American military doctrine
pandapoo @ pandapoo @sh.itjust.works Posts 0Comments 328Joined 2 yr. ago
pandapoo @ pandapoo @sh.itjust.works
Posts
0
Comments
328
Joined
2 yr. ago
You might have missed my point at the end, but I'm not sure at this point if semantics do matter.
If this was a singular event, or one of several events, they obviously would.
But after a year of daily war crimes and terrorism by the IDF, I genuinely don't know if it actually matters whether or not this one event should be categorized as terrorism, or just a war crime.
Agree with everything else you said, but I wanted to lead with that part first since I crammed in at the bottom of my last comment.
I don't understand how anything I said inferred credibility unto Russian sources, much less Russian MOD claims on Ukrainian losses.
Can you reread my original comment, and then explain to me how anything I said, is directly related to anything you just said?
I can't speak to that users motivations. I can only say that initial reporting out of any warzone should be viewed skeptically. I've already provided my rationale as to why, but ultimately, it's a personal choice.
I'd rather file away first reports as unconfirmed rumors, or incomplete assessments, until I've seen additional reporting from other sources I trust.
Maybe that user really is what you said they are, or maybe they just suck at articulating the point that I was making. I don't know.
I don't know if this can considered terrorism, the same way I don't consider car bombs driven into coalition FOBs in Iraq or Afghanistan, or roadside IEDs and VBIDs that killed soldier on patrol, as terrorism.
If you're targeting military personnel, it's not terrorism. But, if you're doing it in a way that unnecessarily causes collateral damage, too much collateral damage, etc., that's a war crime. Which I believe this was.
I can understand the argument that considers this terrorism, and I'm not putting down this flag saying that my understanding of it is right and yours is wrong. Just explaining my current view of the situation.
But at this point, I'm not sure it makes any difference. Israeli troops, and settlers, are regularly committing unquestionable acts of terrorism and war crimes on a daily basis, so what difference does it make classifying this one incident as terrorism, or just another war crime.
No, they're pointing out the obvious. Newsweek isn't what it used to be, and the claims are all sourced from Ukraine, with no external on the record confirmations, yet.
Ukrainian media has a moral obligation to service the propaganda needs of the war. That's neither good, nor bad, that's just a part of being in an existential war for survival. I don't blame them for it, and I'm certainly not bashing them for, I'm just pointing out reality.
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but I have no trouble understanding why North Korea would send thousands of support personnel to Ukraine as the logistical tail to support their weapons platforms. Western nations have been doing the same thing inside Ukraine.
Maybe the story is true, it's possible. But I'm going to need to see better sources provided then a Kyiv Post article citing unnamed Western officials or Newsweek using Ukrainian articles as their source information.
That's it. If anything, it's more unreasonable to not be skeptical of early reports coming from any war zone, whether you want to believe them, or not.
They will be tried in Ukrainian courts I imagine.
I can't envision the Hague actually prosecuting, convicting, and jailing, any Russians. Just as I can't see them doing that to Americans.
I could be wrong, Russia's position has certainly weakened enough for it to be possible, but until that dam is broken, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ukraine on the other hand, that's an entirely different story. They've already been prosecuting war criminals in their own courts. Which is problematic in its own right, but if the Hague isn't a viable possibility yet, what other options do they have?
Be skeptical of a lot of the news that purports to be coming out North Korea, a lot of it is from groups like the Moonies, and other ideologically and politically motivated propaganda.
I'm not saying this to imply that the DPRK is actually a worker's paradise, there's no starvation, no potemkin villages, or that yes, Kim Jong-il did play a round of golf and hit all holes in one.
My point is that for a country known as The Hermit Kingdom, and is extremely insular, secretive, and closed off, there's a lot fewer credible sources who can actually report accurately on the specific events or acute conditions inside, then the many publications and their articles would have you believe.
3,000 could easily consist entirely of technical trainers, service, support, communications, and logistics personnel, all dealing with North Korean weapons platforms being deployed in theater.
None of that changes the fact that they are a separate state, engaging in active warfare in Ukraine, alongside Russia. But I'm skeptical that this is a cannon fodder battalion. It's possible, I just haven't read any credible reports that have convinced me of that, yet.
One of the reasons I'm more skeptical, is because that would open the door for more overt and direct actions from countries like Poland. There's already additional countries helping Ukraine on the ground in similar capacities, weapons trainers, support staff, intelligence, etc, and this seems to somewhat mirror that.
There's also not many sources I trust less in these types of pieces then, "anonymous Western official".
Of course, all of my assumptions could be wrong, but I'm going to need more confirmed evidence than what I've seen so far in regards to these being cannon for a meat grinder, versus trying technical staff, rear echelon support for DPRK weapons platforms, and NK officers looking for knowledge and experience to bring back home to better develop their own military.
Are these used to extend the range of munition carrying/suicide FPV drones?
What's their flight time with those repeater/antenna payloads?
AI used to mean sentience, or close enough to truly mimic it, until marketing departments felt that machine learning was good enough.
I'm sorry, a computer using matrices to determine hot dog, or not hot dog, because it's model has a million hot dog photos in it, is not AI.
LLMs don't reason. There is no intelligence, artificial or otherwise.
It's doing a lot of calculations in cool new ways, sometimes. But that's what computers do, and no matter how many copilot buttons Microsoft sells, there's no AI coming out of those laptops.
This is why I hate everything being called AI, because nothing is AI. It's all advanced machine learning algorithms, and each serve different purposes. It's why I'll say LLM, facial recognition, deepfake, etc.
Because I have no doubt that there are a lot of machine learning tools and algorithms that could greatly assist humans in archival work, Google Gemini and ChatGPT aren't the ones that come to mind.
Do they have plentiful stocks of ATCMS now? Or was that a highly specialized ($$$) group of soldiers training?
Maybe it's the grainy video, but it looks like dirt mounds, portable trailers, some light vehicles, and maybe 10-20 soldiers?
I imagine there will be limits set, through precedent.
For example, if a customer is chatting with an AI bot regarding a refund for a pair of $89 sneakers, and the bot tells the customer to report to the nearest office to collect 1 million dollars, I can see the courts ruling the plaintiff is not owed $1 million dollars.
Although, if the plaintiff ended up flying a few States over to try and collect, maybe travel costs and lost wages? Who knows.
If a company marketing fee for service legal advice, their might be a higher standard. Say a client was given objectively bad legal advice, the kind that attorneys get sanctioned or reprimanded for, and subsequently acts upon that advice. I think it's likely the courts would take a different approach and determine the company has a good bit of liability for damages.
Those are both just hypothetical generic companies and scenarios I made up to highlight how I can see the question of liability being determined by the courts. Unless some superceding laws and regulations enacted.
Or fuck it, maybe all AI companies have to do is put an arbitration clause in their T&C's, and then contract out to an AI arbitration firm. And wouldn't you know it, the arbitration AI model was only trained on cases hand picked by Federalist Society interns.
This is good news, relatively speaking.
SMR technology is one of the most promising pieces of technological development in the nuclear power space.
Standardized factory production and completely sealed, so refueling is only at the factory, never on-site. Their also, small, but scalable depending on the needs of each site.
I'm not sure of the design this company is using, but I'm assuming they're leveraging a fail safe reactor, as in, it requires properly running systems to generate fission, but if those systems fail, the fission process stops. There are no secondary systems that have to kick in, it's a simple as either it's running properly, or it can't run it all.
As opposed to systems like Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island, that required separate active safety systems to guard against catastrophic failures. But if those failed, they're backups failed, etc., well, meltdown.
North Korean troops are in Ukraine to gain valuable experience in modern combat, and bring it back to the DPRK. As well as to serve as technical advisors and in theater support personnel for North Korean systems being deployed by Russia.
They aren't there as a reserve source of cannon fodder, or secondary invasion force. Some have already died, and more will, but they're not there and enough numbers to seriously weaken their domestic security concerns, and that's not their purpose.
Shitty technicals are a dime a dozen, but this clearly had money, time, and skilled labor, all invested into it.
The gun turret looks decently welded to the body, possibly even the frame.
Replaced the glass on the back windows with metal for extra blast fragment and ricochet shielding. Possibly even additional steel plating for direct small arms fire protection, given how low the suspension is sitting.
Did one of the workers steal the suspension upgrade for himself? Is it designed only to be mobile long enough for it to get into position and lock itself down once the axle snaps?
Or did they blow the entire budget before realizing how fucked they were?
Did no one think to change the suspension out during the modification process?
Talk about a shitty technical.
This post is already too credible, so what the fuck, I might as well continue to dishonor it's noncredibility even further.
You can't really compare a modern major Arab army, to a western army. They serve different functions.
Major Arab armies, at least contemporary ones, are designed to primarily preserve the internal social order and hierarchy. They're internal security forces, with war planes and tanks.
Which presents another problem, coup d'etats. You can't risk your command staff aligning against your ruling class, or monarch, so they should not trained, or inclined, to cooperate too much. So you put rivals in charge a different branches, and make sure to purge anyone you cannot trust to preserve the status quo, above all else.
This also means small unit leadership and tactics are antithetical to the purpose of their military.
To be clear, I'm not talking about Arab militant groups or militias, and this is definitely not a function of race. It's function of the types of political systems you currently find in much of, but certainly not all, of the Arab world.