text:
MY LITTLE PIRATES
I used to compete at national level and world level back when I was 15. I cannot imagine what these athletes went through to reach that stage in their realm. I think the music is aprapo. Yeah, the music and the incredible defying gravity combine. Sailing doesn't even hold a candle to these girls.
Posted by HMS Defiant at 12:34 AM No comments:
WAR AND TOLERANCE
I really don't know what they're fighting about in Ukraine but now we are in it up to our eyeballs. Kind of Vietnamish. It's a harsh cruel world and one that I almost hope will get crueler to the thugs operating outside the warzone. The ones that are feeding the Ukrainians hundreds of billions of dollars of free weapons they can use to kill Russians. The Russians in Ukraine didn't really do anything off book but the retaliation is going to be epic.
The stupid fucksticks in Washington and in Europe's capital cities don't realize it but they have declared war on Russia and Russia is well within the margin of error for retaliating in kind and the stupid dumb motherfuckers in the West don't seem to realize it.
I read ALL the books and readings for the War College Strategy and Policy course and found them deeply illuminating. The one thing that resonated with me and I wish I'd kept my files was that every war since 1900 came about for one single solitary reason: The Stupid Motherfuckers Thought They Could Get Away With It.
Half a million dead Ukrainians and every swinging dick in Europe is fanatically sending weapons to Ukraine for the sole single purpose of killing Russians WHO AREN'T AT WAR WITH THEM. Our idiot just went on air to publish his INTENT to KILL RUSSIANS.
They better hope Putin isn't the madman they portray him to be. I expect the megaton range weapons to be unleashed soon. If you care enough, check out the SIOP and plan. This won't follow the SIOP's plan at all but it's starting to look a lot like 1914 where once the Mobilizations started each country HAD to Mobilize and throw their armed forces to the front. Once that happened WWI was inevitable. I would hope that the SIOP has been revised for accidental war so we don't go into a full global nuclear war exchange. I'd expect about 4% of Russia's missiles to leave the silo and no more than about 32% of ours to leave the silos. I'd be surprised if 5% of ours left the silos.
Srsly, pushing a nuclear armed enemy into the corner and leaving him nothing to lose? WHAT KIND OF MORONS DO THAT?
Posted by HMS Defiant at 11:41 PM 4 comments:
THE TRULY SCARY BIT
Looking at this article by the Manhattan Contrarian and it suddenly occurs to me that about 70% of Americans are utterly useless in a Republic and that they can be made to believe ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING by those who control their exposure to information and history. George Orwell was actually prescient when he wrote hit two most famous books becuase they are getting closer to reality everyday and the terrifying part of it all is that the ignorant hyper-partisan "liberals" on the left are the ones most vociferously advocating for a return to full blown national socialism, censorship and rule by the elite. Worst of all, those smug bastards are quite possibly the stupidest morons in history and are Xeroxing themselves at a tremendous rate through the total control of Education, Teaching, Academe and the Media.
There are supposedly smart people who think Biden is a really excellent president. And you know what? There is absolutely no point in trying to change their mind. They are just like the vast bulk of the voters who continue to reelect congressman for decades that have never actually done anything for the people that vote them into office.
You can all read that any way you like because it applies equally to both parties and their parties. Many of them also don't really believe voter fraud is a thing and will poo poo the various stories that do make it into the media by saying things such as, "well it's only 50,000 votes and what does it matter." This always brings to mind memories of me sharing my apartment in San Diego with my little brother who was working as a teller at Home Fed Bank at the time. For about a year he used to come home and tell me that the Bank had written off another 2% of assets or written off another 4% of assets and I kept telling him that no business could continually write off assets without going bankrupt. He was eventually promoted to Branch Manager of the bank in Berkeley which was handy because his wife had finished her first 2 years of undergrad through California's fine community college in San Diego and had been accepted as an undergrad at Berkeley to finish her degree in Classics. (The version where students read the classics in the original Greek and Latin). The bank went bust a year or two later after the feds ordered it to buy insolvent S&Ls and then changed the amount of onhand capital banks were required to keep on the books. It was basically like when the Shah's aide killed himself by shooting himself 47 times in the back from a distance of 30 feet while pausing only twice to reload.
You basically never want the Fed to regulate anything. They do a really bad job of it and the graft and corruption eventually simply tear the system apart. Sheeesh, just look at NASA compared to SpaceX. Too much Heinlein can be dangerous.
Posted by HMS Defiant at 1:05 PM 2 comments:
IT IS MORE DIRE THAN I KNEW
This is a set of quotes from Navy Times article.
"One female officer said that Lundberg's behavior "drastically and negatively altered the working environment onboard OMA and that the last three months have been her worst time she has spent in the Navy."
"The Officers appear to have become accustomed to tuning out CDR Lundberg's, and to some extent the CO's, comments," the investigators wrote. "Some Officers just try to ignore the leadership's comments."
The CO and XO were sacked.
"While Lundberg denied throwing the folder, "multiple Officers state they expect to be yelled at and verbally berated in regular engagements with CDR Lundberg," the investigation states."
So the junior officers decided to simply ignore the CO and XO and then got upset that the CO and XO made an effort to hold them accountable and grew a little irate that the officers that worked for them had all decided to simply ignore them.
I don't think I'd serve in the modern USN for any amount of money. It is not a combat force and hasn't been for some time. I cannot imagine all these snowflakes in combat and it is obvious that they can't imagine it either since they all seem to have found ways to make their ships useless and unable to meet wartime committments.
PONDERING THE IMPONDERABLE
I wonder when the first nuke will detonate and where now that it so easy to find a ready insertion point in Ukraine and Russia for something along those lines. Anybody at all could do it. Elon Musk dropped $44 billion to buy a media platform of little value so how much could some disaffected rat sell an atomic weapon for in this world? I know it sounds like something involving Dirk Pitt and the merry band from NUMA but it is more real now than it ever was and to be honest, waging a full out proxy war directly against Russia is really one of the stupidest things any country could do in the history of the world and nowadays it really only takes one disaffected idiot to bring back the man with the tall hat that hasn't been seen since Nagasaki in 1945. That's a long time to keep the genie bottled up if the CIA and FBI are the people responsible for preventing this sort of thing because they obviously aren't up to the task.
I'd have a little more faith in the safeguards around such weapons if I didn't know that one day a few Air Force types walked into a nuclear weapons magazine and walked out with half a dozen missiles, loaded them on their bomber and flew to another air force where a senior sergeant saw the markings on the exposed ordnance hanging from the wings and knew instantly that they were nuclear weapons.
On 29 August 2007, six AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles, each loaded with a W80-1 variable yield nuclear warhead, were mistakenly loaded onto a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52H heavy bomber at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and transported to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
Srsly, now is not the time to live in first rank American cities or second rank European cities. There are a lot of people, tribes, nations, terrorists and Iran who hate them to death.
Posted by HMS Defiant at 11:21 AM 4 comments:
I'm reading a story now that features one and it drives up to the beach and drops the ramp. I still remember back when i had 4 of them. Two of them were ancient vestiges left over from WWII and small and no, we just didn't drop the ramps. Oh yeah, we figured out by turning the damned hydraulic valve upside down it would still recover the ramp but it just wasn't worth it. The LCVP I used to take to the beach in Diego Garcia was followed from LaSalle all the way to the Fleet landing and back by a shark that was bigger than the boat. The sharks inside the reef and atoll were gigantic. I can't believe I actually sailed a Sunfish and Laser out there above them. I think I'm older and wiser but then I thought I would live forever back when I was 23.
The LCM-8 were proper landing craft. They were also mine, or, as the First LT used to shout at me, they were mine when he thought they were broke and 100% his when they worked. Those things had 4 engines, 2 shafts and could just about do anything except fly and I never really put that to the test. Battle speed on an LCM 8 was about 10 knots. That bow ramp really slowed the boats down. One day at lunch I was surprised by our brand new LT who joined us in Diego Garcia. He was the new Weapons Officer and he showed up in the wardroom complaining about the rotten boat he had been boat officering from the beach. It seems it lost an engine and the boat engineer told this to the cox'n who repeated it to the brand new never been on a landing craft officer in charge and he decided that the only safe thing to do was beach it and ordered it up on the beach. This came as something as a surprise to most of us because the boat had actually been in full service for several months on just two working engines. Have I ever mentioned how much I like those boats? Nope, probably not. You could air start them, battery start them and even hydraulically start them! Wooooot!!!!
They were little 6V71 diesels in righthand/left hand turning pairs/shaft. One of them cost a zillion dollars to repair because it was backwards while the other was a more reasonable fixer-upper. We didn't have the time or material to fix the broken engines until we got to Diego Garcia and they were high on my priority list. We used them a lot.
