On 03/03/2022 22:19, Rick C wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
>>>>>
>>>> Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
>>>>> You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like
>>>>> cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of
>>>>> making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
>>>>> weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared
>>>>> to the fallout.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course they are using them. They are not banned by any
>>>> conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give
>>>> you a lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so
>>>> badly in comparison to their plans and expectations, that they
>>>> can't afford to play nice.
>>>
>>> I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK
>> used them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
>
> I should have said they are a violation when used against what are
> largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon can be
> used against military targets in an urban environment without massive
> civilian casualties.
>

OK, so you were completely wrong about thermobaric weapons being in
violation of any kinds of treaties or conventions, and you were wrong to
get your knickers in a twist when Tom called you out on it.

You are also wrong to keep back-tracking here. There is /nothing/
special about thermobaric weapons. That includes attacking "military
targets in an urban environment". Attacks are illegal if they
deliberately target civilians, or if they do not take appropriate
measures to minimise civilian casualties when attacking military
targets. It's that simple. It is /irrelevant/ if you are using a
thermobaric weapon, or missiles, or bombs, or tanks, or pea-shooters.

Russia is using thermobaric weapons because they are cheap and
effective. If they hit military targets, it's legal (to the extent that
the invasion itself is legal). If they hit significant civilian areas,
it's illegal - just like their missiles hitting other housing.

On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2022-03-03 16:23, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
>>>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> <a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now
>>>>>> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet
>>>>>> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
>>>>>> refused to have 1 gigabit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
>>>> Rick you are wrong
>>>> I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
>>>> All from towers.
>>>> Cellphone all from towers.
>>>> The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
>>>> but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
>>>> The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
>>>> on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
>>>> www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower).
>>>> Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
>>>>
>>>> What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
>>>> And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
>>>> I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
>>>> China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
>>>>
>>>> And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
>>>> Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
>>>> then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions.
>>>> Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
>>>> Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
>>>> I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
>>>> Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
>>>> Need to improve my Russian,
>>>>
>>>> Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
>>>> via satellite.
>>>> All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
>>>> How about doing it to the US?
>>>
>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
>>>
>>> When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
>>>
>>> Why do you post such silliness???
>>>
>> That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
>> are are in active use by the population.
>
> No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.

Not correct. There are batteries and generators.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 03/03/2022 23:02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
> shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
> Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
> territory.
>
> For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
> the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
> storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
> front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
>
> The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
> would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
> analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
>
> Joe Gwinn

Can you cite any sources for that info please? The earliest use
over-land against troops in Europe I heard of was in December 1944
during the Battle of the Bulge.

piglet

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:32:22 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/03/2022 22:19, Rick C wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
> >>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
> >>>>> You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like
> >>>>> cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of
> >>>>> making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
> >>>>> weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared
> >>>>> to the fallout.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Of course they are using them. They are not banned by any
> >>>> conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give
> >>>> you a lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so
> >>>> badly in comparison to their plans and expectations, that they
> >>>> can't afford to play nice.
> >>>
> >>> I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK
> >> used them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> >
> > I should have said they are a violation when used against what are
> > largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon can be
> > used against military targets in an urban environment without massive
> > civilian casualties.
> >
> OK, so you were completely wrong about thermobaric weapons being in
> violation of any kinds of treaties or conventions, and you were wrong to
> get your knickers in a twist when Tom called you out on it.
>
> You are also wrong to keep back-tracking here. There is /nothing/
> special about thermobaric weapons. That includes attacking "military
> targets in an urban environment". Attacks are illegal if they
> deliberately target civilians, or if they do not take appropriate
> measures to minimise civilian casualties when attacking military
> targets. It's that simple. It is /irrelevant/ if you are using a
> thermobaric weapon, or missiles, or bombs, or tanks, or pea-shooters.
>
> Russia is using thermobaric weapons because they are cheap and
> effective. If they hit military targets, it's legal (to the extent that
> the invasion itself is legal). If they hit significant civilian areas,
> it's illegal - just like their missiles hitting other housing.

You literally have no idea what Russia does what it does. Neither does anyone else.

The point is there is no viable means of using thermobaric weapons against military targets in an urban area (the context of the discussion). You can try to throw shade all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

It very much is relevant what sort of weapon you use. Using a rifle to shoot at a soldier only to have the bullet ricochet and kill a civilian is not a war crime. A thermobaric weapon is pretty much nothing but ricochet so that it is inexcusable to use in an urban area. That constitutes a war crime.

No one knows what you were actually targeting, so you pretty much get a free pass on most weapons. No one can argue that their thermobaric bomb was only aimed at the soldiers setting up a machine gun at the end of the street..

Now that I've spelled it out in complete detail, do you finally understand?

BTW, you would do well to avoid the personal attacks. It just makes you look bad.

