popular support from other Chinese people in the mainland. Otherwise, the protests will continue to be contained/localized inside Hong Kong, and they will not challenge or threaten the CCP in the mainland.

6. As for why the Hong Kong protestors have been unable to gain popular from other Chinese people: those protestors have already invited hatred and hostility from other Chinese, both inside and outside China, (with the exception of Taiwanese, maybe.) Here is the reason: The Hong Kong protesters keep saying, “we are not Chinese”, “we do not want to be Chinese,” and then they were waving American and British flags, singing US anthem. Other Chinese look at those words and behaviors as traitorous and treasonous. They are traitorous and treasonous not just to the CCP – but to the Chinese culture, the Chinese identity, the Chinese nation, and the Chinese race.

7. So, the overwhelming majority of other Chinese already see those Hong Kong protestors as “race traitors” and “treasonous dogs” (i.e., “汉奸" and "走狗” in Chinese, which is the worst.) That means Hong Kong protestors will NOT be getting any sympathy nor popular support from other Chinese in mainland, (or Chinese overseas for that matter.) So their efforts and protests will NOT grow or spread into China and the mainland. Which is why the CCP ultimately does not feel threatened by the Hong Kong protests. As long as the protests do not spread into the China mainland, the CCP can just wait until the protests fizzle out, or until the short-attention-span Western media move on to other things after six months or a year.

8. As for what the CCP can or should do to the protest: they do not have to do anything. China just has to NOT concede anything or give in to ANY of the demands of the Hong Kong people. China just has to stick to the strict parameters for what they will NOT give to Hong Kong: those kids can protest as much as they want; China simply will NOT give or move an inch. As long as the situation does not spread beyond Hong Kong and into the mainland, China can just “wait it out”. Unfortunately for those kids in Hong Kong, they basically have no leverage when they have already lost the popular support of other Chinese (who could have put pressure on the CCP,) so their protests will continued to be contained/localized inside Hong Kong with no possibility of spreading into other parts of China.

9. So how are the protests in Hong Kong different from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests? The 1989 protests were already INSIDE China mainland. The protests had some popular support inside China, and they could have spread from Beijing to another city, and then from one place to another, and get out of control. Which was why the CCP put it down.

10. The Hong Kong protests are not gonna spread to other Chinese when other Chinese already see those Hong Kong protestors as 汉奸 and 走狗, i.e., “race traitors” and “treasonous dogs”.  Without popular support from the Chinese people at large, the Hong Kong protesters really do not have much of a leverage.

Edited August 26, 2019 by ktchong

[ShadySands]

^ #BoycottMulan

[Bartimaeus]

First top-rated poll that has anyone (Sanders) ahead of Biden, though it's on a knife's edge and certainly within the margin of error. Notable that the last time Monmouth polled, Biden was way ahead of the rest of the field at about 32 - a 13 point drop is rather insane. But polls are polls, .

(e); numberz

Edited August 26, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[ShadySands]

I feel like that's going to keep happening unless his campaign can shift his message or circumstances get much, much bleaker.

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

I feel like that's going to keep happening unless his campaign can shift his message or circumstances get much, much bleaker.

His own wife's message was "your candidate might be better, but my husband is the one that will actually win". A whole lot of shades of "It's Her Turn" going on there.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[injurai]

5 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

First top-rated poll that has anyone (Sanders) ahead of Biden, though it's on a knife's edge and certainly within the margin of error. Notable that the last time Monmouth polled, Biden was way ahead of the rest of the field at about 32 - a 13 point drop is rather insane. But polls are polls, .

(e); numberz

The earliest polls I saw of Biden weren't stunning, then I saw a concerted media effort to boost his scoring by re-framing poll reporting and altering collecting methods. No doubt there is something to the self-fulfilling nature of polls, at least for being pragmatic in the primary in prep for the generals. But... I would not be surprised if Biden was not nearly as ahead as recent mainstream polls have been suggesting. I don't know many "outsiders" who actively report or participate in the antics of the machine.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, jimmying the poll questions etc is pretty easy to do if you want to do it as just about nobody will check, and you can always fudge the weightings if needed too which even fewer people will check. It only really comes back to bite you if the result demonstrably ends up contradicting your polls like with Brexit or to an extent the last US Presidential race.

37 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

His own wife's message was "your candidate might be better, but my husband is the one that will actually win". A whole lot of shades of "It's Her Turn" going on there.

Didn't Obama supposedly not have the most enthusiastic (non official) reaction to Biden running either? Something along the lines of "you know Joe, you don't have to do this...". Had a quick search, but not an easy query to narrow down.

[Agiel]

On 8/25/2019 at 4:52 PM, Zoraptor said:

None of that is really relevant though, at best it's an argument for Aegis Ashore not violating the 'spirit' of INF which is- at very best- a nebulous concept when it comes to international treaties. Fact is that the INF banned intermediate range missiles and their launchers from land deployment, and the Mk41 deployed to land is covered by that. The INF is prescriptive enough that both sides accused each other (with just cause; it is a prescriptive document) of technical violations due to land based testing of naval systems, dummy/ target missiles etc. There simply isn't a loophole the Mk41 can slip through as violation of the INF only required two basic things: (1) a launcher capable of firing banned missiles, which the Mk41 definitely can do, deployed on land and (2) said potentially infringing missiles to be available.

