On 3/29/2024 9:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:04:27 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>>> pure and simple.
>>
>> So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
>> line too often before. "Love it or leave it."
>
> No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
> oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
> taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
> among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
> to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
> official performance.

Actually, any Federal employee has sworn that oath. I did both times I
worked on the decennial Census. And it is a lifetime oath.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:04:27 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>>> pure and simple.
>>
>>So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that=20
>>line too often before. "Love it or leave it."
>
>No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
>oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
>taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
>among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
>to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
>official performance.

It worked for Klaus Fuchs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>On 28 Mar 2024 22:40:08 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
>>>> the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
>>>
>>>Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
>>>the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.
>>
>>What if it's only one armed foreigner?
>>
>>>In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
>>>on behalf of the French government?
>>
>>He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
>
>He was the Norman government, Philip I was the French government.

Yes! I stand corrected!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:47:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
Actually for me one of my funniest experiences of my 11 years in
Toastmasters was the highly jingoistic pro-British speech I made
concerning the War of 1812. It was a private joke since while I do
have ancestors who fought in that war all of them fought in the New
York state militia which were the units most involved in the invasion
of today's southern Ontario. (I told all this to my friends over
drinks after the speech) I distinctly remember the line "You know the
'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
American friends these days!"

While I have ancestors (on my mother;s side) who served in the Royal
Navy (most as sailors but one as a ship commander in WW1 - to be sure
it was a minesweeper which was one of the smaller of 'His Majesty's
ships' but WAS a ship command) none were in North America 1812-15.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:58:28 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>I really doubt that Trump actually takes orders from Moscow, but
>he does seem to admire Putin, and its possible that Putin has
>kompromat on him, which bends his actions even if not given
>explicit instructions.
>
Assuming "kompromat" means what I think it does, surely a better
response would be that of the Canadian diplomat who when confronted
with surreptitiously taken photos of himself with a Russian "lady" and
asked to spy for the KGB was said to have asked for a dozen copies of
each picture as "back in Ottawa they think I'm dull and uninterested
in women but these definitely prove otherwise!"

While that part of the story is undoubtedly apocryphal the gent in
question did serve the Canadian foreign service till retirement.

In article <mcko0jlcbol6djm4mtvdgtsqldb3rpkea7@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>I distinctly remember the line "You know the
>'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
>rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
>American friends these days!"

[Hal Heydt]
Congreve rockets and mortar rounds with the fuse cut too short,
repsectively.

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up nuclear
> weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of international and
> logistical issues, and someone might decide to launch them rather than
> give them up. They're probably already poorly maintained and unreliable,
> but that could just mean that instead of blowing up their intended
> target, they'll blow up somebody else.

In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine -- has
voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...

--
Jeff

Jeff Urs <jeff.urs@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
>> nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
>> international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
>> launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
>> poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
>> instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
>> somebody else.

> In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
> has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...

And I'll bet they regret giving them up. What a great lesson for
other nuclear powers who are being urged to give them up.

Also, if I was Bilbo I would have kept the One Ring. But then I've
always been a packrat. And a ring takes up much less space than a
bunch of nuclear weapons and their launchers.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:51:47 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Jeff Urs <jeff.urs@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>>> Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
>>> nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
>>> international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
>>> launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
>>> poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
>>> instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
>>> somebody else.
>
>> In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
>> has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
>
>And I'll bet they regret giving them up. What a great lesson for
>other nuclear powers who are being urged to give them up.
>
>Also, if I was Bilbo I would have kept the One Ring. But then I've
>always been a packrat. And a ring takes up much less space than a
>bunch of nuclear weapons and their launchers.

Bilbo, left to himself, would have kept the One Ring. Or died trying.

It took Gandalf partially unmasking himself and cowing Bilbo to get
Bilbo to give it up.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:51:47 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Urs <jeff.urs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>>>> Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
>>>> nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
>>>> international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
>>>> launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
>>>> poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
>>>> instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
>>>> somebody else.
>>
>>> In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
>>> has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
>>
>> And I'll bet they regret giving them up. What a great lesson for
>> other nuclear powers who are being urged to give them up.
>>
>> Also, if I was Bilbo I would have kept the One Ring. But then I've
>> always been a packrat. And a ring takes up much less space than a
>> bunch of nuclear weapons and their launchers.
>
> Bilbo, left to himself, would have kept the One Ring. Or died trying.
>
> It took Gandalf partially unmasking himself and cowing Bilbo to get
> Bilbo to give it up.
>

Sounds like a great "alternative history" book! Bilbo the Slayer! ;)

In article <uukslj$80pc$1@dont-email.me>, jeff.urs@gmail.com (Jeff Urs)
wrote:

> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> > Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
> > nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
> > international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
> > launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
> > poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
> > instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
> > somebody else.
>
> In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
> has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...

More than just Ukraine.

Kazakhstan and Belarus also inherited nuclear weapons from the USSR and
returned them to Russia.

Apartheid South Africa developed nuclear weapons, but dismantled them
before the transition to the majority-elected African National
Congress�led government.

There have also been states capable of building nuclear weapons that
decided not to do so, at lest so far. They include Sweden, Japan, Germany,
Canada, and the Netherlands.

--
John Dallman
"This isn't a supernova problem. It's a pointy-haired boss problem."

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024, John Dallman wrote:

> In article <uukslj$80pc$1@dont-email.me>, jeff.urs@gmail.com (Jeff Urs)
> wrote:
>
>> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>>> Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
>>> nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
>>> international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
>>> launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
>>> poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
>>> instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
>>> somebody else.
>>
>> In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
>> has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
>
> More than just Ukraine.
>
> Kazakhstan and Belarus also inherited nuclear weapons from the USSR and
> returned them to Russia.

White russia is basically russia, so giving up their weapons probably
wasn't the greatest choice for them.

Kazakhstan is currently booming due to the new business of smuggling money
in and out of russia, and weapons parts as well. At least an acquaintance
with strong connections to Kazakhstan tells me so.

> Apartheid South Africa developed nuclear weapons, but dismantled them
> before the transition to the majority-elected African National
> Congress?led government.
>
> There have also been states capable of building nuclear weapons that
> decided not to do so, at lest so far. They include Sweden, Japan, Germany,
> Canada, and the Netherlands.
>
>

On 4/2/24 13:40, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <mcko0jlcbol6djm4mtvdgtsqldb3rpkea7@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> I distinctly remember the line "You know the
>> 'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
>> rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
>> American friends these days!"
>
> [Hal Heydt]
> Congreve rockets and mortar rounds with the fuse cut too short,
> repsectively.

Would the fuses have been too short if they were trying for air bursts
to kill the guys on the walls?

--
----------------
Dave Scruggs
Senior Software Engineer - Lockheed Martin, et. al (mostly Retired)
Captain - Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)

In article <v06629$12h02$2@dont-email.me>, BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On 4/2/24 13:40, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <mcko0jlcbol6djm4mtvdgtsqldb3rpkea7@4ax.com>,
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> I distinctly remember the line "You know the
>>> 'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
>>> rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
>>> American friends these days!"
>>
>> [Hal Heydt]
>> Congreve rockets and mortar rounds with the fuse cut too short,
>> repsectively.
>
>Would the fuses have been too short if they were trying for air bursts
>to kill the guys on the walls?

[Hal Heydt]
Probably. They were--generally speaking--trying for as close to
ground contact detonation as possible. I think the air bursts
they got were way short of trying for shrapnel kills on the
walls.

The mortars in question were "double firing" type. First the
gunner lit the fuse of the shell, then he light the propellant
charge. It was later that it was determined that the gases from
burning propellant would go around the shell sufficiently to
light the shell fuse when the mortar was fired. With a double
firing design, you *really* didn't want to get distracted after
light the shell fuse.