> On a side note, I wonder if Kerry will take an umbrella with him, on his
> trip to Kiev...??
Just so long as he doesn't return with a slip of paper...
> From:
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 5:23 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Ukraine
>
>
> There's never been a US CVBG* forward deployed or deployed to the Black
> Sea, based on acceptance of interpretations of the Montreux Convention
> (see, "capital ship," "tonnage," "aircraft carrier," "Black Sea vs.
> Non-Black-Sea Power," etc.), as well as the fact that it would be neither
> a fun nor a useful place for a non-Russian carrier to be, which is why
> we've never tried to challenge the interpretation (except, perhaps, to
> keep theirs stuck inside). The only carriers in there are ones that are
> built there, and then the Soviets/Russians have to re-classify them to get
> them out.
>
> The real problem is when the Navy lost medium attack aviation. It is only
> sheer dumb luck that precision ordnance reached the effectiveness it did
> when all we had left were Hornets.
>
> *I retain the term from the "almost 600-ship" heyday.
>
>> Which speaks back to the traditional (until recently..) question asked
>> by
>> US leaders...âÂÂwhere are the carrierâÂÂs..?âÂÂ
>> Why a Group isnâÂÂt forward deployed to the Black Sea, particularly
>> given
>> the Georgia history lesson, says more about the current state of
>> âÂÂWestern WillâÂÂ, as lead by the US, than any other action.
>>
>> The challenges of such a âÂÂforwardâ deployment are huge, as is
>> the
>> risk, but the consequences of action against the Group, even more so. An
>> interesting gaming model, IâÂÂm thinking...
>>
>> From: Tim O'Reilly
>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 4:14 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Ukraine
>>
>>
>>
>> the Abrams/Bradley/Apache are effective yes, but they have to have some
>> things going for them which I think no longer exist from before the 1989
>> demolishing of the Wall.
>> First, they are not on the ground in force there is no longer a REFORGER
>> possibility with pre-positioned stocks and vehicles.
>> Second builds from that - the ability to deploy the vehicles, troops,
>> munitions, etc. is now at least as vulnerable as it was then, and
>> perhaps
>> more so. Russian subs and long range bombers would have field days with
>> little/no opposition from us. Yes our subs are capable, but finite and I
>> expect Russian hunter-killers to make some inroads on us. It'd be worse
>> for the USAF and Navy Air as they'd be stretched to the limit on range
>> and
>> you-name it. Much as it pains me, we do not have front line aircraft. If
>> the Russians have built up their what is it now 5th generation(?)
>> fighter
>> fleet, we'd be in a world of hurt.
>> The political situation, third, makes me even more cautious. More than
>> the apparent incompetence of BHO, its the leaked conversation he had
>> with
>> Putin back before the last election where he reportedly said something
>> along the lines of, "Not yet, I have to win the next election first..."
>> If it is true that amateurs study tactics and professionals study
>> logistics, can something be said about politicians taking/studying the
>> long view? Americans in particular have a very short attention span both
>> for history, and for the future. So, what are or what have we been
>> missing? (Thinking back to August 2008 and the very short war between
>> Georgia and Russia - what is the bear after this time?)
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:04 PM, ""
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where Striker II and Command Decision "fail" is that they are all about
>> detailed equipment-centric ground engagements with air as abstract
>> supporting events, rather than air and ground operating together in a
>> continuous tissue. In other words, they are a game about a different
>> level
>> of examination. A game that captured the whole operational tissue would
>> not be about detailed vehicle design and performance.
>>
>> A few days ago when I first heard a report on Ukraine mention, "ethnic
>> Russians," my mind immediately flashed to a National Lampoon comic strip
>> from 1979/80. It's a picture of the Kremlin with the phone ringing, and
>> then word bubbles: "What the? It's Afghanistan calling, and they need
>> our
>> help!" Deja vu all over again, this time with a warm-water port directly
>> involved, instead of just domino-wise.
>>
>> > With a decade of tanking, and knowing the T90 derived from the
>> "quantity"
>> > T62-T72 lineage ad opposed to the "quality" lineage of T64 - T80 which
>> > died
>> > out due to economic reasons, I think US armor would annihilate
>> Russians,
>> > even without complete combined arms supremacy (which I would also
>> expect).
>> >
>> > Of course, before the Abrams/Bradley/Apache were fielded, I would have
>> > given the edge to Warsaw Pact in retrospect, particularly in a Fulda
>> Gap
>> > scenario, though NATO should have maintained naval and air dominance
>> to
>> > make it really interesting. Do you think Striker II models pretty
>> > decently?
>> >
>> > Paranoid Soviet logistics would stink almost as bad Western political
>> > backbone, though so interesting to see which side would throw away
>> their
>> > advantage first, but most war games don't assume political/strategic
>> > ineptitude.
>> >
>> > As far as Ukraine, it echoes said political ineptitude more than
>> anything
>> > from my perspective.
>> >
>> > - Sent from my SM-N900T
>> > On Mar 2, 2014 2:36 PM, <> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Because of the way that TNE was always related to Twilight:2000,
>> >> indirectly through 2300, the one-time "New Traveller," as well as
>> >> directly
>> >> through the "House Rules," not to mention that we were doing them at
>> the
>> >> same time, I can't help looking at the current Ukraine situation as a
>> >> possible point of departure for the Twilight War for someone who
>> wanted
>> >> to
>> >> graft it onto more recent history. Obviously not as directly relevant
>> as
>> >> the Yeltsin moment Frank chose for T2KV2.2, but similar enough that
>> it
>> >> reminds me of it. This one would have to be dressed and fluffed up a
>> lot
>> >> more, and would never approach the Reagan-era zeitgeist of original
>> T2K,
>> >> but it is the first thing in a while that has even reminded me of
>> T2K.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> trip to Kiev...??