I will never forget that same LT coming into the wardroom and requesting permission to join the mess. He was sunburnt to a fare thee well and madder than Hell. The XO asked him what was bothering him and Brian burst forth. He'd pulled up alongside one of our frigates/destroyers at anchor in Sitrah or Mina Sulman and was there to pull back some classified equipment Middle East Force ships crossdecked and which belonged to my ship in the interim. Brian exclaimed really loudly that they would not let him on their ship because he did not have his ID card. Yes, they're of no use at all when you forward deploy for a year and live on the ship. You never carry your wallet because you don't need it. So, having refused him permission to come out of the sun they left him there exposed on the open deck of an LCM 8 which has no shelter from the sun and slowly gathered our stuff to crossdeckk to us. All that stuff was Top Secret.
I had enormous respect for LCDR Fred G. Cole and Captain Franklin D. Julian. Having heard this they sent a message that night to the offending frigate and asked where was all the TS stuff they were supposed to return to us before leaving the Persian Gulf and heading home. You know the drill, who signed for it and how did they verify him. I had the good fortune to work for some outstanding Executive Officers and Commanding Officers but these were two of the best.
We ragged on the LT unmercifully until he suddenly got ordered home where he had to testify in a Court Martial having to do with the officer who relieved him as Weapons Officer on another ship in Charleston or Florida. It turns out the officer who relieved him cleaned out the small arms lockers on the ship and then attended Georgia Tech trying to get a Master's Degree and funding it by selling the weapons he was hiding under his bed. Brian was a potential suspect which is just laughable. Fortunately the deserter was found with the remaining weapons under his bed.
The NAVY, it takes all kinds.
Elon Musk made a Best and Final Offer and now everywhere I look I see once reputable news sources telling me that the twitter board thugs are prepared to negoriate now. BAFO implied the end of negotiation. It was "take it or leave it." Maybe since it comes from a guy who routinely deals with NASA they figure it means whatever they want. I wouldnt assume that. This was an offer from a guy who put a car into solar orbit.
HOPE ON A MONDAY MORNING
I think there is bacon and eggs downstairs but it is like Schrödinger's cat. I'm having trouble bringing myself to look. On the other hand, there is always Big Als. Mondays, what a triumph of optimism.
Posted by HMS Defiant at 7:39 AM No comments:
Posted by HMS Defiant at 11:15 PM 1 comment:
LEARNER'S GUIDE TO NATO
A lot of what we see in the media about the Russian Army is NATO driven and it seems that the press is entirely shaped around what europe's NATO general staff wallahs are barking. Let's be honest, from their viewpoint the wheels came off the Russian attack on day 20 when the Russians obviously ran out of everything...............because that's about 3 more days of fight than NATO in Europe has in it. That's righr. NATO couldn't scrape up a real tank division or Brigade Combat Team if their very lives depended on it. They couldn't fly their air force meaningfully after day 3 of a conflict since they'd be out of missiles, ammo, bombs, and drop tanks. NATO prognosticators keep projecting their idiot selves on Russia. Let's make something clear here. Russia has not disposed of a single battlefield weapon or ammunition since 1945. Like me, they view the best and only way to expend ammo is fired down the barrel. They have obsolete everything but you know what? 8000 Styx missiles will easily absorb the concentrated fire of every air defense ship we have and then the Russians will fire the really scary missiles.
NATO shot its entire collective wad at Libya when they went rogue and tried to off Qadaffi and then, 3 days later turned to the US, all of them, and pleaded for more missiles and bombs to finish off the perp. Hillary was happy to oblige.
NATO doesn't have transports, tank transporters, helicopters, attack helicopters, fuel bowsers, tanks, IFV, APC or any kind of meaningful air defense. WE do. We just don't locate all that much of it in Europe anymore.
Western Europe is waging direct war on Russia.
And Russia knows it. And bitterly resents it and knows that the West is waging quiet war on them.
How does that play out? I'll tell you. Russia is now going to wage quiet war against the West. I wouldn't get on a plane overflying Europe now for any amount of money. RUSSIA NOW HAS NOTHING TO LOSE. The West decided to pants them and now? I think about how the Vikings would react to that.
BURNING REAL TIME
I happen to agree with much of what he said in this interview. I let another throw shade over the man for breaking down but he makes some very valid points. PATHOLOGY OF IDEALOGICAL POSSESSION. This is for the one this blog was written for long ago. Science!
Posted by HMS Defiant at 8:46 PM No comments:
MOUSE FAFO
All these fools had to do was business but no. They had to fuck around with voters.
How breathtakingly stupid of them.
PUSHED AROUND BY A BUNNY
Yep, that's the President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, being pushed around by the Easter bunny on his own lawn.
I thought it was bad watching the craven Obama kowtow to various dictaters and kings. This is so much worse. Very much worse. If I was democrat and voted for this moron I'd hang my head in shame but then we all know, liberals are shameless.
MY GOD! It is worse than Jimmy Carter's killer rabbit!!!!!
Posted by HMS Defiant at 10:45 AM 1 comment:
1, 2, 3 YOU'RE OUT
When I say you I mean all of us. Look at the current visible leaders of the United States. An increasingly senile demented old man who was never at all smart to begin with who is now overruled when he tries to talk in public by his own personal Easter bunny, a vice president who started the race to the bottom 20 years ago and is even dumber than Slow Joe on his worst day and seemingly impervious to any efforts made to get her to just follow the damned script and stay with the sane message and our dud #3 the Speaker of the House of Representatives who is 2nd in line for the office of President and whose own party is now touting as senile and demented. That's the Trifecta of liberalism leading this country and bleating about nuclear weapons, MAD and accusing the ruler of Russia of being a deranged war-crazed maniac.
Let's look at the record for a second.
The 'good guys' decided that they had had enough of Saddam Hussein and so took the opportunity presented by the Islamic attack on the United States on 9/11 to launch a full scale invasion and attack of Iraq and Saddam Hussein because of the imminent danger they represented to the United States after the attack. He was 6,190 miles away at the time in the country of Iraq which actually had nothing at all to do with the Islamic attack on New York and the United States.
I have written before about a perfectly normal and long baked sense in the Russian soul of always being surrounded by enemies who all seem altogether too eager to jump on Russia and kill them all and steal their stuff. Let's look at history. The mongols may well have started it but so did the Norse at about the same time and so to did every western kingdom and empire that came down the pike for a thousand years. Then the Japanese horned in and started treating Siberia and the Russian Empire like they were some no account low-brow thugocracy like everyone at the time was treating Imperial China. We have covered the various attempts by the sane leavings left in the State Department and Foreign office to keep things sweet between NATO and Russia after the USSR collapsed and PEACE WAS FINALLY AT HAND and of course the little men and women came to power and screwed that up, like they do. I think it was Sowell who figured it out.
I used to think there was a floor to how low this country would go in selecting a man to lead the country, never mind women to lead the country. What we have now is the most useless morons since Woodrow Wilson's wife running this country with the same effect. It's not enough that none of them were ever up to the task, no. This kind of idiot is surrounded by the idiots who know better than you and so they have all agreed to keep the power and tranq the rulers and misrule until the world ends. I didn't really think it was possible to stupidly argue one's self into a nuclear exchange but I'm seeing it happen in front of my eyes. Cretins and morons don't pick the smartest help. The conniving and cunning scum float to the top around them and are grasped as saviors by the fools who don't know enough to find better people to rely on.
I did catch both DW and BBC news tonight and they spent an entire broadcast each on events in Ukraine where, horrifyingly, 7 people were killed overnight in some city in the most corrupt country in eastern Europe. That's about half the number killed every single night in Chicago, LA, NYC, Denver, Houston, Cleveland, etc and they majored it up to sound like nothing less than the immediate and necessary prelude to a nuclear war and got Zelensky to say he feared just such an attack because Russia is so pathetic it MUST STOOP TO USING NUKES AND CHEM/BIO in this farce of a war.
If there is an atomic detonation you will know that somehow the corruptacrats in the deep state have actually accumulated enough material for at least a dirty bomb and they'll drop it in Minsk or possibly the Rodina and then stand by for heavy rolls. We have a feckless bunch of leaders who have been selecting the feckless bunch running the top 4 tiers at CIA, NSA, DOD, ONR, Army, Navy, Air Force and the rest of the agencies. People picked for nothing but the color of their skins or their political beliefs as their sole qualifying quality for the various offices they hold.
You don't have to believe me. Simply read, "The Cuban Missile Crisis 1962" and the various writings of , Article X sent to the State Department by George Kennan. Oh what the Hell, read it and weep. Note well the final paragraph and keep in mind this man was brilliant, totally on top of the situation and communicating with his peers back in DC who were very nearly the same caliber men as Generals Eisenhower and Marshall. In other words, not a diversity hire.
861.00/2 - 2246: Telegram
The Charge in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State
Moscow, February 22, 1946--9 p.m. [Received February 22--3: 52 p.m.]
511. Answer to Dept's 284, Feb 3 [13] involves questions so intricate, so delicate, so strange to our form of thought, and so important to analysis of our international environment that I cannot compress answers into single brief message without yielding to what I feel would be dangerous degree of over-simplification. I hope, therefore, Dept will bear with me if I submit in answer to this question five parts, subjects of which will be roughly as follows:
(1) Basic features of post-war Soviet outlook.
