Won't he require a top hat as well?
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 17:59, wrote:
>
> > 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...âwhere are the carrierâs..?â
> >> Why a Group isnât forward deployed to the Black Sea, particularly
> >> given
> >> the Georgia history lesson, says more about the current state of
> >> âWestern Willâ, as lead by the US, than any other action.
> >>
> >> The challenges of such a âforwardâ deployment are huge, as is
> >> the
> >> risk, but the consequences of action against the Group, even more so. An
> >> interesting gaming model, Iâm 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 17:59, wrote:
>
> > 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...âwhere are the carrierâs..?â
> >> Why a Group isnât forward deployed to the Black Sea, particularly
> >> given
> >> the Georgia history lesson, says more about the current state of
> >> âWestern Willâ, as lead by the US, than any other action.
> >>
> >> The challenges of such a âforwardâ deployment are huge, as is
> >> the
> >> risk, but the consequences of action against the Group, even more so. An
> >> interesting gaming model, Iâm 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>