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >> On 2022-03-03 16:23, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
> >>>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> <a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>>>>> You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now
> >>>>>> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet
> >>>>>> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
> >>>>>> refused to have 1 gigabit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
> >>>> Rick you are wrong
> >>>> I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
> >>>> All from towers.
> >>>> Cellphone all from towers.
> >>>> The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
> >>>> but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
> >>>> The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
> >>>> on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
> >>>> www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower).
> >>>> Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
> >>>> And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
> >>>> I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
> >>>> China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
> >>>>
> >>>> And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
> >>>> Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
> >>>> then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions.
> >>>> Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
> >>>> Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
> >>>> I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
> >>>> Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
> >>>> Need to improve my Russian,
> >>>>
> >>>> Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
> >>>> via satellite.
> >>>> All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
> >>>> How about doing it to the US?
> >>>
> >>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
> >>>
> >>> When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you post such silliness???
> >>>
> >> That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
> >> are are in active use by the population.
> >
> > No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
> Not correct. There are batteries and generators.

You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive. VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio. I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh battery..

Are you happy now?

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/03/2022 23:02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>
>> The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
>> shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
>> Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
>> territory.
>>
>> For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
>> the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
>> storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
>> front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
>>
>> The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
>> would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
>> analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
> Can you cite any sources for that info please? The earliest use
> over-land against troops in Europe I heard of was in December 1944
> during the Battle of the Bulge.
>
> piglet

The Normandy landings used impact fuses. You can tell from the craters and
the videos of shell explosions. Patton used the proximity fuse in the
Battle of the Bulge as stated, but there may have been some use a few weeks
earlier.

Quote:

"In chapter 4 of �War as I Knew It�, General George Patton stated �the
night of December 25 and 2 6 we had used the new proximity fuse on a number
of Germans near Echternach and actually killed 700 of them.� This action
was during 3rd Army�s move north to Bastogne, and was the first documented
use of the fuse against ground forces. It is my belief that we had seen the
proximity fuse in use several weeks earlier, even though many WWII authors
have stated that it was first used on the continent during the Bulge."

https://battleofthebulge.org/2013/10/11/proximity-fuse-use-prior-to-the-
bulge-wes-ross-146th-ecb/

On 04/03/2022 18:25, Piglet wrote:
> On 03/03/2022 23:02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>
>> The WW2 equivalent was the use of proximity (radar) fuzes on artillery
>> shells used during the Normandy landings, at Ike's insistence.
>> Previously, such shells were used only over water, or friendly
>> territory.
>>
>> For Normandy, the shells were set up to explode maybe 20 feet above
>> the ground, and fired over the front line, the resulting shrapnel
>> storms raising havoc in the back ranks, who then could not support the
>> front line troops, even those that were not also hit.
>>
>> The reason that this was not done before was that inevitably there
>> would be dud shells, which the Germans could and would duly collect,
>> analyze, and duplicate, probably with many improvements.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
> Can you cite any sources for that info please? The earliest use
> over-land against troops in Europe I heard of was in December 1944
> during the Battle of the Bulge.

That is also the view of Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> wrote:

[...]

> The Normandy landings used impact fuses. You can tell from the craters
> and the videos of shell explosions. Patton used the proximity fuse in
> the Battle of the Bulge as stated, but there may have been some use a
> few weeks earlier.
>
> Quote:
>
> "In chapter 4 of �War as I Knew It�, General George Patton stated �the
> night of December 25 and 2 6 we had used the new proximity fuse on a
> number of Germans near Echternach and actually killed 700 of them.� This
> action was during 3rd Army�s move north to Bastogne, and was the first
> documented use of the fuse against ground forces. It is my belief that
> we had seen the proximity fuse in use several weeks earlier, even though
> many WWII authors have stated that it was first used on the continent
> during the Bulge."
>
> https://battleofthebulge.org/2013/10/11/proximity-fuse-use-prior-to-the-
> bulge-wes-ross-146th-ecb/

Some additional information that may be of interest. From Wikipedia:

VT (Variable Time)

The Allied fuze used constructive and destructive interference to detect
its target.[41] The design had four or five tubes.[42] One tube was an
oscillator connected to an antenna; it functioned as both a transmitter and
an autodyne detector (receiver). When the target was far away, little of
the oscillator's transmitted energy would be reflected to the fuze. When a
target was nearby, it would reflect a significant portion of the
oscillator's signal. The amplitude of the reflected signal corresponded to
the closeness of the target.[notes 1] This reflected signal would affect
the oscillator's plate current, thereby enabling detection.

However, the phase relationship between the oscillator's transmitted signal
and the signal reflected from the target varied depended on the round trip
distance between the fuze and the target. When the reflected signal was in
phase, the oscillator amplitude would increase and the oscillator's plate
current would also increase. But when the reflected signal was out of phase
then the combined radio signal amplitude would decrease, which would
decrease the plate current. So the changing phase relationship between the
oscillator signal and the reflected signal complicated the measurement of
the amplitude of that small reflected signal.