(2) Background of this outlook
(3) Its projection in practical policy on official level.
(4) Its projection on unofficial level.
(5) Practical deductions from standpoint of US policy.
I apologize in advance for this burdening of telegraphic channel; but questions involved are of such urgent importance, particularly in view of recent events, that our answers to them, if they deserve attention at all, seem to me to deserve it at once. There follows
Part 1: Basic Features of Post War Soviet Outlook, as Put Forward by Official Propaganda Machine
Are as Follows:
(a) USSR still lives in antagonistic "capitalist encirclement" with which in the long run there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence. As stated by Stalin in 1927 to a delegation of American workers:
"In course of further development of international revolution there will emerge two centers of world significance: a socialist center, drawing to itself the countries which tend toward socialism, and a capitalist center, drawing to itself the countries that incline toward capitalism. Battle between these two centers for command of world economy will decide fate of capitalism and of communism in entire world."
(b) Capitalist world is beset with internal conflicts, inherent in nature of capitalist society. These conflicts are insoluble by means of peaceful compromise. Greatest of them is that between England and US.
(c) Internal conflicts of capitalism inevitably generate wars. Wars thus generated may be of two kinds: intra-capitalist wars between two capitalist states, and wars of intervention against socialist world. Smart capitalists, vainly seeking escape from inner conflicts of capitalism, incline toward latter.
(d) Intervention against USSR, while it would be disastrous to those who undertook it, would cause renewed delay in progress of Soviet socialism and must therefore be forestalled at all costs.
(e) Conflicts between capitalist states, though likewise fraught with danger for USSR, nevertheless hold out great possibilities for advancement of socialist cause, particularly if USSR remains militarily powerful, ideologically monolithic and faithful to its present brilliant leadership.
(f) It must be borne in mind that capitalist world is not all bad. In addition to hopelessly reactionary and bourgeois elements, it includes (1) certain wholly enlightened and positive elements united in acceptable communistic parties and (2) certain other elements (now described for tactical reasons as progressive or democratic) whose reactions, aspirations and activities happen to be "objectively" favorable to interests of USSR These last must be encouraged and utilized for Soviet purposes.
(g) Among negative elements of bourgeois-capitalist society, most dangerous of all are those whom Lenin called false friends of the people, namely moderate-socialist or social-democratic leaders (in other words, non-Communist left-wing). These are more dangerous than out-and-out reactionaries, for latter at least march under their true colors, whereas moderate left-wing leaders confuse people by employing devices of socialism to seine interests of reactionary capital.
So much for premises. To what deductions do they lead from standpoint of Soviet policy? To following:
(a) Everything must be done to advance relative strength of USSR as factor in international society. Conversely, no opportunity most be missed to reduce strength and influence, collectively as well as individually, of capitalist powers.
(b) Soviet efforts, and those of Russia's friends abroad, must be directed toward deepening and exploiting of differences and conflicts between capitalist powers. If these eventually deepen into an "imperialist" war, this war must be turned into revolutionary upheavals within the various capitalist countries.
(c) "Democratic-progressive" elements abroad are to be utilized to maximum to bring pressure to bear on capitalist governments along lines agreeable to Soviet interests.
(d) Relentless battle must be waged against socialist and social-democratic leaders abroad.
Part 2: Background of Outlook
Before examining ramifications of this party line in practice there are certain aspects of it to which I wish to draw attention.
First, it does not represent natural outlook of Russian people. Latter are, by and large, friendly to outside world, eager for experience of it, eager to measure against it talents they are conscious of possessing, eager above all to live in peace and enjoy fruits of their own labor. Party line only represents thesis which official propaganda machine puts forward with great skill and persistence to a public often remarkably resistant in the stronghold of its innermost thoughts. But party line is binding for outlook and conduct of people who make up apparatus of power--party, secret police and Government--and it is exclusively with these that we have to deal.
Second, please note that premises on which this party line is based are for most part simply not true. Experience has shown that peaceful and mutually profitable coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is entirely possible. Basic internal conflicts in advanced countries are no longer primarily those arising out of capitalist ownership of means of production, but are ones arising from advanced urbanism and industrialism as such, which Russia has thus far been spared not by socialism but only by her own backwardness. Internal rivalries of capitalism do not always generate wars; and not all wars are attributable to this cause. To speak of possibility of intervention against USSR today, after elimination of Germany and Japan and after example of recent war, is sheerest nonsense. If not provoked by forces of intolerance and subversion "capitalist" world of today is quite capable of living at peace with itself and with Russia. Finally, no sane person has reason to doubt sincerity of moderate socialist leaders in Western countries. Nor is it fair to deny success of their efforts to improve conditions for working population whenever, as in Scandinavia, they have been given chance to show what they could do.
Falseness of those premises, every one of which predates recent war, was amply demonstrated by that conflict itself Anglo-American differences did not turn out to be major differences of Western World. Capitalist countries, other than those of Axis, showed no disposition to solve their differences by joining in crusade against USSR. Instead of imperialist war turning into civil wars and revolution, USSR found itself obliged to fight side by side with capitalist powers for an avowed community of aim.
Nevertheless, all these theses, however baseless and disproven, are being boldly put forward again today. What does this indicate? It indicates that Soviet party line is not based on any objective analysis of situation beyond Russia's borders; that it has, indeed, little to do with conditions outside of Russia; that it arises mainly from basic inner-Russian necessities which existed before recent war and exist today.
At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.
It was no coincidence that Marxism, which had smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means. After establishment of Bolshevist regime, Marxist dogma, rendered even more truculent and intolerant by Lenin's interpretation, became a perfect vehicle for sense of insecurity with which Bolsheviks, even more than previous Russian rulers, were afflicted. In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability. Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful Russian rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights of military power in order to guarantee external security of their internally weak regimes. This is why Soviet purposes most always be solemnly clothed in trappings of Marxism, and why no one should underrate importance of dogma in Soviet affairs. Thus Soviet leaders are driven [by?] necessities of their own past and present position to put forward which [apparent omission] outside world as evil, hostile and menacing, but as bearing within itself germs of creeping disease and destined to be wracked with growing internal convulsions until it is given final Coup de grace by rising power of socialism and yields to new and better world. This thesis provides justification for that increase of military and police power of Russian state, for that isolation of Russian population from outside world, and for that fluid and constant pressure to extend limits of Russian police power which are together the natural and instinctive urges of Russian rulers. Basically this is only the steady advance of uneasy Russian nationalism, a centuries old movement in which conceptions of offense and defense are inextricably confused. But in new guise of international Marxism, with its honeyed promises to a desperate and war torn outside world, it is more dangerous and insidious than ever before.
It should not be thought from above that Soviet party line is necessarily disingenuous and insincere on part of all those who put it forward. Many of them are too ignorant of outside world and mentally too dependent to question [apparent omission] self-hypnotism, and who have no difficulty making themselves believe what they find it comforting and convenient to believe. Finally we have the unsolved mystery as to who, if anyone, in this great land actually receives accurate and unbiased information about outside world. In atmosphere of oriental secretiveness and conspiracy which pervades this Government, possibilities for distorting or poisoning sources and currents of information are infinite. The very disrespect of Russians for objective truth--indeed, their disbelief in its existence--leads them to view all stated facts as instruments for furtherance of one ulterior purpose or another. There is good reason to suspect that this Government is actually a conspiracy within a conspiracy; and I for one am reluctant to believe that Stalin himself receives anything like an objective picture of outside world. Here there is ample scope for the type of subtle intrigue at which Russians are past masters. Inability of foreign governments to place their case squarely before Russian policy makers--extent to which they are delivered up in their relations with Russia to good graces of obscure and unknown advisors whom they never see and cannot influence--this to my mind is most disquieting feature of diplomacy in Moscow, and one which Western statesmen would do well to keep in mind if they would understand nature of difficulties encountered here.
Part 3: Projection of Soviet Outlook in Practical Policy on Official Level
We have now seen nature and background of Soviet program. What may we expect by way of its practical implementation?
Soviet policy, as Department implies in its query under reference, is conducted on two planes: (1) official plane represented by actions undertaken officially in name of Soviet Government; and (2) subterranean plane of actions undertaken by agencies for which Soviet Government does not admit responsibility.
Policy promulgated on both planes will be calculated to serve basic policies (a) to (d) outlined in part 1. Actions taken on different planes will differ considerably, but will dovetail into each other in purpose, timing and effect.
On official plane we must look for following:
(a) Internal policy devoted to increasing in every way strength and prestige of Soviet state: intensive military-industrialization; maximum development of armed forces; great displays to impress outsiders; continued secretiveness about internal matters, designed to conceal weaknesses and to keep opponents in dark.
(b) Wherever it is considered timely and promising, efforts will be made to advance official limits of Soviet power. For the moment, these efforts are restricted to certain neighboring points conceived of here as being of immediate strategic necessity, such as Northern Iran, Turkey, possibly Bornholm However, other points may at any time come into question, if and as concealed Soviet political power is extended to new areas. Thus a "friendly Persian Government might be asked to grant Russia a port on Persian Gulf. Should Spain fall under Communist control, question of Soviet base at Gibraltar Strait might be activated. But such claims will appear on official level only when unofficial preparation is complete.