 

Which is ignoring what I had put forward in previous posts, that the Mk41 cannot launch Tomahawk missiles without the necessary _fire control hardware_ (as is the case for vessels for every other allied nation's navy that has ships with the Mk41 cells). As stated with the example of the Kongo-class destroyer if the presence of the cells was evidence that the ship can launch Tomahawk missiles, that would have meant that Japan was in violation of Article 9 of the Post-War Constitution. To classify the Mk41 cells by themselves as a launcher in violation of the treaty is to make the definition of "launcher" so broad as to make it effectively impossible for any side to fully abide by the treaty to the letter. Were such the case any mounting, no matter how crude, that was sized appropriately to prop up a canister which contained a Tomahawk missile plus rudimentary wiring will have qualified as a "launcher".

 

Quote

A bit OT, but deployment of cruise missiles to an inland facility in Romania does make potential sense for certain scenarios. Montreux puts severe restrictions on US ships in the Black Sea, albeit those restrictions must ultimately be enforced by Turkey, a nominal US ally; and a inland site hundreds of km inside sovereign territory is a lot more 'safe' and secure than a few ships that can only be 12nm away from potential monitoring at any given time. Sure, if it's a general conflict it's irrelevant, but that certainly isn't the only scenario.

 

Just as the Trident II has sufficient range that an Ohio or Vanguard-class submarine can launch them at any target within Russia' borders from any waters north of the equator enables them to patrol with almost total security, so too can submarines operate in the Adriatic with nearly as much safety, far more so than a fixed site that is quite well within range of a Kilo-class submarine capable of launching its own submarine-launched cruise missiles. The US military flat out doesn't need land-launched cruise missiles, and in fact are unlikely to want them if it threatens to cannibalise their other budgetary priorities (unless it's a case of the national security apparatus under Bolton cramming it down their throats regardless, Marshall Ustinov-style, which given that by all appearances Trump seems to find a lot to love about Soviet industrial policy isn't wholly unbelievable even by me). As stated by General Paul Selva:

 

Quote

"There are no military requirements we cannot currently satisfy due to our compliance with the INF Treaty. While there is a military requirement to prosecute targets at ranges covered by the INF Treaty, those fires do not have to be ground-based.”

Edited August 27, 2019 by Agiel

[smjjames]

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/26/20833650/trump-g7-trump-doral-explained

Something something emoluments and grumble grumble corruption. Really needs pushback from the other leaders in G7, but then again, knowing Trump, he’d just go ‘F-you!’ *double middle fingers* and cancel the summit next year altogether.

Boris Johnson might have the easiest time getting the message through, but he doesn’t really seem like the type who’d be able to stand up to Trump.

[Agiel]

Uh-oh: Silicon Valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system

[Gromnir]

On 8/23/2019 at 1:53 PM, Hurlshot said:

image

is so difficult to decipher gifted posts 'cause he so rare knows what he is spouting off 'bout when he goes on one o' his  anger benders. affirmative action? how on earth would affirmative action relate to school fees? either he is using the wrong term, or...

regardless, many states ask for parents to pay mandatory fees for s'posed free education. is a growing trend as schools is increasing making laptops/chromebooks part o' ordinary student supplies and as so many angry and childless homeowners grumbled 'bout school taxes being levied on their property yearly.

have seen high school student fees running +$700 per year in a few states, and such were a few years past. much o' the optional fees isn't particular optional for the ordinary student. bus pass fee. lab fees. activity and field-trip fees. etc. charge for such minutiae as locker maintenance is understandable eye-roll worthy. 

gonna dismiss gifted affirmative action comments as simple ignorance, however, there is a considerable number o' states which has chosen to avoid more generalized tax schemes in favor o' more targeted taxes. 

'course there is always income-based waivers available. legal there needs be such waivers. 

'cause gifted is unaware, ca Constitution specific makes education free. any essential school activity cannot result in a fee charge in ca. however, every year more than a few ca school districts attempt circumvent law. in spite o' the state Constitution clearness, an additional law were passed 'cause far too many school districts were attempting to squeeze fees from folks.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cp/uc/ab1575letter20121116.asp

college is a different matter. even so, 1-2 years o' community college is now free in ca albeit with somewhat limiting provisos.  keep in mind ca community colleges were already 'mongst the cheapest community college systems in the nation with full-time tuition running less than $1500 per year if the per unit cost were applied to a standard 15 unit per semester student schedule. make 2 years o' tuition functional free will help but is hardly the reason so many people fail to complete their college career nowadays. 

@Agiel

americans voluntarily adopting mechanisms o' a police state. a brave new world indeed.

the part o' fahrenheit 451 most folks forget or gloss over is how bradbury's dystopian nightmare were the alchemy o'  burgeoning technology and a populist movement. is not a book 'bout government censorship. weren't some institutional monolith taking away liberties. were americans voluntarily surrendering freedom. desire to not be offended and feel more secure led to a police state.

am gonna blame on hurl. teachers clear ain't teaching the important stuff if this kinda thing is resulting in indifference and even applause.

HA! Good Fun!

ps am not genuine blaming hurl, but am nevertheless disappointed that so many has read 1984, brave new world and fahrenheit 451 in schools and clear not learned.  

  

Edited August 27, 2019 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Ah, that explains why Hurlshot was so oblivious!

[Gfted1]

59 minutes ago, Agiel said:

Uh-oh: Silicon Valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system

Nice! But it needs to incorporate surveillance cameras and facial recognition in 100% of public areas to catch all the perps doing things wrong out of view of authorities.