Primerjava vojaške tehnike

7982884e je 5. mar 2020 ob 04:49 izjavil:

o cem ti?
ZDA (in vsi drugi doslej) so drone (predatorje, reaperje in izvidniske) uporabljale na povsem druge nacine in v povsem drugih nalogah kot turki trenutno. proti povsem drugim sovraznikom. reaperji in predatorji daljinsko vodeno iscejo redke tarce, medtem ko se turki dobesedno igrajo v peskovniku z armado ki je povsem nepripravljena na to.

ZDA doktrina sele za (bliznjo) prihodnost projektira sirso uporabo dronov, kar bo bistveno kompleksnejse kot pa posiljanje do nekaj ducat deloma avtonomnih dronov (nikakor pa ne vecinoma avtonomnih), zato ker bo usmerjeno na "near-peer" sovraznika, ne pa na podhranjeno sirsko vojsko z minimalnimi AA resursi in rusi ki morajo stat ob strani in samo gledat.

Prva razlika med ameriškimi in turškimi droni je v komunikaciji. Ameriški so vodeni preko satelitov, pilotirajo jih v Nevadi, turški (večinoma, delajo že tudi satelitske, ampak kakšne hude mreže satelitov tudi nimajo) rabijo line of sight, vodeni so iz kontejnerjev v bližini bojišča. Iz tega izhaja, da se ameriške lahko ščiti tudi z usmerjenimi antenami in podobnim, Turki pa morajo dati več poudarka avtonomiji, sicer bi jim vse pocepalo na tla ob prvih motnjah. Tako vgrajujejo Turki v drone tehnologije za delno avtonomno delovanje, navigacijo in prepoznavanje terena, kar scier vgrajujejo Američani v manevrirne izstrelke, pri dronih pa jim to ni bila visoka prioriteta.

Poleg tega Turki očitno (pred kratkim sem v temo o Siriji prilepil propagandni video) razvijajo tudi druge vrste manjših električnih dronov, za boj proti pehoti. Ti so, poleg posamičnih atentatov, v bojih učinkoviti šele v rojih. In tam mora biti operater sposoben upravljati cel roj, saj je sicer težko koordinirati akcije stotine dronov. In upravljanje roja ne škodi niti pri večjih dronih.

Na koncu sva pri vprašanju, kaj pride prej, kura ali jajce, doktrina, ali nove možnosti, ki jih ponujajo oborožitvene tehnike. In v razvoju je odgovor navadno: oboje. Ker je včasih treba precej truda, da se da prepričati kakšne nove francoske generale, da je lahko še kakšna Maginotova linija kup neuporabnega železobetona, če jo sovražnik zaobide in tanki lahko prinašajo precej drugačno pehotno vojskovanje od pozicijske vojne v jarkih.

Moja napoved je, da se bodo v prihodnjih bojih najprej spopadali malo bolj in malo manj avtonomni uničevalni stroji, pošteno najebali pa vsi, ki bodo v bližini.

Sem čakal, kdaj se boš oglasil

Za izčrpavat proti zračno obrambo so verjetno "roji" dronov uporabni, ker z malo denarja sprožiš obrambni odziv, ki nasprotnika stane veliko €, $ ali RUB.

Daj ne bluzi.

Take sorte droni ne bodo niti slučajno leteli predvidljivo, stohastično.

Jasno...bo cat and mouse igra, kot vedno. Ampak vedno manj bo ljudi v akciji.
Postal bo boj algoritmov. Kot je že sedaj na borzah.

Povsem vrjetno je za pričakovati, da bo sufficently napreden AI se lahko geolociral izredno natančno že po terenu in ne bo potrebnih nobenih zunanjih komunikacij.
Govorimo seveda o polni avtonomnosti, ki pa dejansko ni tako težka za izvedbo, če ti ni kaj dosti mar za civilne žrtve.