(c) Russians will participate officially in international organizations where they see opportunity of extending Soviet power or of inhibiting or diluting power of others. Moscow sees in UNO not the mechanism for a permanent and stable world society founded on mutual interest and aims of all nations, but an arena in which aims just mentioned can be favorably pursued. As long as UNO is considered here to serve this purpose, Soviets will remain with it. But if at any time they come to conclusion that it is serving to embarrass or frustrate their aims for power expansion and if they see better prospects for pursuit of these aims along other lines, they will not hesitate to abandon UNO. This would imply, however, that they felt themselves strong enough to split unity of other nations by their withdrawal to render UNO ineffective as a threat to their aims or security, replace it with an international weapon more effective from their viewpoint. Thus Soviet attitude toward UNO will depend largely on loyalty of other nations to it, and on degree of vigor, decisiveness and cohesion with which those nations defend in UNO the peaceful and hopeful concept of international life, which that organization represents to our way of thinking. I reiterate, Moscow has no abstract devotion to UNO ideals. Its attitude to that organization will remain essentially pragmatic and tactical.
(d) Toward colonial areas and backward or dependent peoples, Soviet policy, even on official plane, will be directed toward weakening of power and influence and contacts of advanced Western nations, on theory that in so far as this policy is successful, there will be created a vacuum which will favor Communist-Soviet penetration. Soviet pressure for participation in trusteeship arrangements thus represents, in my opinion, a desire to be in a position to complicate and inhibit exertion of Western influence at such points rather than to provide major channel for exerting of Soviet power. Latter motive is not lacking, but for this Soviets prefer to rely on other channels than official trusteeship arrangements. Thus we may expect to find Soviets asking for admission everywhere to trusteeship or similar arrangements and using levers thus acquired to weaken Western influence among such peoples.
(e) Russians will strive energetically to develop Soviet representation in, and official ties with, countries in which they sense Strong possibilities of opposition to Western centers of power. This applies to such widely separated points as Germany, Argentina, Middle Eastern countries, etc.
(f) In international economic matters, Soviet policy will really be dominated by pursuit of autarchy for Soviet Union and Soviet-dominated adjacent areas taken together. That, however, will be underlying policy. As far as official line is concerned, position is not yet clear. Soviet Government has shown strange reticence since termination hostilities on subject foreign trade. If large scale long term credits should be forthcoming, I believe Soviet Government may eventually again do lip service, as it did in 1930's to desirability of building up international economic exchanges in general. Otherwise I think it possible Soviet foreign trade may be restricted largely to Soviet's own security sphere, including occupied areas in Germany, and that a cold official shoulder may be turned to principle of general economic collaboration among nations.
(g) With respect to cultural collaboration, lip service will likewise be rendered to desirability of deepening cultural contacts between peoples, but this will not in practice be interpreted in any way which could weaken security position of Soviet peoples. Actual manifestations of Soviet policy in this respect will be restricted to arid channels of closely shepherded official visits and functions, with superabundance of vodka and speeches and dearth of permanent effects.
(h) Beyond this, Soviet official relations will take what might be called "correct" course with individual foreign governments, with great stress being laid on prestige of Soviet Union and its representatives and with punctilious attention to protocol as distinct from good manners.
Part 4: Following May Be Said as to What We May Expect by Way of Implementation of Basic Soviet Policies on Unofficial, or Subterranean Plane, i.e. on Plane for Which Soviet Government Accepts no Responsibility
Agencies utilized for promulgation of policies on this plane are following:
1. Inner central core of Communist Parties in other countries. While many of persons who compose this category may also appear and act in unrelated public capacities, they are in reality working closely together as an underground operating directorate of world communism, a concealed Comintern tightly coordinated and directed by Moscow. It is important to remember that this inner core is actually working on underground lines, despite legality of parties with which it is associated.
2. Rank and file of Communist Parties. Note distinction is drawn between those and persons defined in paragraph 1. This distinction has become much sharper in recent years. Whereas formerly foreign Communist Parties represented a curious (and from Moscow's standpoint often inconvenient) mixture of conspiracy and legitimate activity, now the conspiratorial element has been neatly concentrated in inner circle and ordered underground, while rank and file--no longer even taken into confidence about realities of movement--are thrust forward as bona fide internal partisans of certain political tendencies within their respective countries, genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with foreign states. Only in certain countries where communists are numerically strong do they now regularly appear and act as a body. As a rule they are used to penetrate, and to influence or dominate, as case may be, other organizations less likely to be suspected of being tools of Soviet Government, with a view to accomplishing their purposes through [apparent omission] organizations, rather than by direct action as a separate political party.
3. A wide variety of national associations or bodies which can be dominated or influenced by such penetration. These include: labor unions, youth leagues, women's organizations, racial societies, religious societies, social organizations, cultural groups, liberal magazines, publishing houses, etc.
4. International organizations which can be similarly penetrated through influence over various national components. Labor, youth and women's organizations are prominent among them. Particular, almost vital importance is attached in this connection to international labor movement. In this, Moscow sees possibility of sidetracking western governments in world affairs and building up international lobby capable of compelling governments to take actions favorable to Soviet interests in various countries and of paralyzing actions disagreeable to USSR
5. Russian Orthodox Church, with its foreign branches, and through it the Eastern Orthodox Church in general.
6. Pan-Slav movement and other movements (Azerbaijan, Armenian, Turcoman, etc.) based on racial groups within Soviet Union.
7. Governments or governing groups willing to lend themselves to Soviet purposes in one degree or another, such as present Bulgarian and Yugoslav Governments, North Persian regime, Chinese Communists, etc. Not only propaganda machines but actual policies of these regimes can be placed extensively at disposal of USSR
It may be expected that component parts of this far-flung apparatus will be utilized in accordance with their individual suitability, as follows:
(a) To undermine general political and strategic potential of major western powers. Efforts will be made in such countries to disrupt national self confidence, to hamstring measures of national defense, to increase social and industrial unrest, to stimulate all forms of disunity. All persons with grievances, whether economic or racial, will be urged to spelt redress not in mediation and compromise, but in defiant violent struggle for destruction of other elements of society. Here poor will be set against rich, black against white, young against old, newcomers against established residents, etc.
(b) On unofficial plane particularly violent efforts will be made to weaken power and influence of Western Powers of [on] colonial backward, or dependent peoples. On this level, no holds will be barred. Mistakes and weaknesses of western colonial administration will be mercilessly exposed and exploited. Liberal opinion in Western countries will be mobilized to weaken colonial policies. Resentment among dependent peoples will be stimulated. And while latter are being encouraged to seek independence of Western Powers, Soviet dominated puppet political machines will be undergoing preparation to take over domestic power in respective colonial areas when independence is achieved.
(c) Where individual governments stand in path of Soviet purposes pressure will be brought for their removal from office. This can happen where governments directly oppose Soviet foreign policy aims (Turkey, Iran), where they seal their territories off against Communist penetration (Switzerland, Portugal), or where they compete too strongly, like Labor Government in England, for moral domination among elements which it is important for Communists to dominate. (Sometimes, two of these elements are present in a single case. Then Communist opposition becomes particularly shrill and savage. [)]
(d) In foreign countries Communists will, as a rule, work toward destruction of all forms of personal independence, economic, political or moral. Their system can handle only individuals who have been brought into complete dependence on higher power. Thus, persons who are financially independent--such as individual businessmen, estate owners, successful farmers, artisans and all those who exercise local leadership or have local prestige, such as popular local clergymen or political figures, are anathema. It is not by chance that even in USSR local officials are kept constantly on move from one job to another, to prevent their taking root.
(e) Everything possible will be done to set major Western Powers against each other. Anti-British talk will be plugged among Americans, anti-American talk among British. Continentals, including Germans, will be taught to abhor both Anglo-Saxon powers. Where suspicions exist, they will be fanned; where not, ignited. No effort will be spared to discredit and combat all efforts which threaten to lead to any sort of unity or cohesion among other [apparent omission] from which Russia might be excluded. Thus, all forms of international organization not amenable to Communist penetration and control, whether it be the Catholic [apparent omission] international economic concerns, or the international fraternity of royalty and aristocracy, must expect to find themselves under fire from many, and often [apparent omission].
(f) In general, all Soviet efforts on unofficial international plane will be negative and destructive in character, designed to tear down sources of strength beyond reach of Soviet control. This is only in line with basic Soviet instinct that there can be no compromise with rival power and that constructive work can start only when Communist power is doming But behind all this will be applied insistent, unceasing pressure for penetration and command of key positions in administration and especially in police apparatus of foreign countries. The Soviet regime is a police regime par excellence, reared in the dim half world of Tsarist police intrigue, accustomed to think primarily in terms of police power. This should never be lost sight of in ganging Soviet motives.