Just so long as he doesn't return with a slip of paper...
> From:
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 5:23 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Ukraine
>
>
> There's never been a US CVBG* forward deployed or deployed to the Black
> Sea, based on acceptance of interpretations of the Montreux Convention
> (see, "capital ship," "tonnage," "aircraft carrier," "Black Sea vs.
> Non-Black-Sea Power," etc.), as well as the fact that it would be neither
> a fun nor a useful place for a non-Russian carrier to be, which is why
> we've never tried to challenge the interpretation (except, perhaps, to
> keep theirs stuck inside). The only carriers in there are ones that are
> built there, and then the Soviets/Russians have to re-classify them to get
> them out.
>
> The real problem is when the Navy lost medium attack aviation. It is only
> sheer dumb luck that precision ordnance reached the effectiveness it did
> when all we had left were Hornets.
>
> *I retain the term from the "almost 600-ship" heyday.
>
>> Which speaks back to the traditional (until recently..) question asked
>> by
>> US leaders...âÂÂwhere are the carrierâÂÂs..?âÂÂ
>> Why a Group isnâÂÂt forward deployed to the Black Sea, particularly
>> given
>> the Georgia history lesson, says more about the current state of
>> âÂÂWestern WillâÂÂ, as lead by the US, than any other action.
>>
>> The challenges of such a âÂÂforwardâ deployment are huge, as is
>> the
>> risk, but the consequences of action against the Group, even more so. An
>> interesting gaming model, IâÂÂm thinking...
>>
>> From: Tim O'Reilly
>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 4:14 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Ukraine
>>
>>
>>
>> the Abrams/Bradley/Apache are effective yes, but they have to have some
>> things going for them which I think no longer exist from before the 1989
>> demolishing of the Wall.
>> First, they are not on the ground in force there is no longer a REFORGER
>> possibility with pre-positioned stocks and vehicles.
>> Second builds from that - the ability to deploy the vehicles, troops,
>> munitions, etc. is now at least as vulnerable as it was then, and
>> perhaps
>> more so. Russian subs and long range bombers would have field days with
>> little/no opposition from us. Yes our subs are capable, but finite and I
>> expect Russian hunter-killers to make some inroads on us. It'd be worse
>> for the USAF and Navy Air as they'd be stretched to the limit on range
>> and
>> you-name it. Much as it pains me, we do not have front line aircraft. If
>> the Russians have built up their what is it now 5th generation(?)
>> fighter
>> fleet, we'd be in a world of hurt.
>> The political situation, third, makes me even more cautious. More than
>> the apparent incompetence of BHO, its the leaked conversation he had
>> with
>> Putin back before the last election where he reportedly said something
>> along the lines of, "Not yet, I have to win the next election first..."
>> If it is true that amateurs study tactics and professionals study
>> logistics, can something be said about politicians taking/studying the
>> long view? Americans in particular have a very short attention span both
>> for history, and for the future. So, what are or what have we been
>> missing? (Thinking back to August 2008 and the very short war between
>> Georgia and Russia - what is the bear after this time?)
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:04 PM, ""
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where Striker II and Command Decision "fail" is that they are all about
>> detailed equipment-centric ground engagements with air as abstract
>> supporting events, rather than air and ground operating together in a
>> continuous tissue. In other words, they are a game about a different
>> level
>> of examination. A game that captured the whole operational tissue would
>> not be about detailed vehicle design and performance.
>>
>> A few days ago when I first heard a report on Ukraine mention, "ethnic
>> Russians," my mind immediately flashed to a National Lampoon comic strip
>> from 1979/80. It's a picture of the Kremlin with the phone ringing, and
>> then word bubbles: "What the? It's Afghanistan calling, and they need
>> our
>> help!" Deja vu all over again, this time with a warm-water port directly
>> involved, instead of just domino-wise.
>>
>> > With a decade of tanking, and knowing the T90 derived from the
>> "quantity"
>> > T62-T72 lineage ad opposed to the "quality" lineage of T64 - T80 which
>> > died
>> > out due to economic reasons, I think US armor would annihilate
>> Russians,
>> > even without complete combined arms supremacy (which I would also
>> expect).
>> >
>> > Of course, before the Abrams/Bradley/Apache were fielded, I would have
>> > given the edge to Warsaw Pact in retrospect, particularly in a Fulda
>> Gap
>> > scenario, though NATO should have maintained naval and air dominance
>> to
>> > make it really interesting. Do you think Striker II models pretty
>> > decently?
>> >
>> > Paranoid Soviet logistics would stink almost as bad Western political
>> > backbone, though so interesting to see which side would throw away
>> their
>> > advantage first, but most war games don't assume political/strategic
>> > ineptitude.
>> >
>> > As far as Ukraine, it echoes said political ineptitude more than
>> anything
>> > from my perspective.
>> >
>> > - Sent from my SM-N900T
>> > On Mar 2, 2014 2:36 PM, <> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Because of the way that TNE was always related to Twilight:2000,
>> >> indirectly through 2300, the one-time "New Traveller," as well as
>> >> directly
>> >> through the "House Rules," not to mention that we were doing them at
>> the
>> >> same time, I can't help looking at the current Ukraine situation as a
>> >> possible point of departure for the Twilight War for someone who
>> wanted
>> >> to
>> >> graft it onto more recent history. Obviously not as directly relevant
>> as
>> >> the Yeltsin moment Frank chose for T2KV2.2, but similar enough that
>> it
>> >> reminds me of it. This one would have to be dressed and fluffed up a
>> lot
>> >> more, and would never approach the Reagan-era zeitgeist of original
>> T2K,
>> >> but it is the first thing in a while that has even reminded me of
>> T2K.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>