This problem was resolved by taking advantage of the change in frequency of
the reflected signal. The distance between the fuze and the target was not
constant but rather constantly changing due to the high speed of the fuze
and any motion of the target. When the distance between the fuze and the
target changed rapidly, then the phase relationship also changed rapidly.
The signals were in-phase one instant and out-of-phase a few hundred
microseconds later. The result was a heterodyne beat frequency which
corresponded to the velocity difference. Viewed another way, the received
signal frequency was Doppler-shifted from the oscillator frequency by the
relative motion of the fuze and target. Consequently, a low frequency
signal, corresponding to the frequency difference between the oscillator
and the received signal, developed at the oscillator's plate terminal. Two
of the four tubes in the VT fuze were used to detect, filter, and amplify
this low frequency signal. Note here that the amplitude of this low
frequency 'beat' signal corresponds to the amplitude of the signal
reflected from the target. If the amplified beat frequency signal's
amplitude was large enough, indicating a nearby object, then it triggered
the fourth tube � a gas-filled thyratron. Upon being triggered, the
thyratron conducted a large current that set off the electrical detonator.

In order to be used with gun projectiles, which experience extremely high
acceleration and centrifugal forces, the fuze design also needed to utilize
many shock hardening techniques. These included planar electrodes and
packing the components in wax and oil to equalize the stresses.[citation
needed] To prevent premature detonation, the inbuilt battery that armed the
shell had a several millisecond delay before its electrolytes were
activated, giving the projectile time to clear the area of the gun.[43]

The designation VT means variable time.[44] Captain S. R. Shumaker,
Director of the Bureau of Ordnance's Research and Development Division,
coined the term to be descriptive without hinting at the technology.[45]

Development

The anti-aircraft artillery range at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico
was used as one of the test facilities for the proximity fuze, where almost
50,000 test firings were conducted from 1942 to 1945.[46] Testing also
occurred at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, where about 15,000 bombs
were fired.[35] Other locations include Ft. Fisher in North Carolina and
Blossom Point, Maryland.

US Navy development and early production was outsourced to the Wurlitzer
company, at their barrel organ factory in North Tonawanda, New York.[47]
Production

First large scale production of tubes for the new fuzes[8] was at a General
Electric plant in Cleveland, Ohio formerly used for manufacture of
Christmas-tree lamps. Fuze assembly was completed at General Electric
plants in Schenectady, New York and Bridgeport, Connecticut.[48] Once
inspections of the finished product were complete, a sample of the fuzes
produced from each lot was shipped to the National Bureau of Standards,
where they were subjected to a series of rigorous tests at the specially
built Control Testing Laboratory.[35] These tests included low- and high-
temperature tests, humidity tests, and sudden jolt tests.

By 1944, a large proportion of the American electronics industry
concentrated on making the fuzes. Procurement contracts increased from $60
million in 1942, to $200 million in 1943, to $300 million in 1944 and were
topped by $450 million in 1945. As volume increased, efficiency came into
play and the cost per fuze fell from $732 in 1942 to $18 in 1945. This
permitted the purchase of over 22 million fuzes for approximately one
billion dollars ($14.6 billion in 2021 USD[49]). The main suppliers were
Crosley, RCA, Eastman Kodak, McQuay-Norris and Sylvania. There were also
over two thousand suppliers and subsuppliers, ranging from powder
manufacturers to machine shops.[50][51] It was among the first mass-
production applications of printed circuits.[52]

Deployment

Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and
Development (OSRD) during the war, credited the proximity fuze with three
significant effects.[53]

It was important in defense from Japanese Kamikaze attacks in the
Pacific. Bush estimated a sevenfold increase in the effectiveness of 5-inch
anti-aircraft artillery with this innovation.[54]

It was an important part of the radar-controlled anti-aircraft
batteries that finally neutralized the German V-1 attacks on England.[54]

It was used in Europe starting in the Battle of the Bulge where it was
very effective in artillery shells fired against German infantry
formations, and changed the tactics of land warfare.

