I will say this for Kerry: He is the guy going there, he is the guy
attempting to do "something," and he is the guy, on his return, who will
be vilified by 51%+ of those with pens, voices, and keyboards.
> 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...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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
attempting to do "something," and he is the guy, on his return, who will
be vilified by 51%+ of those with pens, voices, and keyboards.
> 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...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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>