Part 5: [Practical Deductions From Standpoint of US Policy]
In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken, if Soviet power is to be secure. This political force has complete power of disposition over energies of one of world's greatest peoples and resources of world's richest national territory, and is borne along by deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism. In addition, it has an elaborate and far flung apparatus for exertion of its influence in other countries, an apparatus of amazing flexibility and versatility, managed by people whose experience and skill in underground methods are presumably without parallel in history. Finally, it is seemingly inaccessible to considerations of reality in its basic reactions. For it, the vast fund of objective fact about human society is not, as with us, the measure against which outlook is constantly being tested and re-formed, but a grab bag from which individual items are selected arbitrarily and tendenciously to bolster an outlook already preconceived. This is admittedly not a pleasant picture. Problem of how to cope with this force in [is] undoubtedly greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face. It should be point of departure from which our political general staff work at present juncture should proceed. It should be approached with same thoroughness and care as solution of major strategic problem in war, and if necessary, with no smaller outlay in planning effort. I cannot attempt to suggest all answers here. But I would like to record my conviction that problem is within our power to solve--and that without recourse to any general military conflict.. And in support of this conviction there are certain observations of a more encouraging nature I should like to make:
(1) Soviet power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns.
(2) Gauged against Western World as a whole, Soviets are still by far the weaker force. Thus, their success will really depend on degree of cohesion, firmness and vigor which Western World can muster. And this is factor which it is within our power to influence.
(3) Success of Soviet system, as form of internal power, is not yet finally proven. It has yet to be demonstrated that it can survive supreme test of successive transfer of power from one individual or group to another. Lenin's death was first such transfer, and its effects wracked Soviet state for 15 years. After Stalin's death or retirement will be second. But even this will not be final test. Soviet internal system will now be subjected, by virtue of recent territorial expansions, to series of additional strains which once proved severe tax on Tsardom. We here are convinced that never since termination of civil war have mass of Russian people been emotionally farther removed from doctrines of Communist Party than they are today. In Russia, party has now become a great and--for the moment--highly successful apparatus of dictatorial administration, but it has ceased to be a source of emotional inspiration. Thus, internal soundness and permanence of movement need not yet be regarded as assured.
(4) All Soviet propaganda beyond Soviet security sphere is basically negative and destructive. It should therefore be relatively easy to combat it by any intelligent and really constructive program.
For those reasons I think we may approach calmly and with good heart problem of how to deal with Russia. As to how this approach should be made, I only wish to advance, by way of conclusion, following comments:
(1) Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing. We must study it with same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual.
(2) We must see that our public is educated to realities of Russian situation. I cannot over-emphasize importance of this. Press cannot do this alone. It must be done mainly by Government, which is necessarily more experienced and better informed on practical problems involved. In this we need not be deterred by [ugliness?] of picture. I am convinced that there would be far less hysterical anti-Sovietism in our country today if realities of this situation were better understood by our people. There is nothing as dangerous or as terrifying as the unknown. It may also be argued that to reveal more information on our difficulties with Russia would reflect unfavorably on Russian-American relations. I feel that if there is any real risk here involved, it is one which we should have courage to face, and sooner the better. But I cannot see what we would be risking. Our stake in this country, even coming on heels of tremendous demonstrations of our friendship for Russian people, is remarkably small. We have here no investments to guard, no actual trade to lose, virtually no citizens to protect, few cultural contacts to preserve. Our only stake lies in what we hope rather than what we have; and I am convinced we have better chance of realizing those hopes if our public is enlightened and if our dealings with Russians are placed entirely on realistic and matter-of-fact basis.
(3) Much depends on health and vigor of our own society. World communism is like malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue. This is point at which domestic and foreign policies meets Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiqués. If we cannot abandon fatalism and indifference in face of deficiencies of our own society, Moscow will profit--Moscow cannot help profiting by them in its foreign policies.
(4) We must formulate and put forward for other nations a much more positive and constructive picture of sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in past. It is not enough to urge people to develop political processes similar to our own. Many foreign peoples, in Europe at least, are tired and frightened by experiences of past, and are less interested in abstract freedom than in security. They are seeking guidance rather than responsibilities. We should be better able than Russians to give them this. And unless we do, Russians certainly will.
(5) Finally we must have courage and self-confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After Al, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.
KENNAN
800.00B International Red Day/2 - 2546: Airgram As I said, read it all and for those who know, nothing about the basic underlying soul of Russia changed in a 1000 years and it didn't change an iota after the Berlin Wall came down. They have not changed and only a fool would think they have or ever will. Our policies now are those of fools. It is strange to think that now the fate of the world lies in Russian forebearance when for so long it was ours that governed the world as we have come to know it.
Posted by HMS Defiant at 2:33 AM 2 comments:
INTERFERENCE WITH THE SAILOR MIND
I was stationed on a destroyer in San Diego and Seattle for a time back in the mid-80s and the powers that be detected a problem with the phone bill of said ship. It was wopping to start out and grew exponentially worse when the ship relocated from San Diego to spend 9 months in Todd Shipyard as the very last USN ship repair contract they would ever have. They went out of business soon after we left and for the most excellent of reasons. Yep, they sucked at ship repair, cost containment, quality assurance, productivity and in fact just about every single metric for performance. But this isn't about those losers. Nope, it's about the wileyest of the wiley, the American sailor.
As I said, the Supply Officer and XO were frustrated that people were using the ships 5 working phone lines to call home. Home was located all across the United States since some talked to their folks and some to the wives and others to whoever lived at home. They finally came up with a surefire way to stop those rascals and they put those little phone dial locks on the dials of the telephones and only the department heads had a key to unlock them and so knew that all the calls were logged and for official business.
Back then Radio Shack was a going concern and it sold a handy little tone dialer that worked just phone on rotary phones. One picked up the handset, input the desired phone number into the tone generator that you bought at Radio Shack for $10.00 and then held it up to the mouthpiece and pushed the button unleashing the tones which worked their way through the phone system to the appropriate exchange and connected you with the number you dialed. No need at all to unlock the lock on the dial. It took them until the bills came due at the end of the next billing period to realize that they'd been had. The PTB locked up the offices with the phones in them after working hours after that. Not much of a hardship to the officers in those offices since the ship was otherwise without heat and nobody stayed onboard a second longer than necessary after the end of the day.
I sure hope that the Sailors out there in the Fleet today are the same kind of people but I tend to suspect it has gone downhill ever since kids who grew up with electronic devices welded to their fingers since they were toddlers are for the most part unlearned about things like that and our Navy has adopted an old old strategy that states that "unless it is specifically authorized, it is forbidden" and we've had a full generation of that kind of thinking. It has led to numerous collisions, groundings, fires, irrepairable combining reduction gear casualties which have led to the complete destruction of a number of practically brand new-but useless warships.
One of the sadder signs of the decay of the sailor mind is reflected in the tiny number that applied for waivers from the covid vaccine. In my time in we knew that we were usually an afterthough to anybody above the rank of LCDR but we did have some faith in the docs on the ships. Old sailors that worked hard and played hard were not ever going to be afraid of some stupid virus that 99.871 people who caught it, survived. OTGH, we are talking about the Chiefs with red crows on their dress blues and men who had contracted 13 venereal diseases in 6 years. Seriously, guys who weren't afraid of anything.
I'll ask the question I know nobody is asking. How are we going to get those guys back? The Navy killed Basic Electricity and Electronics school while I was still on active duty and it was quickly reflected in the decreased capability of our technicians. That led to a new maintenance philosophy which simply decided component repair was no longer desirable and so went to modular repairs. One took the lowest replaceable unit out and replaced with a brand new one and the old one was scrapped or sent off to the maintenance depots for repairs. Then the Navy scrapped all the maintenance depots and decided that the ships would get their maintenance in more frequent restricted availabilities and shipyard maintenance and the costs climbed and the time spent in the shipyards at the mercy of the yards got longer and longer and soon ships were missing deadlines to deploy and other ships were surged on back to back deployments while we fixed the ones that were supposed to go out to sea. We've been doing that for about 20 years now and if you look at our Navy you can see it's maintenance philosophy simply by looking at the ships themsselves.
Back in 1986 the circuit cards in the Mk91 Fire Control System cost about $14,000 each. There were a lot of them. I'm sure they cost a great deal more now. In fact I'm almost certain that some are being cross decked to deploying ships to ensure that they have a working NATO Sea Sparrow Fire Control System. Hell, we were doing that back in 1987. We were doing it earlier with the Phalanx Close in Weapon System. On my first ship we were happy if the side of the ship facing Iran had a working CIWS even if it meant the 'disengaged side' was out of commission. If we made repeated transits of the Strait of Hormuz we took the working parts needed off the other side of the ship and walked them 60 feet to the other CIWS to make it work.
I wonder though. How long can we keep abanding $180 billion dollars worth of weaponry in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and shipping $800 million worth of modern weaponry to places like Ukraine before our military simply collapses?