At first the fuzes were only used in situations where they could not be
captured by the Germans. They were used in land-based artillery in the
South Pacific in 1944. Also in 1944, fuzes were allocated to the British
Army's Anti-Aircraft Command, that was engaged in defending Britain against
the V-1 flying bomb. As most of the British heavy anti-aircraft guns were
deployed in a long, thin coastal strip, dud shells fell into the sea,
safely out of reach of capture. Over the course of the German V-1 campaign,
the proportion of flying bombs flying through the coastal gun belt that
were destroyed rose from 17% to 74%, reaching 82% during one day. A minor
problem encountered by the British was that the fuze was sensitive enough
to detonate the shell if it passed too close to a seabird and a number of
seabird "kills" were recorded.[55]

The Pentagon refused to allow the Allied field artillery use of the fuzes
in 1944, although the United States Navy fired proximity-fuzed anti-
aircraft shells during the July 1943 invasion of Sicily.[56] After General
Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded he be allowed to use the fuzes, 200,000
shells with VT fuzes (code named "POZIT"[57]) were used in the Battle of
the Bulge in December 1944. They made the Allied heavy artillery far more
devastating, as all the shells now exploded just before hitting the ground.
[58] German divisions were caught out in open as they had felt safe from
timed fire because it was thought that the bad weather would prevent
accurate observation. U.S. General George S. Patton credited the
introduction of proximity fuzes with saving Li�ge and stated that their use
required a revision of the tactics of land warfare.[59]

Bombs and rockets fitted with radio proximity fuzes were in limited service
with both the USAAF and USN at the end of WW2. The main targets for these
proximity fuze detonated bombs and rockets were anti-aircraft emplacements
and airfields.[60]

Sensor types

Radio frequency sensing (radar) is the main sensing principle for artillery
shells.

On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.

That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
where space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
coverage something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from
ground level with antennae at the top.

TV towers are serious expense and quite difficult to replace. My local
one caught fire last summer and TDTV is still dodgy even now and it will
be a while before the replacement mast is properly back on air. The
present bodge of temporary masts barely covers the most populous areas.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58169501

Pretty much total TV blackout ensued if you were on terrestrial TV. It
is still not right even now outside of major cities.

>>>>> When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you post such silliness???
>>>>>
>>>> That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
>>>> are are in active use by the population.
>>>
>>> No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.

>> Not correct. There are batteries and generators.
> You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive.

I'm with Jan on this. Most people *do* have a battery powered radio
(although DAB radios are a POS - eating a set of batteries in <8hr).

My old Sony world band portable would last weeks on a set of batteries.

> VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio.

If you have lived in an earthquake zone or somewhere prone to power
outages then you will have (at least one). UK mains power is now getting
dodgy where I live. Northern Powergrid are operating a perverted version
of Bayesian maintenance programme - replace *only* on failure. The
result is that rows of powerline poles fail simultaneously in storms.

Storm Arwen last year was a complete fiasco. Anyone that can afford to
where I live now has a generator for the next time they MFU.

> I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh battery.
>
> Are you happy now?

He was right though. There are plenty of battery powered portable
devices capable of receiving broadcast terrestrial TV even when the
local mains is off. Most peoples smartphone can do radio too.

My USB TV dongle and laptop can do it pretty easily just plug in an
aerial. Where I live was close enough to the transmitter that torched
itself that any piece of wire would do. Now you would be better off
pointing a highly directional yagi in another direction entirely.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
> > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings..
> That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
> where space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
> coverage something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from
> ground level with antennae at the top.

I don't know why I read your posts. You like to shoot from the hip on topics you know little about. In urban areas, tall antenna are not allowed or appropriate. Cells are smaller and antenna much more focused. It is very common to put antennas around the sides of a tall building to prevent an eyesore, but also to optimize the patterns. Since the cell is only some blocks, rather than trying to reach for miles this is the correct way to install urban cellular stations. With 5G this applies in an extreme way and they put cell stations on telephone poles with a reach of only a small number of blocks or just one.

> TV towers are serious expense and quite difficult to replace. My local
> one caught fire last summer and TDTV is still dodgy even now and it will
> be a while before the replacement mast is properly back on air. The
> present bodge of temporary masts barely covers the most populous areas.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58169501

Yes, goes to show they aren't getting much profit from the TV signal or it would be back up pronto!

> Pretty much total TV blackout ensued if you were on terrestrial TV. It
> is still not right even now outside of major cities.
> >>>>> When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you post such silliness???
> >>>>>
> >>>> That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
> >>>> are are in active use by the population.
> >>>
> >>> No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
>
> >> Not correct. There are batteries and generators.
> > You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive.
> I'm with Jan on this. Most people *do* have a battery powered radio
> (although DAB radios are a POS - eating a set of batteries in <8hr).

You are entitled to your opinion. But it is worth pretty much the same as anyone's. Other than in cars, people don't use radio much, and battery powered radios much less. I think I had an FM radio in my old cell phone, until I lost it.

> My old Sony world band portable would last weeks on a set of batteries.
> > VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio.
> If you have lived in an earthquake zone or somewhere prone to power
> outages then you will have (at least one). UK mains power is now getting
> dodgy where I live. Northern Powergrid are operating a perverted version
> of Bayesian maintenance programme - replace *only* on failure. The
> result is that rows of powerline poles fail simultaneously in storms.