@vostok
a si že rešu problem ki ga je najdu stric newton?
al pa kak now poceni sistem dviga ki bo omogocu tvoje poceni droncke?

vostok_1 je 5. mar 2020 ob 17:28 izjavil:

Ne bluzite.

KArkoli ponudite v manned obliki, bo dron alternativa cenejša in boljša.
Konfiguracije dronov bo veliko. Od 100kg enot, do fully F35 type machines.
Po potrebi misije.
Razlika bo ta, da ne boš rabil trenirat pilota in ga vzdrževat.

Bs .
b2 ali b52 opremljen z "Kh-47M2" lik raketami s simultanim napadom z mesanico standardnimi raket in bomb opremljeni f18 lik letala, naredijo protizracno obrambo irelevantno.
V tem casu ko se bo posadka s500 pripravljala za prestrezanje prihajajocih f18, bo 3000 km dalec iz b2 poletelo 5 "Kh-47M2" like raket. Ko bo s500 imel target ( prihajali v doseg) lock na f18, bo s500 zaznalo 5 blinkov. S500 ma recimo respons time 10s. Koliko kilometrov bo "Kh-47M2" lik raketa naredila v teh 10s?

Mr.B je 5. mar 2020 ob 17:53 izjavil:

vostok_1 je 5. mar 2020 ob 17:28 izjavil:

Ne bluzite.

KArkoli ponudite v manned obliki, bo dron alternativa cenejša in boljša.
Konfiguracije dronov bo veliko. Od 100kg enot, do fully F35 type machines.
Po potrebi misije.
Razlika bo ta, da ne boš rabil trenirat pilota in ga vzdrževat.

Bs .
b2 ali b52 opremljen z "Kh-47M2" lik raketami s simultanim napadom z mesanico standardnimi raket in bomb opremljeni f18 lik letala, naredijo protizracno obrambo irelevantno.
V tem casu ko se bo posadka s500 pripravljala za prestrezanje prihajajocih f18, bo 3000 km dalec iz b2 poletelo 5 "Kh-47M2" like raket. Ko bo s500 imel target ( prihajali v doseg) lock na f18, bo s500 zaznalo 5 blinkov. S500 ma recimo respons time 10s. Koliko kilometrov bo "Kh-47M2" lik raketa naredila v teh 10s?

Želiš mi povedat, da vso delo že sedaj opravljajo bolj ali manj avtomatizirani sistemi in je tam človek bolj kot nek overseer?
Super. Se strinjam. Fast forward 20 let. Človek ne bo nowhere near firefight-a.

Če prav pomnem so Izraelci veselo pokali te ruske konzerve z svojimi loitering munitions.

Kot drugo...seveda bodo na voljo. Bodo se sicer obrambni sistemi prilagodili. Cat and mouse...remember?

Point je, da ljudi bo vedno manj v pilot seat.
Ti še vedno praviš, da bi morali recimo radar ročno s koleščkom vrteti ljudje, ker to je najbolje ali kako?
Vse gre v smeri avtomatizacije.
Prihaja boj algoritmov in ne ljudi.

Lol, pijan ruski vojščak vs napreden recognition AI. Šure buddy.

Given their low radar, visual, and thermal signatures, loitering munitions are very hard to track and kill. Success on a future battlefield may very well be determined by which side can use loitering munitions to the greatest effect.

Skratka, z vsakim tvojim argumentom potrdiš mojega. Kaj naj rečem, hvala. Lepo, da se strinjava.

Jasno, da še ne. Kaj vojaškega pa je bilo sprva poceni.

Smo ravno par strani nazaj povedal, da Iraško vojno bi ceneje oddelal če bi pikiral celo letalo na posameznega bojevnika kot pa tam vozil tanke, opremo itd.



Ta video mi je zlo všeč.
Z robotizirano brzostrelko ciljajo nasprotnike na onem hribu. Nato pade bomba.
To bi komot skrajšali in pocenili, če bi imeli par kak Switchblade pri roki.

vostok_1 je 7. mar 2020 ob 20:48 izjavil:

Jasno, da še ne. Kaj vojaškega pa je bilo sprva poceni.