ON CARRY
My state reps recently voted to approve Constitutional carry and it sounds a little tempting. Not too though. I carry a tool for everyday use but not a weapon. I was just reading an article by a writer who was praising his old 1911 in 9mm for the extra ammo in the magazince and wondered about such a thing. To take 10 or more shots to end a thing at a range of 7 to 10 feet seems extreme to me. I consider the skill I have with the things a knack and it is apparantly a knack others don't begin to have. It may be kinesthesia but I doubt it. Back in my 20s I would go to the range every month or so to knock out a couple of boxes of 45. I stopped when I was in my early 30s and yet whenever circumstances required a qualification fire I was an expert with whatever new gun had come down the navy/army pike. Pick it up. Aim. Fire. Hard to believe, I was OPS at Expeditionary Security Group ONE in San Diego and our Weapons officer, a very hard corps LDO LT would routinely invite me to shoot with the next lot up at Pendleton or out at Nyland and I would routinely say, no thank you. Hitting the target was never in doubt anymore and sitting through the bleacher speech of the instructors was just a bore and so not worth it. Came the day, I had to qualify on the new 9mm to carry in Korea because USFK had demanded that all of us carry and my card didn't show I was qualified with the newest navy 9mm.
It's been 20 years since I last hit the long distance ranges and the last time I fired was the Navy combat course of fire at the Ballast Point submarine base range with whatever the 9mm of the day was. It was a new COF for me with multiple draw and reholster, shoot 2 or shoot 3, reholster, draw, reload, then step into the target and fire again using the offhand. Some might say that it was a realistic course of fire for pistol range combat. I don't know about that. I used to fire for practice at the 25 yard line and putting the rounds into the black was the goal. They were all in the black. On the other hand, I still remember firing that damned 44 magnum the first time.
Posted by HMS Defiant at 12:57 AM 12 comments:
POWERED BY MUSIC
I really enjoy this piece. Some of you may have noticed that I repost it from time to time. I also enjoy the movie. It might be time to watch it again. The HMS Surprise in the movie was the HMS Rose, known to me from my days in Newport. It had a difficult passage through the Gulf of Mexico on its way to the movie shooting in California and had to have new steel masts installed at NASCO. I still had all the authority of a CHENG and motored in to the Yard one day, drove up to the ship in dry dock and found one of my former Chiefs was now a welder there and we took the cook's tour of the ship in drydock. When I say cook's tour it was kind of like when my former DCA gave me the cook's tour of the Missouri when it pulled in to Coronado. Yep, we went everywhere, up the masts, down the shaft alleys, an amazing thing a warship I hadn't expected. Honestly, what kind of warship has an ATM?
ON TWITTER AND RITTER
I used to be part of the NAVCENT support network for the Arms Inspectors in Iraq or enroute to Iraq and furnished them with some specialist EOD support in country. Scott Ritter was our country's rep to the UN Inspection Teams. I saw this and it jibes with what I'm learning from the more honest sources. The massacre in Bucha as detailed and described by the media appears to have been carried out by the Ukrainian militia when they occupied the city after the Russians pulled out. Everything you see in the mainstream media about this war is false. All of it.
Posted by HMS Defiant at 11:23 PM No comments:
FIRE BOMBS HAVE THEIR PLACE
Interesting little town here. I'm kind of sorry to see it in Alabama where I lived for 3 years and went to high school and got my driver's license. It seems that a little power corrupts absolutely.
"Policing for profit preys on the vulnerable, and it subverts public trust," said IJ Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. "Courts recognize that generating 10% of revenue from fines and fees raises a presumption of unconstitutionality. Brookside generates nearly five times that."
It takes an ugly mind and an ugly character to come up with and implement these schemes. I have never figured out why people vote for scum like this.
ON RUSSIA
Russia is the first and only major European power to blood its Army since World War II. I tried looking up this term of art on both google and duckduck but neither came near to capturing the old meaning of the phrase. It's a very old term dating back centuries and it refers to the process of mobilizing the Armed Forces of the State and sending them into battle against a peer or a near peer. The only major power to actually do this since the Korean War is the United States. The rest of NATO hasn't been shirking so much as staying unbelligerant and indifferent to the state of the world.
One could argue that Israel has done this repeatedly since 1948 but with the exception of the 1956 War they have mostly been waging war against the most singularly inept armies on the planet. One could point to India and Pakistan bickerings since the Partition but they haven't really gone toe to toe, hammer and tongs against each other. They practiced restraint. Vietnam and the other later wars don't really count as much as one might think but they did improve the literal Hell out of our Armed Forces. The Officers who fought the War in Vietnam were the ones that went on to write the new tactics and strategies and to lead the Army in the next big war which was Desert Storm. You can see that all the nonsense about economy of force was tossed right out the window and stomped on. Hard. Hadley's book, The Straw Giant, shows the lengths to which the DoD had to go to make any progress at all against 'old thinking'.
Russia has spent the generations since 1945 perfecting tactics and strategies designed to augment the lessons they learned in their long march to Berlin. Combined arms warfare with giant shock armies to blunt and bleed out the enemy at the front and penetrate deeply into the enemy's rear areas where the ability to run amok and exploit the weakness of the rear areas is simply taken for granted.
They learned in Chechnya not to push into city centers with armored vehicles. They could revert to the tactics of the 15th century and blockade and starve out the cities or simply flatten them with artillery. They learned almost immediately that there is no UP side to attacking into built up urban areas. They have also learned something WE most certainly have not, not yet; anti-tank missile systems cannot be defeated by either armor or reactive armor explosives. They relearn as always, that armor proceeding into the attack without an infantry screen is dead as any kind of successful attack and that the infantry screen cannot move into the contested battle area in armoured personnel carriers very much as we all talked about during REFORGER when every soldier knew that riding into a confrontation with the Red Army in an M113 was a suicide pact and the developers of the follow on M2 and M3 IFV knew that lesson very well. What happened on the way to Iraq II and Afghanistan was the input from post battle analysis from Desert Storm which clearly showed that the Bradley's could and did destroy plenty of frontline Soviet era tanks.
I'm afraid that tanks are about as obsolete as surface warships. None of us like to admit it but if the Army has made gigantic enormous strides in lethality in anti-tank weapons you can take it as a given that the Russians have made equal advances in shipkilling missiles that move at hypersonic speeds from far over the horizon and can be targeted on any ship afloat on the seas anywhere simply because they are so detectable to electronic intelligence satellites which have no difficulty following with precision and accuratacy all movements of such ships from their invulnerable orbital positions. EMCON is worse than a joke. It's as naive and foolish as the wattle armor American Indians adopted against rifles.
When I think about it, from the far side of 60, how the sudden interest expressed by the NATO powers is following the Red Army into a ditch. What are the fools now buying that they would not buy at any price over the last 40 years? Why yes, they're buying tanks. They're buying frontline latest generation stealth fighters and God knows what other useless stuff.
I don't know how the landbased anti-air guys work but in the Naval world we were told not to lock on to friendly planes with our fire control radars. We did it so the aircrew wouldn't freak out when their threat warning receivers started shrieking at them. I wonder if the guys running the Patriots have the same kind of instructions or a more serious reasoning that suggests we shouldn't let the bad guys know that their 5th generation stealth planes can be detected and locked up by existing fire control anti-air missile systems. That doesn't even begin to include the man portable anti-aircraft systems like the Stinger and follow on aircraft killers and don't you have a warm fuzzy knowing that those things can now routinely be expected to fall into the hands of 4th generation war totes? Every single crewman on those planes taking the last refuse out of Kabul International knew all the way at the core of their being that a single guy standing within a mile of the field could destroy them with a single MANPAD missile and we left thousands of them in Afghanistan when we ran away.
What else is unlikely to survive on the modern battlefield shared by peer enemies? Well, the helicopter in any role at all, is doomed. I have long believed they were doomed by simple aerodynamics and the force of gravity but there are many old helo pilots who would disagree. That's OK, I'm open to disagreement.
I started this by writing about an ancient concept; blooding the Army. The United States has toiled long and hard to avoid repeating old lessons learned. It doesn't amount to much if we continue to put in political generals and admirals who appear to have reached the pinnacles of their careers through adept use of kneepads and backstabbing. The Royal Navy got into a near-peer fight in the Falklands. It cost them far more than they could afford but the remnant of the rump of the British Empire considered it worth the cost. Let's be honest, a nuclear attack submarine fighting a WWII US built cruiser isn't a peer to peer engagement and A-4 Skyhawks with gravity bombs against a fleet supposedly built around the concept of fighting off multiple waves of Badger and Backfire bombers with AS-4 NUCLEAR missiles isn't really a peer on peer engagement either. The paras and Marines and Army that fought the mostly conscript forces of the Junta didn't really see the true face of modern battle. It was much the same as their ancestors fighting the Zulus or the Dervishes.