Ok, the Pacific rim has chimed in.

> Storm Arwen last year was a complete fiasco. Anyone that can afford to
> where I live now has a generator for the next time they MFU.
> > I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh battery.
> >
> > Are you happy now?
> He was right though. There are plenty of battery powered portable
> devices capable of receiving broadcast terrestrial TV even when the
> local mains is off. Most peoples smartphone can do radio too.

You are just giving an opinion. Thank you.

Yeah, my phone has an FM radio, but it won't work without an antenna. I get nothing. It also won't work for more than a few hours. No place to insert the AA batteries.

> My USB TV dongle and laptop can do it pretty easily just plug in an
> aerial. Where I live was close enough to the transmitter that torched
> itself that any piece of wire would do. Now you would be better off
> pointing a highly directional yagi in another direction entirely.

Both your TV and your computer will stop working in short order when you power goes out.

That was my point. The only time you would want a battery radio is in a significant power failure. Most of us just use our cell phones to call the power company and don't think much more about it. So not much thought of a battery radio.

I think you and Jan just like to argue. Radio would be a great means of communicating in an emergency, but few people in the US have radios in blackouts because in the US doesn't have many blackouts where they would be useful. The group of nerds who post here are hardly representative.

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 2022-03-04 19:46, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-03 16:23, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:29:32 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:44:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
>>>>>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> <a01ba1c5-462d-4143...@googlegroups.com>:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:17 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>>> You are mistaken. I'm watching TV, over the air, everyday; and right now
>>>>>>>> I'm listening to the radio. Actual radio. And in my country, internet
>>>>>>>> coverage is very good. For instance, I have 300 Mbit fibre, because I
>>>>>>>> refused to have 1 gigabit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you define the world. Thank you for your input.
>>>>>> Rick you are wrong
>>>>>> I have several FM radio stations to chose from here in the Netherlands.
>>>>>> All from towers.
>>>>>> Cellphone all from towers.
>>>>>> The cable provider has at its main station satellite dishes for other country programs,
>>>>>> but when power fails nobody has any reception, those and all those cable amplifiers are dead.
>>>>>> The terrestrial DVB TV is from towers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyways, shortly after posting here, Russian RT English speaking channels on satellite went black with only a test tone
>>>>>> on the normal resolution channel, the HD channel lasted a few minutes longer..
>>>>>> www.rt.com worked this morning via internet (4G also from a local tower).
>>>>>> Those towers are interconnected with links via dishes and fiber when one tower goes no telling if the rest has anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What remains in bad times is short-wave radio, I have a nice Tecsun PL600 AM FM SSB radio on batteries.
>>>>>> And of course CB (27 MHz) for anybody, who has one and as I have a ham license my other high power transmitters.
>>>>>> I will look up Russia English on shortwave radio later today, wonder is US puppet slaves here will jam it.
>>>>>> China is all over shortwave, BBC was on long wave,,, have not tried it lately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And my sat dish, the problem is Russia uses the geostationary Astra 2 satellites.
>>>>>> Would not be hard for them to put their own broadcast satellite in or near that same spot,
>>>>>> then EU could not have (force) the Astra club to cut their transmissions.
>>>>>> Then you may get into a satellite shoot out,,,
>>>>>> Fiber is not worth a thing in a war situation with power failures.
>>>>>> I have a solar panel and 250 Ah lifepo4 here to keep stuff running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting Russia Russian speaking channel on Hotbird satellite was still working last night.
>>>>>> Not sure who controls Hotbird, upload station is in Spain IIRC.
>>>>>> Need to improve my Russian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange how when the Iraq invasion happened by US and NATO I could see Iraq being destroyed on Iraq TV here
>>>>>> via satellite.
>>>>>> All those sanctions on Russia seem a bit preposterous to me
>>>>>> How about doing it to the US?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the sides of buildings.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you post such silliness???
>>>>>
>>>> That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
>>>> are are in active use by the population.
>>>
>>> No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
>> Not correct. There are batteries and generators.
>
> You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive. VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio. I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh battery.

Actually, I meant that the towers keep running because they are built
with batteries and generators.

Over here, you no longer have one tower per station. It is one tower
servicing dozens of stations with just one set of equipment.

And then, many people will have radios that run on batteries. At least,
the car radio.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 04/03/22 18:43, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:32:22 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/03/2022 22:19, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
>>>>>>> You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like cluster
>>>>>>> bombs without being "rugged". What is the point of making a
>>>>>>> Kamikaze drone rugged?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using thermobaric
>>>>>>> weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for them compared to the
>>>>>>> fallout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they are using them. They are not banned by any
>>>>>> conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and give you a
>>>>>> lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is doing so badly in
>>>>>> comparison to their plans and expectations, that they can't afford
>>>>>> to play nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read they are considered a violation of existing treaties.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and UK used
>>>> them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> I should have said they are a violation when used against what are
>>> largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon can be used
>>> against military targets in an urban environment without massive civilian
>>> casualties.
>>>
>> OK, so you were completely wrong about thermobaric weapons being in
>> violation of any kinds of treaties or conventions, and you were wrong to
>> get your knickers in a twist when Tom called you out on it.
>>
>> You are also wrong to keep back-tracking here. There is /nothing/ special
>> about thermobaric weapons. That includes attacking "military targets in an
>> urban environment". Attacks are illegal if they deliberately target
>> civilians, or if they do not take appropriate measures to minimise civilian
>> casualties when attacking military targets. It's that simple. It is
>> /irrelevant/ if you are using a thermobaric weapon, or missiles, or bombs,
>> or tanks, or pea-shooters.
>>
>> Russia is using thermobaric weapons because they are cheap and effective.
>> If they hit military targets, it's legal (to the extent that the invasion
>> itself is legal). If they hit significant civilian areas, it's illegal -
>> just like their missiles hitting other housing.
>
> You literally have no idea what Russia does what it does. Neither does
> anyone else.
>
> The point is there is no viable means of using thermobaric weapons against
> military targets in an urban area (the context of the discussion). You can
> try to throw shade all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
>
> It very much is relevant what sort of weapon you use. Using a rifle to shoot
> at a soldier only to have the bullet ricochet and kill a civilian is not a
> war crime. A thermobaric weapon is pretty much nothing but ricochet so that
> it is inexcusable to use in an urban area. That constitutes a war crime.
>
> No one knows what you were actually targeting, so you pretty much get a free
> pass on most weapons. No one can argue that their thermobaric bomb was only
> aimed at the soldiers setting up a machine gun at the end of the street.
>
> Now that I've spelled it out in complete detail, do you finally understand?

Yes we understand.

You cannot distinguish between using a weapon in a particular
circumstance with the weapon itself.

On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
>>>>>>> missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the
>>>>>>> sides of buildings.
>> That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings where
>> space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws coverage
>> something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level
>> with antennae at the top.
>
> I don't know why I read your posts. You like to shoot from the hip on
> topics you know little about.
Whereas you normally
1) speed-read to the point of not understanding the points being
2) presume the rest of the world is the same as you have experienced

Unimpressive.

On a sunny day (Fri, 4 Mar 2022 10:46:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<b53d4971-9a91-4ac9-9ff3-826eafa771e7n@googlegroups.com>:

>You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive. VERY FEW have battery radios or
>have generator backup to run a radio. I have a battery radio somewhere,
>but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device
>I still have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these
>days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh battery.

Dunno what place of the world you live in
but here even small kids going to school on bikes have loud rock - and what's it called? 'rap' music
coming from them.
Most radios are battery powered I'd think.
Cost nothing, I have two 2$69 battery FM radios with earplugs from ebay, bought out of curiosity.
Mini Portable Wire controlled Pocket FM Radio With Strap Earphone object: 16078434288
07-jan-14
US $2,69
2
US $5,38

No longer available, but hey, cup of coffee costs more!
just search
US $3.99 with earplugs:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/222330386284
1,189 sold

US $4.98 with speaker:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/143615021059

In the early sixties we all had 2 transistor battery radios with speakers...
I made the transmitter :-) We made our own program...

Any kid with a dynamo for light on their bike can, with a single diode, charge rechargables.

For 100$ or more you can get a real Tecsun.
https://www.radioamateurwinkel.nl/tecsun-pl-600/
my every day radio, SSB shortwave longwave, AM FM..

And many here have the PMR walkie talkies, I can sometimes hear the kids on it.
about 20 $ a pair in the supermarket,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMR446
common in many households.
about 25 USD...
https://www.beslist.nl/elektronica/Wanneton_WT-Q1_UHF_portofoon/3oFxKswg4g4kiAaz7dPu3yoh7Kq3/?productId=3oFxKswg4g4kiAaz7dPu3yoh7Kq3
inclusive 7,4V 2800mAh battery, charge station, belt clip....

