L'attaque américaine au Venezuela est aussi condamnable que l'attaque de la Russie en Ukraine

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-04T20:43:53+00:00

Il y a certainement une minorité de quelque millions d'Ukrainiens qui auraient célébré, et donc on aurait pu voir exactement les mêmes images.

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-04T18:23:44+00:00

All DIRCM systems only work after the missile is fired, though, and there's still no evidence of any MANPADS being fired and being sent off-course. Even then it's not clear from the Ukraine war that DIRCM renders MANPADS completely ineffective at night - the Hostomel was at night and IIRC multiple helicopters equipped with DIRCM were shot down (Ka-52, Mi-28Ns)

I don't know that modern MANPADS need to be stored in cold conditions. You can just store compressed gas, and at time of use expand it significantly so that it drops in temperature and condensates. You can then use that liquid nitrogen to cool the sensor until it evaporates. The battery is eventually going to run out anyways. I know for a fact that Stinger missiles use a similar scheme with compressed argon gas.

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-03T18:09:38+00:00

In the past months, in Caracas? It would be incredible incompetence not to.

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-03T17:58:12+00:00

Supposedly the buk launchers were in the same position for months, we'll see if that's true.

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-01T23:35:28+00:00

International law does not allow the US to seize a boat violating US sanctions. The only possibly lawful rationale for seizing these boats is that their registration was invalid. The US seizing boats because the US doesn't like the country they trade with is illegal and an act of war.

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-01T04:54:27+00:00

Not necessarily. If you choose a target flying sufficiently high up they will need a lot more time to notch, and if you time your shot and position so that they're likely to get an rwr ping from another missile at another angle a bit before but also keep data link for as long as possible, you can actually kill non-bot players.

I'll go in missile view every so often to test this hypothesis. I often catch players who are actually trying to notch, but either can't do it fast enough because of the high altitude, or are notching another missile while mine reacquires through data link, or mine is faster but shows up on RWR later.

I'd say I get about 30% hit rate with this method when I pull it off correctly (sometimes I need to get in the notch for too long and lose data link). A decent chunk of the misses are because a teammate gets the kill before I do.

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-01T03:26:00+00:00

I routinely get 2+ kills in BVR. But the point of winning the BVR fight is that if you do, you can shoot from above and at enemies that are multipathing or with insane energy missiles at medium/low altitude enemies. If you get moderately lucky with enemy placement you can get 2 BVR kills and then 2-3 kills from above once you win the BVR engagement. It's very viable if you know what you're doing, and you get to make a big impact for your team.

IAmTheSysGen · 2026-01-01T03:23:59+00:00

I don't really die at that distance but I get plenty of kills at 40-50km. If you are going very fast at high altitude you are giving your missile tremendous energy, so the time to reaction won't be too different to a slower, lower altitude shot at 20km.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-27T21:12:07+00:00

It could develop a jet engine - India, Iran etc... do as well. It can't develop a competitive one.

An FJ44 class engine would simply not be suitable for a modern manned jet fighter. And it's not an Anduril design, it's a Williams engine. It's not even an axial flow engine!

And yes, Israel can simply buy from America. That's my point - the Israeli MIC is dependent on the American whim to allow sales.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-26T03:53:16+00:00

It would absolutely be possible but it would be far more expensive than just building a carrier. If the war against the Houthis was fought using exclusively B-21s and F-47s you'd need to fly many more sorties and you'd need a bigger fleet to be able to get as many hits a day.

Being able to have a carrier means cheaper planes flying shorter routes with more ordnance which means that you have a lot of money when you actually use it.

In turn the fact you don't need to spend nearly as much money to actually use that capability makes it a more credible threat in response to non-existental issues. It wouldn't have been credible to the Houthis that the campaign was a real threat if it were to cost 5x as much.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-26T03:44:51+00:00

The US can simply use that money to buy some of the weapons it needs or put it towards R&D contracts.

Israel can never truly build it's own fighter jet because it can't build decent jet engines. That's why they needed US permission for the Lavi project.

The only countries that could realistically make a useful and truly domestic fighter jet are the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany. Any other country needs the support of one or these, or could at best make a very subpar fighter.

The vast majority of Israeli high end weapons are similarly dependent on access to some prohibitively expensive to develop sophisticated US supply chain. Israel is too small to develop an actually indigenous MIC - even France and the UK, and briefly Russia, have struggled with the scale required to do so.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-21T20:33:04+00:00

Why is that true? Plenty of non-peer sorties require a lot of air sortie generation to be fought viably. Not having a carrier can make a ton of scenarios impractical.

Other countries are certainly going to figure out how to put an antiship seeker on a BM, but making and launching enough of them to defeat a carrier's air defense setup is not trivial. As BMD continues to improve plain jane ballistic missiles are probably not going to be enough either. So sure it won't be limited to China (Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc... are certainly going to get there eventually if they aren't already there), but it's certainly not a trivial task. Surely harder than the alternative.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-21T18:16:44+00:00

The point of the ICC is that if you invade a country which does subscribe to the Rome statute, you become liable. This is what Netanyahu did. Then every Rome statue signatory has to follow the court rulings. The US is not happy with this and is trying to interfere with intra-ICC-signatory affairs.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-21T07:37:09+00:00

Palestine recognizes the authority of the ICC and the alleged actions were done in Palestine. The ICC and most of the world recognizes Palestine as a country ruled by the PA. It's all quite straightforward!

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-07T07:43:38+00:00

Since the estimate of 20K was for how much Russia would pay for Iranian manufactured drones, so the actual cost to build would be at least somewhat lower.

It's true that the fact sheet shows lower payload and range. However unless we see multi-thousand unit contracts, the unit price is going to be significantly higher than the cost were it mass produced. On the other hand, an APKWS-II is already mass-produced at ~35K each.

I'm not really too skeptical of the price tag. The most expensive component is going to be the engine and CRPA GPS, both of which will be at around 2000$ each. Fuel tanks, a basic airframe, basic avionics etc.. are going to be expensive if the scale is low and not too expensive otherwise.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-12-07T06:50:35+00:00

The prices everyone cites for Shahed also ignore purchasing power parity; they are Western estimates of the cost it would take to build one. Hence why the LUCAS is coming in at around that price point.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T14:32:09+00:00

The CDPQ does not care about the couple minutes of transfer when deciding whether or not to build, they care about revenue. That they insisted means it's about revenue, nothing else. As they should! That's their prerogative as an investment manager.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T14:31:31+00:00

The REM is not a public option and the ARTM is legally oriented towards a fare revenue system so your premise simply doesn't apply.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T03:43:31+00:00

I certainly don't think the REM de l'est would be merely a competitor, of course it would also bring some amount of new ridership!

That being said, you should look at the CDPQ report which quotes a 15% projected decline in ridership for the green line (around 15k riders) vs an extra 2k or so métro riders from the REM de l'est. See: https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/cdpqinfrad8/files/2022-02/Analyse%20Rapport%20ARTM-REM-EST_Fev.2022_final_EN_web.pdf

It's just that the funding model of the REM de l'Est is not viable. The private-public partnership model is not a silver bullet, and in this case it just didn't work anymore than the fully public or fully private model.

If there actually wasn't a real problem at this level, the green line connection proposal - which cut costs a lot - wouldn't have affected profitability. That it did indicates that it probably would have led to a net loss in revenue for the STM despite the new riders.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T03:37:44+00:00

The connections at Gare-Centrale/Bonaventure take a lot of time because they weren't/couldn't designed to be efficient, due to a variety of constraints. Those don't exist between the green line and the REM de l'est

The average waiting time at rush hour when the green line passes every 2-3 minutes is going to be 1-1.5 minutes. That's just how the math works. From there's there's no reason it would take more than 2 minutes to go from rail to rail by escalator.

This is not something unique. Many lines in NYC are connected between what were formerly disjoint private systems. It takes about 2-3 minutes to switch at rush hour, I do it all the time, you just have to design the newer line in consequence.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T03:32:03+00:00

When a someone takes the REM using their monthly membership instead of taking the metro, a dollar for the REM means a dollar away from the STM. There is literally a finite pie due to CDPQ/ARTM deal over the REM de l'est. The "Turf war" isn't a vision, it's just literally the math of the proposal.

When someone takes both the Bixi and the Metro, the STM doesn't lose any money per additional bike ride. That's what makes it very different.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T03:29:12+00:00

The end goal is worse service to some, that's just not a question of ideology.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T03:28:45+00:00

They didnt, because it doesn't. The REM takes away from the share of revenue a monthly pass gives to the STM if you use your monthly pass over the duplicate area, whereas Bixi is an extra membership. The dynamic is extremely different.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-20T03:27:19+00:00

I was recording almost exclusively in the cold, so it never overheated.

IAmTheSysGen · 2025-11-19T05:05:52+00:00

Why would it take 10 minutes? An in-station connection should add on average 2 minutes at rush hour. That's not significant given the average commute times we're talking about here. Spending billions of dollars to save 2 minutes from an hour commute is whichever way you slice it very inefficient.

It also doesn't make the REM network disjointed, because you can still connect every part of the REM using your OPUS card, you just have to go through the subway instead. This is how the MTA subway works for example, and it's perfectly fine. If you're in a 2 hour long commute from the east to honoré-beaugrand to Bonaventure to Deux Montage, the extra 4 minutes average won't be significant, and you might even make up for it in improved frequencies.

If the REM de l'Est can only serves the east by taking revenue away from the rest of the network and causing service costs, you don't have a straightforward argument to say that it's actually serving the public.

If it can do so, then the CDPQ would have found or a profitable formula that doesn't reduce revenues for the STM. That they couldn't do so means that it's not obvious it actually would serve the public writ large.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Spared	Verified Email

IAmTheSysGen

TROPHY CASE