NATO has never performed any of the core requirements of battle. It has never waged war. It has never engaged in an epic life and death struggle. It has never therefore been forced to examine its doctrine, it's tactics or any aspect of its commmand, control, communications and computer structures. It suffers a most lamentable lack of any means to actually get to the fight if somebody was to get into the rear and screw up autobahn or the railroads. Russia knows now about 10,000 times more than NATO about how to actually wage war using modern weapons and tactics.
You might think that this kind of thing could be learned simply from studying the efforts of others and making notes and then crafting a detailed plan to make sure you get it right. It's an interesting idea and you know what? It has never applied itself to WAR. That's right. There were thousands of European observers on both sides of the American Civil War who carefully noted that the rifle armed forces on both sides made assaults across open ground terribly terribly costly. They noted that artillery was far more dangerous than it was when last used in Europe in 1812 and the only people really paying attention were the Prussians. The English knew all this was true and accurate from the Boer Wars at the turn of the century but still lined up on the Somme to go at it across no-man's land, again and again and again for four long years.
You can see the same sort of mindset that won't stop thinking armor and reactive armor can defeat missiles.
ON THE SEA ROAD TO CANADA
I once left San Diego in the company of 3 other Minesweepers enroute to Canada. It looked like this most of the way with a 70 knot headwind most of the way and one of the Sweeps losing main propulsion half a dozen times while we 'waited' endured.
On our bow was a P250 pump one second, gone the next along with everything else on the bow.
BILL OF RIGHTS LIVES!
It has taken too long but the science seems to be winning again. A Texas judge overrode the Supreme Court of the United States and told them to stuff it. This is long overdue. I think the bloom is off the rose of 'science' and scientology serving as any sort of bedrock for the courts decisions. It boils down now to the Bill of Rights and who has the Supreme Right over a person's body and conscience. It ain't Bill Gates or the frauds in our medical community.
29 Mar 2022 Military.com | By Konstantin Toropin
Fresh off of a Supreme Court decision that saw his previous vaccine-refuser injunction narrowed, a federal judge in Texas issued a new order Monday that turns the case into a class-action lawsuit and halts the Navy from discharging vaccine-refusing sailors Navy-wide.
In January, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor told the Navy that it could not discipline or discharge 35 sailors – mostly Navy SEALs – who were suing over their religious exemption denials. That order was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet the Supreme Court disagreed in part and ruled that, while the special operators couldn't be discharged, the Navy was allowed to use their vaccination status to make operational and deployment decisions.
That was Friday.
In Monday's order, O'Connor granted the SEAL's request to broaden the case out to a class action that includes "4,095 Navy service members who have filed religious accommodation requests," the ruling said. That request was filed in January, according to court records.
Frankly, the hysteria over the idiotic virus has peaked and now sensible people are once again being heard on the issues of life and death. The science is catching up with the vaccine makers and it isn't pretty.
I like how the new "Science" takes on the Aspect of God. He's been missing from our national Id for some time.
AND BECAUSE, IT RINGS A BELL
What can I say? It rings a bell in memory that is hard to fathom. OTGH, so do most movies featuring Audrey Hepburn.
THE NEW HELL ON EARTH
I joined the service in 79. It was the end of the post-Vietnam collapse. We were starting the rebound at about that time. I joined a Navy that didn't really suffer the outrageous misfortunes the Army and Marines were subject to but the Navy of the early and mid-70s was such that as a midshipman on my first class cruise on USS Connole, I was told not to investigate too deeply the strange smells coming out of various dark places nor visit the fantail after dark. Of course, that was the cruise wehre the CO called us up on the Bridge and asked us to send a Master-at-Arms to the fan room that supplied his at-sea cabin with air and arrest the idiot smoking dope after midnight.
We are back at what passes for peace now. That means that all the dolts, idiots, morons and dismal shower of shit are once again given full free rein over the Forces. It will show in the recruiting, basic training, assignments, and promotions. We will once again promote the kind of imbecile that led the war in Yugoslavia and tried to bring about the 3rd World War early by shooting at some unwanted Russians he didn't like. Fortunately, the British commander declined the honor.
I'm trying to picture the new DI's at the various Boot Camps trying to indoctrinate the current generation into the mystique of actual warfare and killing on demand. It was probably easy with the guys training the recruits to kill taliban after 9/11 but that was a lifetime ago.
Sadly, the War will be on us far sooner than we expect.
Elon Musk made a Best and Final Offer and now ever...


text:
Is there any equivalent for this Persian idiom: "Like a cow with a white forehead"?
The Persian idiom like a cow with a white forehead is used when one wants to characterize a person who is very well known in a crowd or even in a society.
Although it has a negative meaning, it does not mean notorious or ill-famed. Also, this definition that a person with a white forehead is someone who is very famous is not exact but not necessarily wrong. We use this idiom when we want to say that the person has done some works or has made some mistakes that have made him or her known. He or she has betrayed himself or herself.
This word is often used in a political context, when you want to say that this person is well-known to police and other security organizations.
We can not rely on him. He is __________ [like a cow with a white forehead] and may be arrested.
expressions idiom-requests expression-requests
alwayslearning
kazhvankazhvan
What is the 'negative meaning' (you probably mean 'negative connotation') you mention? I can't see how 'being well known, with negative connotations' can't mean 'notorious'. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 7 '17 at 18:54
I am confused now after re-reading (or was it an edit) ... while I can understand your first paragraphs about someone standing out but "incomplete" your last sentence about them being untrustworthy and liable to be arrested seems to take it to "notorious" or "ill-famed" levels which you said it did not mean. I agree with @EdwinAshworth that they seem contradictory. – Tom22 Aug 7 '17 at 20:45
Perhaps you mean something in your last sentence more like : We can't ~rely~ on him. He is like a cow with white forehead and may be ~deposed~. * substituting *rely for trust, and deposed for arrested. – Tom22 Aug 7 '17 at 20:50
I see. We are less accustomed to people who might be a hero being arrested for political causes. – Tom22 Aug 7 '17 at 20:59
The question is unclear, for the reason given by EdwinAshworth. I have read the comments to try and understand, but I have no clue what you mean by the phrase "you can be sure to assign a work to him or here anymore"; it is not good English. Voting to close as "unclear what you're asking", but hoping that you can provide the clarification as I love these "translate idiom" questions. – AndyT Aug 8 '17 at 9:03
He may be a marked man:
A man who is singled out as a target for hostility or attack. 'he said what they did was wrong and he may well be a marked man now'
Source: Oxford
Or maybe he just sticks out like a sore thumb:
phrase. If you say that someone or something sticks out like a sore thumb or stands out like a sore thumb, you are emphasizing that they are very noticeable, usually because they are unusual or inappropriate.
Source: Collins
From the above definition, noticeable might work, since it isn't overtly negative:
easily seen or noticed; clear or apparent.
marcellothearcanemarcellothearcane
+1 for sore thumb and noticeable, though the latter isn't idiomatic. Marked man implies the man so marked is due to be the target of an already-planned attack, it has nothing to do with how noticeable a person is in general. – talrnu Aug 8 '17 at 16:29
@talrnu I'm not entirely sure "marked man" isn't also used to refer to someone who has become infamous among law enforcement or a community in general, ex. "I can't go back there. I'm a marked man!" This would probably imply an outstanding arrest warrant, but it might just mean the person is wanted for questioning or otherwise targeted for surveillance. – Darren Ringer Aug 8 '17 at 19:27
Literally speaking, it's a man with a mark - that mark could be anything. – marcellothearcane Aug 8 '17 at 19:31
@marcellothearcane It's an idiom, by definition it's not intended to be taken literally - its meaning comes from usage. Historically it's been used to describe someone who's about to be hurt or killed. It can also be used metaphorically, as Darren suggests, to describe someone as a pariah, and it's possible the prevalence of this metaphor is creeping in as an actual alternate definition of the idiom. I'll concede therefore that it fits, but only barely - it requires actual infamy, and not merely being particularly noticeable. – talrnu Aug 8 '17 at 20:06
@talrnu 'it requires actual infamy, and not merely being particularly noticeable' - I completely agree. – marcellothearcane Aug 8 '17 at 20:24
To stick/stand out like a sore thumb.
This sounds very much like the English idiom to stick out like a sore thumb.
From Cambridge English Dictionary:
If someone or something stands/sticks out like a sore thumb, everyone notices them because they are very different from the people or things around them
An example use from the recent news media:
Apart from me, the queue for the Scenic Railway roller coaster in Margate is composed of teens and young families. I don't like his intonation but I can see his point. As a 37-year-old man, I stick out like a sore thumb.
The logic behind the idiom is hard to pin down for sure, but WiseGeek asserts that it's simply because a sore thumb is often held at a stiff awkward angle, making it very noticeable.
The first explanation is probably obvious to anyone who has ever injured a limb. When an injury is sustained, the natural instinct is to protect the affected limb, and as a result, a sore thumb is often held at a stiff, odd angle that may be obvious to even the casual observer.
To be damaged goods
Another possibility that fits with the example provided and the notion of having a tarnished reputation would be damaged goods.
A person whose reputation has been damaged, corrupted, or tarnished. The young CEO became damaged goods after news of his insider trading spread—now he can't even get a job flipping burgers.
Farlex Idioms
This idiom and the example provided by Farlex fits well with the description provided in your example:
We use this idiom when we want to say that the person has done some works that have made him or his known. He or she has betrayed himself or herself.
You could say:
We can not trust him. He is damaged goods and may be arrested.
John TerMaatJohn TerMaat
Great minds think alike, obviously... :D – marcellothearcane Aug 7 '17 at 18:15
@marcellothearcane apparently so :) – John TerMaat Aug 7 '17 at 18:17
The negative connotation? I don't see 'As a 37-year-old man, I stick out like a sore thumb.' as carrying one. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 7 '17 at 18:56
@EdwinAshworth maybe not in that example, but a sore thumb doesn't stick out in a positive way. Neither does it imply notoriety, so it seems like a good fit for the OP's request – John TerMaat Aug 7 '17 at 18:59
Damaged goods doesn't imply any degree of "making him or [herself] known". It only implies a loss of original quality. It might work if you're describing someone whose worth is based entirely on their ability to go unnoticed, but even then it feels very out of place for the intended meaning. – talrnu Aug 8 '17 at 16:35
You could describe the person as being conspicuous:
standing out so as to be clearly visible.
"he was very thin, with a conspicuous Adam's apple"
attracting notice or attention.
"he showed conspicuous bravery"
"We can not rely on him. He is conspicuous and may be arrested."
Kevin WorkmanKevin Workman
"X has a target on [his/her] back" works for your example.
Some samples from search:
De'Aaron Fox says Lonzo Ball has a 'target on his back' from NBA players(sports)
Reince Priebus May Have A Target On His Back (USA politics)
James MooreJames Moore
See the Far Side cartoon, "Bummer of a birthmark, Hal" – Nigel Touch Aug 8 '17 at 11:32
From your comment.
when one of your members become known to people ,especially police ,you can not be sure to assign a work to him or her anymore. He or she is not necessarily a person with bad fame . perhaps he is even for them a hero .
If so it kind of sounds like "Burned" or "Compromised." These meanings come from espionage terms. Not sure if they're actually used by real spies, but they were used a lot in spy novels and movies.
It means that the person involved is no long useful against a particular group or in a location because they are now well known by them.
Burned tends to mean that the action that made them known was intentional and controlled. For example an undercover police officer will have to become known if he arrests a bunch of criminals. (see the example below)
Compromised tends to indicate it wasn't intentional and also indicates the person might be in immediate danger. For example the police might find out the identity of one of your members, and the member works at the police station feeding information to other members. Well he's suddenly in immense danger now.
A full example: In the U.S. a police officer might pretend to be a drug dealer in order to infiltrate a drug organization. Once the officer gathers enough evidence he'll call in other officers and they'll arrest the leaders of the organization. Afterwards, the police officer gets a medal and ends up all over the news. He's now "burned" as an undercover police officer since anyone that saw that news broadcast will instantly know he's a police officer.
Is that closer to what you meant?
kazhvan
KelnorKelnor
Infamous 1. having an extremely bad reputation.
or Notorious - adjective 1. widely and unfavorably known:
DCookDCook
The OP didn't want very negative words, even stating that 'notorious' wasn't what they were looking for... – marcellothearcane Aug 7 '17 at 20:25
Yet the example they cited was a negative. And notorious is not necessarily a very negative, it just says unfavorable. Pointing out the difference by giving the definition. – DCook Aug 8 '17 at 12:04
If you have quoted definitions, please cite the reference. – Andrew Leach♦ Aug 10 '17 at 10:37
@DCook I don't think the given example is negative. The person in question may be a hero to the people talking, but because he's well-known to the enemy they can't rely on him to complete the mission. – James Moore Aug 23 '17 at 15:12
Someone who has lost face.
This is someone who is generally known for the reason of making a public mistake, an indecency, or something that marks him as particularly untrustworthy or unpopular in the eyes of people. This is not always something wrong or bad, as it could be as benign as voicing an unpopular opinion, or making a personal desire heard, or displaying a weakness in public.
You would use it in this manner:
After the reason for the separation was made known, he completely lost face. Now, no one will hire him.
He is not fit for presidency. A man who has lost face by spending taxpayer money to fulfill his personal greed is not trustworthy.
psosunapsosuna
Not bad . but that is not what I need . we have a number of for what you have said . we use these expressions for someone who have had an intrigue . – kazhvan Aug 8 '17 at 17:10
@kazhvan you should consider adding this comment to the question itself. Having beein involved in intrigue clarifies the question quite a bit. – barbecue Aug 10 '17 at 1:00
@barbecue I think he is saying that this isn't suitable because it has the connotation of an intrigue, which they already have phrases for. either way, I agree that this should be added to the question because that was what I wasn't 100% certain of. – psosuna Aug 10 '17 at 16:43
You might also consider "blacklist" - if you were translating, for example, and needed an idiom that makes use of color.
Blacklist: to say that a person, company, etc., should be avoided or not allowed to do something : to place (someone or something) on a blacklist — often used as (be) blacklisted "In the 1950s, many Hollywood film actors were blacklisted for suspected involvement with the Communist Party."
Elby CloudElby Cloud
He sticks out like dog's balls
see refernce
ArjangArjang
Interesting mixed metaphor. In BrE, "the dog's bollocks" is a positive expression for something which is extremely good. – Andrew Leach♦ Aug 10 '17 at 10:39
This may help too: on a watch list
ODO:
A list of individuals, groups, or items that require close surveillance, typically for legal or political reasons.
'It was revealed in court Tuesday that she was on a watch list and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times.'
alwayslearningalwayslearning
There is a comparable phrase in German: "Er ist bekannt wie ein bunter Hund."
Which literally translates as: He is (in)famous like a colored dog.
In this line I would suggest: "He's known all over town."
wp78dewp78de
notorious might be the right word. It doesn't necessarily have a negative meaning.
See also this stackexchange question: Connotation of "Notorious" "
Macmillan Dictionary: famous for something bad – kazhvan Aug 8 '17 at 16:16
MW - famous especially [but not exclusively] for something bad. – Stilez Aug 9 '17 at 8:15
Notorious is sometimes used ironically or humorously as an equivalent for "famous" but without such a context, it will almost always be interpreted as negative. Saying someone is "notorious" for their belgian waffles either means their belgian waffles are terrible, or possibly ironically means their belgian waffles are wonderful. – barbecue Aug 10 '17 at 0:55
"Fifteen minutes of fame" refers to someone no one had ever heard of previously but who gained a reputation (good or bad) which has been exposed to many through the media such as TV news reports, newspaper stories, some sort of sensational action, etc. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame. Some people now strive to have that fifteen minutes of fame.
"In the spotlight" refers to someone who is standing in the limelight on stage and is very noticeable--the center of attention. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Putting them together, you could say: "He's had his 15 minutes of fame and may be arrested now because he's under the spotlight." Or, "He's had his 15 minutes of fame and may be arrested now that he's under the spotlight."
Cynthia A LockleyCynthia A Lockley
From your comments maybe this is the word you're looking for?
Clearly visible.
ZomZom
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged expressions idiom-requests expression-requests or ask your own question.
Is there an English equivalent for the Persian proverb "to play with tail of lion"
Is there an idiom for people who boast too much?
Connotation of "Notorious"
What is the English idiom for eventually getting it right after many mindless attempts
Equivalent for the Persian idiom "Khaste Nabaashid"
Is there any equivalent to this Persian proverb? "A bad or faulty item should inevitably be kept by its owner"
Is there any curse/ swear equivalent for this Persian curse? " May your head be covered by soil!"
English equivalent for the Persian proverb "The mountain just gave birth to a mouse"
Any English equivalent for the Persian idiom "to play dead like a mouse"?
Any equivalent to this Persian proverb "The yellow dog is the jackal's brother"?
English equivalent for the Persian idiom "send someone out in pursuit of black chickpeas"
Is there any equivalent for this Persian expression "____ is like an unopened watermelon"?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Vinyl version of this release. To purchase the cassette version, click here.
Produced by Adams, the first news of this reinterpretation of 1989 was revealed last month on the Grammy-nominated singer/songwriter's Instagram (misterryanadams) with the post ''Taylor Swift 1989 full album cover night 1. As played by the Smiths.'' Several subsequent posts of song snippets revealed much more range than that including a take on ''Bad Blood'' that VANITY FAIR called ''a lovely Heartbreaker-era style version'' referencing Adams' classic debut, a string quartet-enhanced version of ''Blank Space,'' what Adams promised to be the ''guaranteed saddest version of 'Welcome to New York' ever - or your tears back,'' and more.


text:
Q: What is the natural way to say "increment by 0.5"? I have a digital scale. The number on the display goes up like 0.0kg, 0.5kg, 1.0kg, 1.5kg... What are good ways to describe this?
My ideas are below.

*

*This can scale every 0.5kg.

*The number increments by 0.5.

*This can scale weight in the increments of 0.5.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange