weapon inflection...

[Rick C]

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
c17246df-5e13-4830...@googlegroups.com>:
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.
People afraid of 5G have been setting fire to cell towers here, and it caused some emergency services to be cut off too.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
I even had a solar powered radio from ebay, modified it to a solar powered GPS based clock with geiger counter.. You may need it.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
only used that solar panel...
I have better radios..

https://www.ebay.com/itm/325043045366
https://www.ebay.com/b/Emergency-Portable-AM-FM-Radios/96954/bn_883755
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373227954744
https://www.ebay.com/itm/353320718382

The hand cranked flash light is in the kitchen, it can charge things via USB, well I added the LED light

I have no use for a radio when the radio tower has been bombed. I don\'t want to listen to the radio when the radio tower is not being bombed. I suppose it would tell me that the radio tower had been bombed. Too limited information to worry with.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[David Brown]

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\'m not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.

Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid
majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week. Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn\'t bring
much more than a packed lunch, because they didn\'t expect to take long.

Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over
quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla
actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.

Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin\'s
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won\'t make opinions
much worse.

Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.

/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or
knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.

I also don\'t understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that can
take out tanks, why they aren\'t being used on the 40 mile long
column of troops that are stuck on the roads? I\'m thinking a lot
of the stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that
makes sense is that the logistics aren\'t up to snuff and they are
running out of fuel and food. That I believe.

The Ukrainians /are/ hitting the column. But you can\'t do that
effectively with short range hand-held anti-tank weapons - the
numbers are too big, and the distances too far. They are doing some
damage using drones, but they also need to keep things in reserve
for when they are /really/ needed. As long as the Russians can\'t do
better than a slow crawl, they still have other options.

There are reports of \"missiles\", which are not hand-held weapons.
Short range missiles would be sufficient to attack and retreat,
guerrilla warfare. Sitting in the city and waiting for the onslaught
won\'t win the war or even the battle. If this column can\'t be broken
up, there\'s no point in trying to mount any other sort of defense.
Russia can wage siege warfare if they want.

The column hasn\'t moved for the last 24 to 36 hours. I don\'t know if
this is due to Ukrainian defence or Russian logistics failures. There
are also many reports of a collapse of moral amongst Russian soldiers -
they had been told they were doing military exercises until the day of
the invasion, and then they were told they were liberating oppressed
Ukrainians from neo-nazi authoritarian leaders. They expected to be
greeted with flowers, not molotov cocktails.

Yes, the Russian army can lay siege to Kiev, and will no doubt aim to do
that. It remains to be seen whether they can hold out.

 

[David Brown]

On 03/03/2022 18:57, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:06:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 15:24, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 4:14:19 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 02/03/22 18:03, 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.

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.
Why wouldn\'t they? It isn\'t as if they are NBC. They are merely
explosives that don\'t contain their own oxidiser.

Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be illegal;
I\'m not up to date on the Geneva Conventions.

Correct. You are not up to date.
Correct about what? That there is no difference between being
killed with a weapon that does or does no contain the oxidiser?

I get tired of spoon feeding you. Learn how to use Google and do a
bit of research... please.

The Geneva Conventions say nothing about weapons of any kind - they
cover treatment of prisoners of war, and non-combatants.

There is the \"Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons\" which bans
things like mines, incendiary weapons and cluster bombs. (Neither
Russia nor Ukraine signed the convention against cluster bombs, and
Russia has used them against Ukraine.) Thermobaric weapons are not
included in that convention or any other that I know of.

I know you don\'t like spoon-feeding, but here you go :

<https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60571395>
<https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-cluster-bombs-thermobaric-weapons-russia-ukraine-war-7797978/>


(I\'ve no idea why Google gave me a link to an Indian newspaper article,
but it explains the matter quite well.)

 

[David Brown]

On 03/03/2022 15:42, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 03/03/22 13:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 08:26, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Mar 2022 13:15:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened
whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in

Hard to tell if an incoming missile is not nuclear
A nervous Russia could answer with a nuclear counterstrike before it
even hits.
As Ukrain has indicated it wants to go nuclear.

Ukraine is not nuclear, and has no possibility of going nuclear - and
everyone (including Putin) knows that. Of course they might think /now/
that it would have been nice to have some nukes on store, which might
have stopped Russia from invading.

What would they go nuclear /with/?

What\'s the source and the channel of that information?
Sounds like Russian disinformation.


One thing that nobody seems to mention is that back in 1991 when the
Soviet Union came apart, Ukraine was full of SS-18 nuclear missiles,
which they gave up in exchange for a Western guarantee of their borders.

Brr.

I have seen that stated - once.

Embarrassing.

They got the guarantee from /Russia/ as well, and gave their nukes to
Russia in return for that guarantee.

 

[David Brown]

On 02/03/2022 22:15, Rick C wrote:

Taiwan will fight back, just as Ukraine has, but there won\'t be a
need for ground troops. That battle would be like the battle of
Brittan, all in the air. The difference is China is very much better
prepared for it and won\'t do something stupid like attack Russia.
They will just lob rockets and artillery from ships and drop bombs
from planes.

I don\'t know if they care about preserving Taiwan\'s technology
industry. China doesn\'t want Taiwanese chips, they want to reunite
their country.

China feel that an independent Taiwan is an affront to their honour and
history. But there is one thing that /always/ trumps that in China -
money. Taiwan makes a great deal of money. China do not want to take
Taiwan until they have figured out a way to do so while preserving that
income - they certainly won\'t risk damaging the island\'s semiconductor
business. China is patient.

 

[David Brown]

On 03/03/2022 02:42, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:59:06 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:54, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 3/2/2022 10:30 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


These pics are amazing. They look like the Iraqui army
retreating from Kuwait. Miles of wreckage blocking the roads.
Once you blow up a few tanks and trucks, the rest wait
patiently in line to be destroyed.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17816255/incredible-photos-russian-convoy-wreckage-bucha-kyiv/



Javelin type missiles and drones may be doing to tanks what
airplanes did to battleships. Cheap smart weapons destroy a
thousand times bigger and more expensive targets.

Imagine a smart drone with a Hellfire type missile firing
straight down onto a vehicle. Imagine being in a tank under a
swarm of them.

In previous wars, the great majority of bullets and artillery
shells and bombs and depth charges and mines and even
torpedoes missed their targets.



China is probably watching with interest how this lil adventure
goes for Russia. Taiwan is a fortress compared to the Ukraine,
and they have ~80 miles of open water to cross just to get a
significant amount of troops and supplies onto the island.

And China can take Taiwan without landing a single soldier. It\'s
an island and can be blockaded without landing or even firing a
shot. The Chinese can also choose to fire shots at any targets,
either from the sea or from the mainland. In other words, other
than political fallout, taking Taiwan would be easy for the
Chinese. The Chinese aren\'t watching the Ukrainian situation from
a military point of view. It\'s much more of a political
perspective.

China could destroy Taiwan from a distance. But they have no
interest in destroying it - they want to integrate it into mainland
China. That is vastly more difficult.

\"Integration\" is the goal, but if a few people die in the process,
that\'s ok with China. To them, the individual is not as important as
the country. They want to return Taiwan as an integral part of
China, just like Hong Kong. They don\'t mind running over a few
people with tanks or hitting them with bombs to do it.

Sure, China has no qualms about deaths on either side. But they /do/
have qualms about damaging the income generators - they don\'t just want
an island with some people, they want Taiwan\'s industry and sales.

Hong Kong was a different situation - in 1999, the UK\'s lease ran out
and the territory became part of China. They didn\'t need to capture it,
it was already theirs.

 

[Rick C]

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.

I\'m not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.


Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid
majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week.

I hate when people make up stuff. Did the Kremlin send you an email with this in it?

Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn\'t bring
much more than a packed lunch, because they didn\'t expect to take long.

Again, made up. Yeah, there may be troops separated from their supply lines and out of food. That is nothing like what you just said.

Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over
quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla
actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.

This is not only made up, but very... I\'ll let you fill in the adjective. You don\'t know anything of what Putin is thinking and there is no way in hell the sanctions will \"be over quickly\" even if he won the war in a single day!

Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin\'s
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won\'t make opinions
much worse.

Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.


/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or
knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.

You seem to not understand that the problem is the inability to target anything but a geographical area. They can be used away from populations, just not where civilians are present in numbers. Even a rocket is targeted because the area is impacts is relatively limited. That is the difference.

I also don\'t understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that can
take out tanks, why they aren\'t being used on the 40 mile long
column of troops that are stuck on the roads? I\'m thinking a lot
of the stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that
makes sense is that the logistics aren\'t up to snuff and they are
running out of fuel and food. That I believe.

The Ukrainians /are/ hitting the column. But you can\'t do that
effectively with short range hand-held anti-tank weapons - the
numbers are too big, and the distances too far. They are doing some
damage using drones, but they also need to keep things in reserve
for when they are /really/ needed. As long as the Russians can\'t do
better than a slow crawl, they still have other options.

There are reports of \"missiles\", which are not hand-held weapons.
Short range missiles would be sufficient to attack and retreat,
guerrilla warfare. Sitting in the city and waiting for the onslaught
won\'t win the war or even the battle. If this column can\'t be broken
up, there\'s no point in trying to mount any other sort of defense.
Russia can wage siege warfare if they want.


The column hasn\'t moved for the last 24 to 36 hours. I don\'t know if
this is due to Ukrainian defence or Russian logistics failures.

Why are you so certain this is not part of the plan? It\'s not D-day where they have to get off the beaches. It would appear Ukrainian forces are not able to attack the column, stalled or otherwise. So clearly Russia is not in a hurry to move the troops further.

There
are also many reports of a collapse of moral amongst Russian soldiers -
they had been told they were doing military exercises until the day of
the invasion, and then they were told they were liberating oppressed
Ukrainians from neo-nazi authoritarian leaders. They expected to be
greeted with flowers, not molotov cocktails.

Reports are easy to come by. I heard reports of Bigfoot in the area.

Yes, the Russian army can lay siege to Kiev, and will no doubt aim to do
that. It remains to be seen whether they can hold out.

I think it is pretty inevitable that the country will be taken. The Russian army is too massive to be stopped. I can\'t believe they are looking to kill civilians. If they were I would expect to see many, many more reports than the relatively few we are seeing. The US killed any number of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don\'t believe it was intentional. In war people screw up like any other time, but with more serious consequences.

I also believe they are trying not to attack urban areas with no strategic value. They clearly do wish to control the flow of information per their actions. That may well be the reason the attack on Kiev is stalled, they haven\'t shut down the information flow as yet.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-03-03 21:16, 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\'m not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.


Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid
majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week. Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn\'t bring
much more than a packed lunch, because they didn\'t expect to take long.

Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over
quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla
actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.


Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin\'s
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won\'t make opinions
much worse.

Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.


/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or
knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.

What happens when the local military hide AA missile launchers between
the city civilian buildings? Surely they can be targeted, but hitting
the buildings instead can happen.

What do the rules of war say about that?

Another case. What if the civilian population is armed for resistance?
They become combatants, and possibly fair targets.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 22.40.16 UTC+1 skrev Carlos E.R.:

On 2022-03-03 21:16, 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\'m not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.


Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid
majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week. Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn\'t bring
much more than a packed lunch, because they didn\'t expect to take long.

Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over
quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla
actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.


Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin\'s
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won\'t make opinions
much worse.

Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.


/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or
knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.
What happens when the local military hide AA missile launchers between
the city civilian buildings? Surely they can be targeted, but hitting
the buildings instead can happen.

What do the rules of war say about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target

Another case. What if the civilian population is armed for resistance?
They become combatants, and possibly fair targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:14 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> 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.

Thermobaric bombs are not outlawed, although there are some
organizations who would like to do so, and some claim to have done so,
but the key countries have declined to do so.

Nor are thermobaric bombs fundamentally different from ordinary
high-explosive bombs, except that one gets about three times the
energy from a TB bomb compared to a HE bomb of the same weight. Which
is why they are used.

The overpressure pulse is longer and stronger from a TB bomb, but one
gets more shrapnel from a HE bomb.

I\'ve seen lots of pictures from Ukraine (mostly in cities) where a TB
bomb was probably used. The tell is that the sheet metal sides of the
cars are all caved in, but there are few shrapnel holes in that metal.

I\'m not sure Russia is really doing so poorly. The reports of
attacks on the Russian convoy are few and far between. The advance
units are just that, advance units and have been doing what they were
sent to do in most cases. Russia has no need to be in a hurry.
Winter is behind them mostly.


Russia is /desperate/ to get the initial stages done in a hurry. Their
whole plan was to turn up in massive force, get support from a solid
majority of Ukrainians, get surrenders from the rest, and have a new
puppet regime set up within days or a week. Russian soldiers
surrendering to Ukrainian forces are asking for food - they didn\'t bring
much more than a packed lunch, because they didn\'t expect to take long.

Yes, and the Ukrainian AF has been destroying supply trucks.

Putin knew from the start that there would be sanctions and protests -
he wanted only a short military campaign so that these would be over
quickly. He is now facing a long drawn-out war with sieges and guerilla
actions ever after, with the big risk of his country going bankrupt
before he has even a vague control of Ukraine.

Yes. Actually, even if the Russians left Ukraine today, the sanctions
against Russia will long endure. It may take a generation or two of
good behavior for this to fade.

Russia has a policy of denying that they are targeting civilians,
and claiming that Ukraine is blowing up their own civilian
buildings in false flag attacks. Given that, what do they have to
lose by using nastier bombs? The people that believe Putin\'s
propaganda (basically, a large chunk of the Russian population)
will just think the Ukrainians are even worse - and the rest of the
world already thinks so badly of Russia that thermobaric weapons
(and also cluster bombs, which are outlawed in most countries - but
neither Russia nor Ukraine signed that treaty) won\'t make opinions
much worse.

Of course it will. Thermobaric weapons are illegal when used
indiscriminately against civilians as has been accused.


/All/ weapon use targeting civilians is illegal. Themobaric weapons are
not special in that way - they are only special in that they can rarely
be used /without/ indiscriminately harming civilians. Intentionally or
knowingly blowing up civilian housing is a war crime and against the
Geneva Convention regardless of whether it is done by missiles or
fuel-air bombs.

Yes, and the same can be said of cluster bombs, which are intended to
break up assault waves.


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.

I also don\'t understand, if the Ukrainians have missiles that can
take out tanks, why they aren\'t being used on the 40 mile long
column of troops that are stuck on the roads? I\'m thinking a lot
of the stories we are seeing are exaggerated. The one part that
makes sense is that the logistics aren\'t up to snuff and they are
running out of fuel and food. That I believe.

The Ukrainians /are/ hitting the column. But you can\'t do that
effectively with short range hand-held anti-tank weapons - the
numbers are too big, and the distances too far. They are doing some
damage using drones, but they also need to keep things in reserve
for when they are /really/ needed. As long as the Russians can\'t do
better than a slow crawl, they still have other options.

There are reports of \"missiles\", which are not hand-held weapons.
Short range missiles would be sufficient to attack and retreat,
guerrilla warfare. Sitting in the city and waiting for the onslaught
won\'t win the war or even the battle. If this column can\'t be broken
up, there\'s no point in trying to mount any other sort of defense.
Russia can wage siege warfare if they want.


The column hasn\'t moved for the last 24 to 36 hours. I don\'t know if
this is due to Ukrainian defence or Russian logistics failures.

I\'ve seen many reports that the Ukrainian Air Force has been able to
attack that convoy, and has been destroying fuel tankers and the like,
as well as battle tanks. The exact degree to which this has been
achieved is unclear, but the convoy does seem to be stuck.

This is possible because Russia has not been able to achieve air
dominance, due to the Ukrainian Air Defense system still being at
least partly functional, and of course due to those damn Stinger
missiles. And armed drones from Turkey.

There
are also many reports of a collapse of moral amongst Russian soldiers -
they had been told they were doing military exercises until the day of
the invasion, and then they were told they were liberating oppressed
Ukrainians from neo-nazi authoritarian leaders. They expected to be
greeted with flowers, not molotov cocktails.

I\'m sure that the Russian troops were not told the full objective in
advance, but this is a standard part of OPSEC (Operations Security).

But I\'m also sure that even when they were told the objective, they
didn\'t expect it to be such a problem either.

Yes, the Russian army can lay siege to Kiev, and will no doubt aim to do
that. It remains to be seen whether they can hold out.

At this point, I would doubt if Russia can hold Ukraine; even if they
manage to capture (or simply destroy) Kviv, the war will continue to
the bitter end.

One can certainly see why; there is a history:

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor>


Joe Gwinn

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 03/03/22 19:43, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 10.14.19 UTC+1 skrev Tom Gardner:
On 02/03/22 18:03, 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.

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.
Why wouldn\'t they? It isn\'t as if they are NBC. They are merely explosives
that don\'t contain their own oxidiser.

Using them indiscriminately against civilians might be illegal; I\'m not up
to date on the Geneva Conventions.

doesn\'t matter what weapon you use

article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, The
civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be
the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of
which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited

article 48 of Protocol I: In order to ensure respect for and protection of
the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict
shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and
combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, and
accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives

That corresponds with what I presumed.

I\'m still waiting for someone to explain why thermobaric weapons
aren\'t equivalent to \"high yield\" HE weapons.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 03/03/22 21:19, 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.

Yes, you should have said that, rather than blathering on about google fu.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
c17246df-5e13-4830...@googlegroups.com>:
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.
People afraid of 5G have been setting fire to cell towers here, and it caused some emergency services to be cut off too.
When the power is out, no one can tune a radio.
I even had a solar powered radio from ebay, modified it to a solar powered GPS based clock with geiger counter.. You may need it.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
only used that solar panel...
I have better radios..

https://www.ebay.com/itm/325043045366
https://www.ebay.com/b/Emergency-Portable-AM-FM-Radios/96954/bn_883755
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373227954744
https://www.ebay.com/itm/353320718382

The hand cranked flash light is in the kitchen, it can charge things via USB, well I added the LED light

https://www.axios.com/russia-threatens-block-voa-removes-ukraine-invasion-coverage-cb1a930b-87b9-460f-8ac6-08a02b670ccc.html

Does VOA even have a radio station anymore? It would seem the Russians don\'t care much about that, it\'s the web site they care about.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 22:01:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<11ad6c4f-d61a-48cd-a8d6-1a1caa60d1fdn@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
I even had a solar powered radio from ebay, modified it to a solar powered GPS based clock with geiger counter.. You may need
it.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
only used that solar panel...
I have better radios..

https://www.ebay.com/itm/325043045366
https://www.ebay.com/b/Emergency-Portable-AM-FM-Radios/96954/bn_883755
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373227954744
https://www.ebay.com/itm/353320718382

The hand cranked flash light is in the kitchen, it can charge things via USB, well I added the LED light

https://www.axios.com/russia-threatens-block-voa-removes-ukraine-invasion-coverage-cb1a930b-87b9-460f-8ac6-08a02b670ccc.html

Yea, now they may want to nationalize all Boeing and Airbus airplanes (not fully payed for but leased) as counter measure:
https://www.rt.com/business/551151-russia-nationalise-boeing-airbus-jets/

Does VOA even have a radio station anymore? It would seem the Russians don\'t care much about that, it\'s the web site they care
about.

Not sure, I though it stopped transmitting years ago?
I tried finding Russia on shortwave yesterday afternoon, but no luck so far
the time of day matters for shortwave reception though.
China in English was OK,
So much noise here from all those wallwarts, above 20 MHz things are more quiet, conditions, sunspots, many things matter.
When power goes you may get noise from solar panel converters...

I remember in the afternoon in the sixties listening to US truckers here in the Netherlands on 27 MHz as if those were next doors.
Worked with South America on 27 MHz a few years back.
Many people here still have CB sets.

Quatar lauched the QO100 HAM satellite that I can use here, you can see hear online what is happening too:
https://eshail.batc.org.uk/nb/

That way you may get info from the people in Russia (heard many Russians on it)
That signal is always clear and noise free.

My radiation meter was still OK this morning.
This whole thing looks like escalating, both sides need to cool down, its not worth destroying the world for, covid shit was already bad enough,
Restrictions lifted here, could finally go to the hardware shop and supermarket without a mask,
people happy!

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:49:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<b6d6615c-7af0-479c-8000-7b225b397107n@googlegroups.com>:

I have no use for a radio when the radio tower has been bombed. I don\'t want to listen to the radio when the radio tower is not
being bombed. I suppose it would tell me that the radio tower had been bombed. Too limited information to worry with.

When global war or catastrophe happens shortwave radio may tell you where it is still safe to go
Same for when you are in a boat on the ocean (I have a marine radio license too).
Things like BBC news may be a great way to see what\'s happening home.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 11:43:45 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lasse
Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote in
<5423dac1-0967-4606-b029-274d08c035d6n@googlegroups.com>:

article 48 of Protocol I:
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and
civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish
between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects
and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations
only against military objectives

Like nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
US is a BAD example.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 10:56:22 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 03/03/22 19:43, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 10.14.19 UTC+1 skrev Tom Gardner:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

> I\'m still waiting for someone to explain why thermobaric weapons aren\'t equivalent to \"high yield\" HE weapons.

Presumably lower brisance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

Fuel-air weapons depend on forming a fuel-air mix, which - when ignited - can sustain a shock wave. You can get a faster shock wave in a solid explosive that contains it\'s own oxidiser.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 04/03/22 09:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 10:56:22 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 03/03/22 19:43, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 3. marts 2022 kl. 10.14.19 UTC+1 skrev Tom Gardner:
On 02/03/22 18:03, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-5,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snip

I\'m still waiting for someone to explain why thermobaric weapons aren\'t
equivalent to \"high yield\" HE weapons.

Presumably lower brisance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

Fuel-air weapons depend on forming a fuel-air mix, which - when ignited -
can sustain a shock wave. You can get a faster shock wave in a solid
explosive that contains it\'s own oxidiser.

No quibble there, but my observation/question was
in the context of the statement that thermobaric
weapons are illegal (but not, by inference, HE)

 

[David Brown]

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.

 

[Carlos E.R.]

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.