Smo ravno par strani nazaj povedal, da Iraško vojno bi ceneje oddelal če bi pikiral celo letalo na posameznega bojevnika kot pa tam vozil tanke, opremo itd.



Ta video mi je zlo všeč.
Z robotizirano brzostrelko ciljajo nasprotnike na onem hribu. Nato pade bomba.
To bi komot skrajšali in pocenili, če bi imeli par kak Switchblade pri roki.

Dej zresni se, iz đabe dronov smo sedaj, ja kaj pa je bilo za vojsko kaj poceni nekaj....Kje so sedaj te 1000$ vredni "vpisi poljubno".

vostok_1 je 7. mar 2020 ob 22:15 izjavil:

??

Tocno tako, po dveh dnez tvojega bluzenja, ne veš več o cem govoris. V vsakem primeru so tvoji ptimeri ne samo eno ampak tudi dve ali tri nule drazji od piceni dronov in swarmov..

wikipedia pravi da ta tvoj pogled iz avijona nima veze z realnostjo:

In January 2018, Baykar signed an agreement with Ukrspetsproject on the purchase of 12 Turkish Bayraktar TB2 and 3 ground control stations worth $69 million for the Ukrainian army. Ukraine received the first batch of UAVs in March 2019.

Bayraktar Tactical UAS @ Wikipedia

Dva Tu-95 sta kršila irski zračni prostor. Irska ni v natu, njihovo letalstvo ima 8 Pilatusov.

V zračni prostor resnih članic nata si niso upali.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland...

Two unidentified military aircraft entered Irish airspace on Saturday when British RAF fighters scrambled to intercept Russian bombers off the northwest coast of Ireland, aviation authorities have confirmed.
The Russian aircraft were identified as Tupolev TU-95 “Bear” bombers, which are also deployed as long-range maritime patrol planes. It is unclear how many comprised the formation.

...

After making contact four Typhoons closed on the Russian aircraft before withdrawing, while another two forced them to alter course.
Quick-reaction aircraft from Nato allies Norway and France were also involved.

...

RAF Lossiemouth tweeted that the Russian aircraft at no point entered “UK sovereign airspace” but had “entered the [country’s] area of interest”.



Norvežani so aktivirali svoj(e) F-35, @2:00
https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/stat...



BTW, 3. marca je bil dostavljen 500-ti F-35

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/18303

Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office delivered the 500th F-35. In February, the F-35 enterprise surpassed 250,000 flight hours.

The 500th production aircraft is a U.S. Air Force F-35A, to be delivered to the Burlington Air National Guard Base in Vermont. The 500 hundred F-35s include 354 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variants, 108 F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variants and 38 F-35C carrier (CV) variants for the U.S. and international customers.

windigo je 8. mar 2020 ob 23:30 izjavil:

Oh, daj si še enkrat preberi definicijo marginal cost of production.

Rotax 912, ki ga uporablja TB2 lahko jaz kupim za manj kot 15 k€ in to če kupujem en kos in ne par sto. Marsikatera manufaktura tipa pipistrel bi mi naredila telo aviona iz ogljikovih vlaken in aluminija za verjetno kar nekaj manj kot 30 k€ s fiksnim podvozjem vred (ki itak zgleda, kot da so ga kupili v Bauhausu), elektronika, čeprav potrojena, stane peanuts, če se znaš prav obrniti, pritrditve za oborožitev so skopirali od angležev in jih delajo sami za drobiž. Tisti merilci hitrosti, naklona, višine, žiroskopi in podobna avionika pa tudi ne stane prav veliko. Tako, da zdaj celo mislim, da je 50k€ kar konzervativna ocena za marginalno proizvodno ceno.

Kar plačujejo Ukrajinci je pa v prvi vrsti znanje in čas turških inženirjev in pa tudi vile Erdoganovih zetov (pa še kakšno vilo v okrog Kieva in ob Črnem morju).

Ti očitno ne veš kaj naredi UAV UAV. Po tvoje lahko iz baumaxa kupim par zobnikov, pa luči pa lečo, in je to strošek za izdelavo giro-stabilizianga targeting laserja ki nese 8km+ z termo kamero in vsem, za par 10€... kupim kitajski mobilni telefon za 5€ in mam zakodirano varno 5-kanalno komunikacijo na 100km+...
Jao, dej zračuni kolk stane 300kg kovine in karbona pa dej to kot ceno izdelave.

ti si podal oceno vrednosti CELEGA UAV izkljucno na podlagi približne pavšalne ocene delov trupa in motorja, vse ostalo pa lepo pozabil ali pa opredelil kot "elektronika stane peanuts". to vse ostalo je pa izredno drago in vprašanje če ima Turčija sploh sposobnost vse naredit sama. po hitri poizvedbi recimo ne najdem da bi bil v Turčiji kak proizvajalec FLIR opreme. gyrostabilizacija 10kg opreme da je sposobna držat namerilni laser točno na točki 1m x 1m na razdaljo 8-10 km je čist neki druzga kot pa gimbal za DYI phantom.
tud komunikacija zna postati izredno dragag ko prideš do točke da mora bit vsaj približno odporna na namerne motnje (ukrajincem rusi recimo jammajo drone)

Glede na to da imajo Ukrajinci precej izkušenj z izdelavo vojaške tehnike, predvsem pa so izbral te letalnike z namenom uporabe proti rusom - ki imajo precej znanja z motnjami - uganjujem imajo razlog da so rajši izbral drage turške UAV - samo telo letala več kot očitno znajo izdelat tudi sami. pejt pa jim razlož da je vreden sam 50k...

windigo je 11. mar 2020 ob 08:19 izjavil:

No, moj namen je bil bolj prikazati razliko med mejnimi stroški in pa prodajno ceno in pojasniti, zakaj Turkom ni tako škoda zgubit 10 dronov za precej nestrateške (ali celo taktično vprašljive) spopade.

Lahko malo poguglam in ponovim vajo za elektroniko. FLIR senzor za termo kamero 640x512@95 stane nekje 3k€, za laserske range finderje vojaške kvalitete in markerje pa na hitrco ne najdem ničesar, a mi lahko kaj pomagaš? (skupaj s potrebnimi lečami ipd). O kamerah za vidno svetlobo in lečah zanje najbrž ne rabim pisati, tudi ekstremno občutljive za nočni let ne stanejo prav veliko.

Sem pa našel stabilizirane gimbale z lasersko in izvidniško elektroniko, ki jih prodajajo za 50-150k$.

Kar se radijske komunikacije tiče, si tudi jaz predstavljam, da so razvili lastno opremo, ker ima to edino smisel in ker pravijo, da rabijo line of sight, ugibam, da šofirajo svoje drone nekje okrog mikrovalovnega spektra. Prav tako predpostavljam, da je zadeva širokopasovna, da se pas lahko prilagaja vremenskim razmeram, da se frekvence menjuje s ključem in celo, da se podatke lahko hkrati pošilja na več frekvencah vzporedno. Kar je zakomplicirano do konca, kar se radijske tehnike tiče, ampak mejni stroški pri proizvodnji vsega tega so pa lahko še vedno relativno nizki.

FLIR senzor za termo kamero 640x512@95 stane nekje 3k€

To je samo senzor. Hardware in SW ki bo locil A od B je pa koliko ?

windigo je 11. mar 2020 ob 10:40 izjavil:

Mr.B je 11. mar 2020 ob 10:11 izjavil:

To je samo senzor. Hardware in SW ki bo locil A od B je pa koliko ?

Hardware je peanuts, softver pa ne šteje v mejne stroške.

Ok, potem bo vsakega drona upravljal človek. Drugače rabiš SW ki bo ločil med mojim in tvojim tankom, met APC-jem, med tovornjakom itd.. To znajo še sedaj. Sam senzor je tu...cenovneo bolj...

Mr.B je 11. mar 2020 ob 11:13 izjavil:

Ok, potem bo vsakega drona upravljal človek. Drugače rabiš SW ki bo ločil med mojim in tvojim tankom, met APC-jem, med tovornjakom itd.. To znajo še sedaj. Sam senzor je tu...cenovneo bolj...

Pa daj si prosim v niti, ki govori o tem, da je pri vojni ekonomiki pri vojaški tehniki lastne proizvodnje bolje upoštevat mejne stroške in ne celotne cene, končno preberi, kaj pomeni beseda mejni stroški. Sem ene 3x napisal: samo tisti neposredni stroški za proizvodnjo stoprvega kosa, potem ko si jih že naredil recimo sto.
Softver je seveda bistven, le med mejne stroške ne spada nujno, razvil si ga že prej in uporabil pri prvih sto kosih, nimaš posebnih dodatnih stroškov pri softverju neposredno za stoprvi kos.

Včeraj so pri predmetu hladna vojna v pop kulturi na Harvardu sočasno gledali film The day after iz l. 1983. Profesor ve o čem govori, ampak ni nitil, zato bom njegove objave prilepil spodaj.

Tom Nichols (academic) @ Wikipedia

He taught as an Associate Professor at Dartmouth College in 1996 where he taught comparative politics and Russian affairs in the Department of Government.[8] He began teaching on at the Harvard Extension School in 2005 and has taught courses on nuclear weapons, the Cold War, and national security issues.[8]

In 2011, Nichols was named a Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.[8] During this time he began working on a book on nuclear strategy, which was later published in 2014 as No Use: Nuclear Weapons and US National Security.[8] The book is an analysis of American nuclear weapons policies possible reforms to the United States nuclear strategy.[7]

Nichols was awarded the Petra T. Shattuck Excellence in Teaching Award from the Harvard Extension School in 2012.[7]

In 2016, along with former United States Secretary of Defense William Perry, Nichols was one of nine named as the first professors in the USAF School of Strategic Force Studies.[8] He specialized in nuclear deterrence issues.[8]

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status...

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, prepare to start viewing THE DAY AFTER by hitting play here at exactly 805pm
If you don't want a lot of movie tweets about nuclear war, mute me now!


also follow my @HarvardExt TA @andrewfacini for additional help our questions

(Please save your movie recommendations. This is for a class on Pop Culture and the Cold War, and we're watching in part because of the public *impact* of this movie. Sure, Testament is better, but...far fewer people saw it.)

So, a few words about the environment in which THE DAY AFTER aired in 1983.
The DoD would not cooperate with the making of the film, which is why they used this training footage that was publicly available.
Why? Because the movie would not say who shot first.

Notice the Aaron Copeland-like score. This isn't an attack on New York, this is the heartland.

In the months just before this movie aired
- The USSR shot down a fully loaded 747, killing 269 people including a US Congressman
- The US overthrew a Marxist regime in Grenada, which the Soviets thought was the beginning of an offensive against the socialist bloc

The director didn't want to say who shot first; he didn't want politics involved.
But the idea is that a Soviet-American conflict, no matter where it began, would move into Germany. This was a good assumption because that's what Soviet planners were...planning.

Although you might recognize a lot of the actors now as famous, they were not famous in 1983. That was by design; the director didn't want it to be a Hollywood thing. ABC insisted on ONE star, so he settled on Jason Robards.

Remember, in any crisis between the USSR and the USA, it was likely that the Soviets would squeeze Berlin. Because they could. It was the natural center of their military planning to seize an advantage from the US, especially if the initial conflict was far away.

Okay, pausing at minute 20 here for 60 seconds for everyone to be synced. The East Germans just sealed off Berlin.

Berlin closed off; US ultimatum. This is pretty much what every World War III scenario planned for at some point. No way for an Allied garrison to hold out; the assumption is that we and they are mobilizing along the German border.

So, a word on launches. Each wing of 50 missiles has two officers for each ten missiles. They are in capsules that are actually (duh) far from the missiles themselves, for obvious reasons.

What's going on in the war? Allied forces are trying force open the roads to Berlin. This will not end well, because someone's going to shoot at someone who is allied to someone else. Even if "their" Germans and "our" Germans shoot at each other - it's go time.

Moscow being evacuated is probably earlier than it would have happened in the real thing. That's an EXTREMELY provocative move.

So, the war has begun. The way the Soviets planned this was to go on offensive operations immediately, blitz their way into Germany, and seize as much territory as possible, *no matter what the war was about*

So, this is the part where the actors are all Basil Exposition, and explain nuclear launch strategy to you. :)

They show the panic-buying now, but you can bet that those shelves were empty days ago.

Took out one of our ships in the Gulf. This was something strategists contemplated as a warning, but it's coming *after* the strike on NATO, which isn't really right. This might have been the thing that would have happened *before* risking a strike in Germany.

Aaaaaaand there's the Emergency Broadcast System. That's NATO taking out Soviet troops. But that probably would have happened *first*. The director is scrambling sequencing here so you can't pin the blame on either side.

Now we go to the B-52 training films.

The bombers are a "soft* target, meaning they're easily killed. That's why they're all hauling ass off the runway right now.
I lived next to a USAF base that did these drills when I was a boy.

SAC (Strategic Air Command) was the USAF nuclear force. It no longer exists. It's now STRATCOM (Strategic Command) created by GHW Bush in 1991-92.

These are real Air Force officers doing real procedures.
This is now outdated. They sit next to each other now in the launch capsules in the remodled versions.
And there they go.

Dying right after you have sex is a movie trope, but it's scary and effective.

This is actual launch footage.

The launch contrails are SFX, but they were terrifying and still images that bother me.

The problem with strategic nuclear weapons is that there is no second prize. Either you go first or your lose.
US and Soviet arsenals at this point: tens of thousands.
US impact points: At least 2000 maybe more. You lived near one almost no matter where you were.

The contrails over the football game is one of the movie's most iconic images.

"Confidence is high."
"This is NOT an exercise."
"Massive attack. Numerous ICBMS."
300 missiles = 3000 warheads

Some technical errors: You will not see the flash and hear the explosion at the same time.

Unclear whether most cars would die. But most electrical systems would fail; that's the purpose of that first high-altitude burst. Kansas City was a valuable communications and military target.

Note the quick shot coming up of the little girl being trampled. This was pretty daring and explicit for American TV in 1983

Some of this is actual footage of U.S. nuclear tests.

We are starting now at 1 hour and 1 minute

The nuclear winter effect is probably being over-emphasized here. It would take longer than the day of the attack to start snowing like that, especially with an attack in summer. But the director wanted it in there.

Good luck finding stuff in 2020 that would work after a nuclear attack. One thing to take away from this is how reliant we are now on electronics. Of course, if we're nuked, phones not working will not be your biggest problem.

Again, the nuclear winter thing is being overplayed for dramatic effect here.

Thing is, the initial nuclear winter models required just about every city in the Northern Hemisphere over 100,000 being blasted and burning to throw up enough soot to do that. To me, that renders "weather" moot as a problem, but...

This is a lot calmer than most hospitals would be after a strike. They'd be pure bedlam. Looting drugs, etc.
But remember, this was network TV in the 80s, there were limits on the gore.

So, again, as a reminder to my @HarvardExt students: This is not meant to be a super-accurate depiction of WW III. The point is that this had a HUGE audience in 1983 and it scared the living crap out of the public.

The Titan missiles were retired a few years after this movie. But if you're counting damage, there were 1054 missile silos in 1983. So, that many targets - plus air bases, sub bases, communications, political leadership....

There are about 450 missile silos today.
US and Russian strategic arsenals: 1400-1500 each. More than enough to do this kind of damage.

Two warheads each [silo] AT LEAST.
We targeted the city of Moscow with 500 weapons. We had 67 aimed at *one* radar base.

Hysteria, to be expected in the wake of a strike.

One of the things that would have been a complication in the aftermath of a strike would have been the widespread shock, which is what they're trying to depict here. Psychological effects of mass destruction.

The only thing that's not realistic about this hospital scene is that it's still too calm, and not enough people are being shot by whatever's left of local authorities.

"Shooting people? Without a trial?" Yep. Almost certainly would have been local declarations of martial law and some ugly shit going on.
Again, only so much you can show on network TV in 1983.

These candlelight scenes about the baby and all that are very Hollywood. This was the stuff that the suits at ABC wanted in there, I assume, because it made it more of a "movie."

What is more likely happening is that Kansas City and the entire area around it is still on fire and would be for days if not weeks. They're sort of compressing time and dialing down the HOLY SHIT factor for network TV and the sake of the narrative.

Great line there. "We're lucky to be alive."
"We'll see how lucky that is."

Fun fact: The Soviet military used to argue that they could recover faster because they had a superior economic system.
As we found out later, many of them admitting they were totally bullshitting that.

This scene is powerful but inaccurate. There is no way authorities would waste manpower or fuel picking up dead bodies. They'd have rotted right where they were.

Address from the President. Big assumption he'd be alive.

"Hey maybe we're gonna be okay."
Ah, no.

Nobody would still be talking about individual burial. They'd be doing mass piles of bodies. Not even enough calories to dig pits.

Note on the "cease-fire." This implies it was a limited strike. Good luck with that. Theory was that after 3000 warheads, both sides would still be holding back and not going to all-out city busting.
Not a theory I believe.

Body bags. Seriously, again, this is a wildly optimistic idea, that anyone would be bothering with burying anyone in body bags.

World's dumbest National Guardsman right there.

Also wildly optimistic view of how much gauze and beds there are left.

This farmer meeting wouldn't have happened. But it's to explain to the audience why everyone was going starve in the areas that weren't hit.

Not sure I'd go take on a group of squatters a few days after a nuke strike, but I'm just a wussy New Englander.

Didn't the Reagan administration's TK Jones assure us that “If there are enough shovels to go around everybody’s going to make it”"?
Yes. This is a real thing that the Undersecretary of Defense said a year before this movie.

There is no way - NO WAY - that Robards's character would be able to get into a red zone in Kansas City. Aside from being totally under martial law, it would be on fire and lethal to approach. But again, this is an American movie, and it needs narrative coherence.

Ever read the book The Doomsday Machine? According to its author, who worked for Rand during the Cold War, the only nuclear war plans we had were to shoot the whole wad immediately on every soviet and Chinese city and military installation of any consequence. Nothing limited.
This was pretty much the war plan in the 1960s. We gamed out more options by the 1980s.

It is hard to explain what that feeling was like, especially as an interested early-teen who understood enough of the basic science to get just what a planetary-level catastrophe it would be (even before Day After aired)
And I was a grad student, reading stuff in Russian and working on a thesis about NATO options on the Central Front. Nightmares were a regular thing.

That charred corpse shot was, again, a big deal for U.S. television in 1983. There were complaints about this movie as too graphic, and also, that we were scaring ourselves with Commie propaganda.

Although too optimistic about the ability to walk around Kansas City, the final scene here was deeply touching to me.




In Q&A ter komentarji po

You referred to wholesale city-busting: Since cities already held or were close to a ton of strategic and/or military targets, how many cities could have realistically expected to survive a full nuclear release?

This is a great question, and one of the reasons that a lot of people who study nuclear strategy think the "counterforce only" idea was bunk - since war-fighting assets were all near urban populations anyway. You will still find people defending it today.
Me, I say it's nuts.

If you could make a movie today about something that’d be as impactful as the The Day After, what would it be about? Still nuclear war? Something else that’s just as or more important to get people’s attention like that movie?

Yes. I think THE DAY AFTER needs to be remade, with a realistic scenario.
Producers, call me, I can fill you in. Someone should make this and remind us why we shouldn't give nuclear codes to sociopaths.

I had to delete this because people are dumb, panicky beasts.

I mean, *all day* I've been saying I'll live-tweet THE DAY AFTER and it's pinned right to my profile, and yet people still think the "Soviets" destroyed Wiesbaden and the only guy who knew it was me here on Twitter
You know, people, if you see a scary tweet, check the tweets before and after it, or maybe check the hashtag, or - and I am just spitballing here - pick up a book and figure out what a "Soviet" is and why there aren't any.

Đizs, to pa je bila klobasa.

Seveda sem.

Je v Slovenijo priletel AN-124 ali NATO naklada?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/ne...

The plane's smaller version, the AN124 has already moved vital supplies needed during the pandemic to several NATO countries, including the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.

vostok_1 je 11. maj 2020 ob 13:15 izjavil:

Mi je povsem jasno sedaj, zakaj se za fighter pilots zahteva tako visok nivo.
3/4 časa mora pilot drkat kontrole, ki so jih sestavili avtistični inženirji millitary industrial complex-a iz državnega proračuna.
Noben zgoraj ne bo izgubil spanca, če se mora pilot zajebavat z gumbi v letalu, ki v celem življenskem ciklu skoraj nikoli ne bo videlo boja.
Ukaz nadrejenega inženirjem v Boeingu najbrž zgleda tako "izdelek je že prodan. Naredite zgolj nekaj kar bi lahko zagovarjali na sodišču, če slučajno pride do tega".

Podobna scena je bila takrat z potniškimi letali in enkoderjem za avtopilot.

Saj vem, da "it looks smart". IMO zgleda bolj trenirana opica.

Inženirji, četudi nekateri bi bili sposobni, nimajo popolnoma nobene iniciative narediti nek uporaben izdelek.

Kot rečeno. Air to air combat je pravzaprav trivialno avtomatizirat. Zgolj par algoritmov bi dovolj. Namreč večina pomembnih količin je že vnaprej znana. Energija letala, razdalje, tehnike, sposobnosti orožja itd.

Kaj točno lahko počne samo človek...beats me.

Kaj si ugotovil da igrice niso to kar je relanost. A ti morda misliü da öe letiü z B2, B21, F22, F35...

vostok_1 je 11. maj 2020 ob 13:39 izjavil:

Kar se tiče upravljanja, je igrca praktično ista. Skuša se namreč narediti 1:1 kopijo.
In povem ti, da te naprave delajo ljudje, ki so bodisi potegnili kratko bodisi se jim jebe.
Rezultat pa je, da rabiš ekstremno strokovne pilote, ki se jim da manevrirat med avtističnimi meniji.

A ti resno misliš da je v F35 narejeno za rednek američana, z osnovnošolsko izobrazbo.
Ej si gdaj igral flight simmulator na relatični način. No za namig ti dam da tudi vzlet j cesno traja dlje ko sem si vzel časa za en polet... moraš pazit da je temperatura motorja in olja prava...

vostok_1 je 11. maj 2020 ob 15:13 izjavil:

Ravno obratno. F35 ni narejen za radnecka. Bi pa moral.

V letu 2020 skrbet za pravo temperaturo olja in motorja je bullshit. To mora vse avtomatika opravljat in procentualno sporočat pilotu vrjetnost skladnosti delovanja.

Tvoje dojemanje tehnike je na nivoju @idiocracy tam je tudi v bolnici imela take velike štirioglate gumbe s sličicami. Verjetno je tudi tu pomanjkanje osnovnega znanja in dojemanja, kot v temi 5G.