Can talk over the border Ukrain Russia too :-)

On a sunny day (Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:24:24 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <svtsht$11c1$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are
>>>>>> the sides of buildings.
>
>That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
>where space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
>coverage something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from
>ground level with antennae at the top.
>
>TV towers are serious expense and quite difficult to replace. My local
>one caught fire last summer and TDTV is still dodgy even now and it will
>be a while before the replacement mast is properly back on air. The
>present bodge of temporary masts barely covers the most populous areas.
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58169501
>
>Pretty much total TV blackout ensued if you were on terrestrial TV. It
>is still not right even now outside of major cities.
>
>>>>>> When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you post such silliness???
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's only your opinion. Facts are, TV towers exist in many countries
>>>>> are are in active use by the population.
>>>>
>>>> No one uses them when the power is out, which is the comment you replied to.
>
>>> Not correct. There are batteries and generators.
>> You are right, "no one" is overly exclusive.
>
>I'm with Jan on this. Most people *do* have a battery powered radio
>(although DAB radios are a POS - eating a set of batteries in <8hr).
>
>My old Sony world band portable would last weeks on a set of batteries.
>
>> VERY FEW have battery radios or have generator backup to run a radio.
>
>If you have lived in an earthquake zone or somewhere prone to power
>outages then you will have (at least one). UK mains power is now getting
>dodgy where I live. Northern Powergrid are operating a perverted version
>of Bayesian maintenance programme - replace *only* on failure. The
>result is that rows of powerline poles fail simultaneously in storms.
>
>Storm Arwen last year was a complete fiasco. Anyone that can afford to
>where I live now has a generator for the next time they MFU.
>
>> I have a battery radio somewhere, but I have no batteries for it. D cells I think and that may be the only device I still
>> have that uses D cells, which are getting hard to find these days. My working battery radio is in my car running off a 100 kWh
>> battery.
>>
>> Are you happy now?
>
>He was right though. There are plenty of battery powered portable
>devices capable of receiving broadcast terrestrial TV even when the
>local mains is off. Most peoples smartphone can do radio too.
>
>My USB TV dongle and laptop can do it pretty easily just plug in an
>aerial. Where I live was close enough to the transmitter that torched
>itself that any piece of wire would do. Now you would be better off
>pointing a highly directional yagi in another direction entirely.

Yes, towers are expensive, this one services the middle of the Netherlands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerbrandy_Tower

On a sunny day (Fri, 4 Mar 2022 13:13:25 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<33a5df73-531e-4e64-abe9-339858b8f2b8n@googlegroups.com>:

>That was my point. The only time you would want a battery radio is in a significant
>power failure. Most of us just use our cell phones to call the power
>company and don't think much more about it. So not much thought of a battery
>radio.

Maybe you, but the rest of the world uses batteries most of the time
1000 to 1 I think, see my other post.

>I think you and Jan just like to argue. Radio would be a great means of communicating
>in an emergency, but few people in the US have radios in blackouts
>because in the US doesn't have many blackouts where they would be useful.

LOL reading the news I see large power outages on an almost daily basis in the US.
Overground electrickety grid,
Here most power in burried and outages of any length like several hours I do not even remember.

> The group of nerds who post here are hardly representative.

You could actually learn something, you know shit about radio and life in civilized coutries it seems.

On 05/03/2022 01:24, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
>>>>>>>> missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the
>>>>>>>> sides of buildings.
>>> That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
>>> where
>>> space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
>>> coverage
>>> something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level
>>> with antennae at the top.
>>
>> I don't know why I read your posts.   You like to shoot from the hip on
>> topics you know little about.
> Whereas you normally
>  1) speed-read to the point of not understanding the points being
>  2) presume the rest of the world is the same as you have experienced
>
> Unimpressive.

Remember, Rick lives in a world where Teslas are the car for the masses.
The idea that someone might be using the same television set they have
had for a couple of decades, or listen to a battery radio in the kitchen
instead of using the house-wide Sonos system, is just inconceivable to him.

On 04/03/2022 19:43, Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:32:22 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/03/2022 22:19, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-5, David Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2022 02:40, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:56:36 PM UTC-5, David Brown
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/03/2022 19:03, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It needs to be small and light and rugged and cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Small and light and rugged and cheap" don't go together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor does "Raytheon and cheap" :-)
>>>>>>> You could do a lot of damage with that on personnel, like
>>>>>>> cluster bombs without being "rugged". What is the point
>>>>>>> of making a Kamikaze drone rugged?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the Russians are actually using
>>>>>>> thermobaric weapons. I can't see the advantage in it for
>>>>>>> them compared to the fallout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they are using them. They are not banned by any
>>>>>> conventions (though there have been calls to do so), and
>>>>>> give you a lot of devastation for your money. And Russia is
>>>>>> doing so badly in comparison to their plans and
>>>>>> expectations, that they can't afford to play nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read they are considered a violation of existing
>>>>> treaties.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not as far as I know or have been able to identify. The US and
>>>> UK used them against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> I should have said they are a violation when used against what
>>> are largely civilian targets. There's no way a thermobaric weapon
>>> can be used against military targets in an urban environment
>>> without massive civilian casualties.
>>>
>> OK, so you were completely wrong about thermobaric weapons being in
>> violation of any kinds of treaties or conventions, and you were
>> wrong to get your knickers in a twist when Tom called you out on
>> it.
>>
>> You are also wrong to keep back-tracking here. There is /nothing/
>> special about thermobaric weapons. That includes attacking
>> "military targets in an urban environment". Attacks are illegal if
>> they deliberately target civilians, or if they do not take
>> appropriate measures to minimise civilian casualties when attacking
>> military targets. It's that simple. It is /irrelevant/ if you are
>> using a thermobaric weapon, or missiles, or bombs, or tanks, or
>> pea-shooters.
>>
>> Russia is using thermobaric weapons because they are cheap and
>> effective. If they hit military targets, it's legal (to the extent
>> that the invasion itself is legal). If they hit significant
>> civilian areas, it's illegal - just like their missiles hitting
>> other housing.
>
> You literally have no idea what Russia does what it does. Neither
> does anyone else.

While no one but Putin knows what he is really thinking, it's clear here
that there are different levels of ignorance. Some people here base
their information on things like satellite photos and analysis by
military experts in countries next door to Russia. Others apparently
base it on whatever they can make up to avoid admitting they got
something wrong earlier.

>
> The point is there is no viable means of using thermobaric weapons
> against military targets in an urban area (the context of the
> discussion). You can try to throw shade all you want, but that
> doesn't change the facts.
>

The fact is that disproportional damage to civilian property and
disproportional risk to civilian lives is what matters. Not the weapon
technology - that's irrelevant.

> It very much is relevant what sort of weapon you use. Using a rifle
> to shoot at a soldier only to have the bullet ricochet and kill a
> civilian is not a war crime. A thermobaric weapon is pretty much
> nothing but ricochet so that it is inexcusable to use in an urban
> area. That constitutes a war crime.
>

Firing a rifle at a soldier amidst a group of civilians is a war crime.
Firing a thermobaric weapon at a military building with an appropriate
distance to civilian buildings is not a war crime.

How is this so difficult for you to understand? Thermobaric weapons are
conventional weapons. They are not banned, or special in any way. They
have different characteristics than missiles, fire bombs, grenades, and
other weapon technologies. Used against military targets they are
allowed by the rules of war, used in a way that causes disproportional
risk or damage to non-combatants they are not allowed.

> No one knows what you were actually targeting, so you pretty much get
> a free pass on most weapons. No one can argue that their thermobaric
> bomb was only aimed at the soldiers setting up a machine gun at the
> end of the street.

No one /is/ arguing that. And no, the Russians do /not/ get a "free
pass" on their other weapons - the ICC is investigating how much they
have been targeting civilians or civilian buildings, and how much it is
accidental or collateral damage. That applies to /all/ their weapons -
from rifle fire upwards.

>
> Now that I've spelled it out in complete detail, do you finally
> understand?
>
> BTW, you would do well to avoid the personal attacks. It just makes
> you look bad.
>

Look in the mirror before you try that one.

On 05/03/22 11:39, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/03/2022 01:24, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
>>>>>>>>> missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the
>>>>>>>>> sides of buildings.
>>>> That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
>>>> where
>>>> space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
>>>> coverage
>>>> something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level
>>>> with antennae at the top.
>>>
>>> I don't know why I read your posts.   You like to shoot from the hip on
>>> topics you know little about.
>> Whereas you normally
>>  1) speed-read to the point of not understanding the points being
>>  2) presume the rest of the world is the same as you have experienced
>>
>> Unimpressive.
>
> Remember, Rick lives in a world where Teslas are the car for the masses.
> The idea that someone might be using the same television set they have
> had for a couple of decades, or listen to a battery radio in the kitchen
> instead of using the house-wide Sonos system, is just inconceivable to him.
>

Oh, I couldn't forget that! :)

David Brown wrote:
> On 05/03/2022 01:24, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 04/03/22 21:13, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/2022 18:46, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:08:16 AM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-03-03 18:58, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan, you are wrong. A TV tower is a significant expense. A
>>>>>>>>> missile costs more than a cell tower. Many cell "towers" are the
>>>>>>>>> sides of buildings.
>>>> That seems a bit odd. In the UK they are on the top of some buildings
>>>> where
>>>> space is tight but putting one onto the side of a building screws
>>>> coverage
>>>> something rotten. Most in the UK are stand alone poles from ground level
>>>> with antennae at the top.
>>>
>>> I don't know why I read your posts.   You like to shoot from the hip on
>>> topics you know little about.
>> Whereas you normally
>>  1) speed-read to the point of not understanding the points being
>>  2) presume the rest of the world is the same as you have experienced
>>
>> Unimpressive.
>
> Remember, Rick lives in a world where Teslas are the car for the masses.
> The idea that someone might be using the same television set they have
> had for a couple of decades, or listen to a battery radio in the kitchen
> instead of using the house-wide Sonos system, is just inconceivable to him.
>

Which is especially weird since he now apparently lives in Puerto Rico.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs