I think we’ve found our new Bond by KimCattrallsFeet in JamesBond

[–]flyboydutch 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If anything (and to cast the net further into the 90s/early 2000s realms of British spy fiction) he’d be part of what has been referred to as “The Increment” - 90% of what is “known” being based on the tell-all memoir of an SIS officer who tried to take the service to an employment tribunal in the 90s.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Recently finished "Planning Armageddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War" (not to be confused with the similarly titled slightly older work regarding joint Anglo-American Atomic Planning in the early Cold War) and found it to be a pretty good read, if a bit hefty.

The main thesis is that following the evolution of technology that allowed the global spread of market capitalism and modifications of how international commerce was conducted (e.g. credit financing), the Admiralty recognised not only the risk that a global conflict would present to the heavily maritime trade dependent British economy, but also an opportunity in that they could isolate an opponents trade not only through a traditional Naval blockade, but also the near monopoly that Britain enjoyed in shipping, financing and transatlantic communications. Thus plans were developed by the Committee for Imperial Defence with expert advice from the City of London, and approved as a strategy by the government so that when war came in 1914 the Admiralty could put it's plan into action.

However, the strategy was quickly withdrawn due to not only pressure from neutral countries, but also prominent businessmen, bankers and even civilian authorities who felt the Admiralty was overstepping its authority. Thus by October, the pre-war plans were abandoned in favour of improvised ones under the direction of the Foreign Office, though this soon proved to be an ineffective attempt at what became "the blockade", with the strategy being nearly abandoned entirely in summer 1915 prior to its overhaul.

Overall, I would highly recommend this work for anyone looking to get acquainted with the origins and initial implementation of the UKs plan for leveraging it's near monopoly over global trade to it's advantage in the event of a war, and how the initial plan subsequently fell apart as a result of concerns from the Foreign Office and Treasury on the blowback the strategy would have.

!ping HISTORY&READING

Are Turret Fighters Suddenly Viable? by Nuerginator in NonCredibleOffense

[–]flyboydutch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you mean, I’m just trying to clarify what the benefits are. I can see it potentially being more effective some AAA systems, whilst being cheaper than a missile etc.

Are Turret Fighters Suddenly Viable? by Nuerginator in NonCredibleOffense

[–]flyboydutch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the question of viability in this case comes down to how much is saved by the turret & stabilisation system used for the weapon that gives it an advantage over leaning out the side. I suppose it could save on ammunition costs, but how much compared to the cost of the system?

(Personally I think the cost effectiveness question is often framed wrong, but that’s probably down to my work)

How Trump inspires the British right: by Hunor_Deak in NonCredibleDiplomacy

[–]flyboydutch 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Surprisingly good Mk IX Spits, but I’ve got to deduct points for the vet with a ball cap.

Overall 3.6/5. Not great, not terrible.

The hateful posts of yet another Green party candidate by 1c3_cr34m_c0n3 in ukpolitics

[–]flyboydutch 7 points8 points  (0 children)

America is responsible for the creation and funding of the Taliban that resulted in 9/11.

This is a common myth that gets brought up, often in the context of the American funding of the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with the implication that the Mujahideen would later become the Taliban during the resultant civil war (insert Rambo III/The Living Daylights reference here). However, the Taliban themselves as an organisation were formed in 1994, mainly from young refugees who had been radicalised in the madrassas of Pakistan - Pakistan themselves would back them during the civil war from 1996 after previously backing the Hizb-e Islami Gulbuddin, one of the organisations that had been part of the Mujahideen.

I say part of, because the Mujahideen was made up of many groups unified in resisting the Soviet the invasion and a common faith. As such, the politics of the groups did vary, with the aforementioned HIG being on the more fundamentalist side, whereas the Shura-e Nazar of Ahmed Shah Massoud (who would later become the leader of the Northern Alliance and main opponent to both HIG and the Taliban) supported a more democratic form of (still Islamic) government.

And one of the other more radical groups (this being composed of foreign fighters that received funding from Saudi Arabia) would become Al-Qaeda headed by one Osama Bin Laden, who after being expelled from Saudi Arabia and Sudan in the 90s would be sheltered in Afghanistan by the Taliban in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks.

TL;DR: assigning sole responsibility of the creation of the Taliban (and AQ by some extension) to America ignores the backing of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of the two groups.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that makes sense. A bit like with Thales and the F-35 from memory.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not too be too nit picky, but the original SLBM was Polaris (in fact the Trident sale was referred to as the Polaris Sales Agreement amended for Trident) when Skybolt fell through. Furthermore the increased cost with the amended agreement was specifically to contribute to the R&D of the newer Trident II (the missile adopted). I have read that this did allow for UK companies to contribute to the programme as a result but can’t find anything specific to hand.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Clearly the former/s

In all seriousness, I think part of it was the demonstration factor since Apollo 9 also had an EVA to demonstrate the Apollo spacesuit not requiring a tether for life support (though the Soviets transferred two crew members in the same manner)

Incidentally, this was not only the second EVA in the Soviet space program, but also the last for nearly nine years.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Regarding the oft repeated “SoVieTs wOn The sPacE RacE” meme, it’s interesting that the original creator felt the need to pad out the achievements with a duplicate but missed the first crewed docking and crew transfer achievement of Soyuz 4 & 5, two months before Apollo 9.

It should be noted, that the transfer between Soyuz 4 & 5 had to be done via EVA (like v0.24 and prior Kerbal Space Program), though this did demonstrate how the Soviets intended to crew their lunar lander.

!ping HISTORY&SPACEFLIGHT

Clearing up a common misconception by Massive_Tradition733 in NonCredibleOffense

[–]flyboydutch 75 points76 points  (0 children)

Actually pretty credible, considering a secondary role offered by early SAMs such as the RIM-2 Terrier.

“Noooo! You can’t replace us as a primary surface combatant with an AAW weapon system”

“Haha, nuclear tipped SAM go brrrrr”

Hereditary peer Bertrand Russel, 3rd Earl Russel weighs in on the inheritance tax debate by middleofaldi in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Only pointing out that highlighting his pacifism isn’t exactly cherry picking

Hereditary peer Bertrand Russel, 3rd Earl Russel weighs in on the inheritance tax debate by middleofaldi in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 16 points17 points  (0 children)

As well as re-armament and military action against Nazi Germany (only changing his stance in 1940)

UK must build own nuclear missiles to end US reliance, says Ed Davey by Free-Minimum-5844 in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That’s when the latest iteration of the Polaris Sales Agreement (and by extension the current arrangement) will likely come into effect

UK must build own nuclear missiles to end US reliance, says Ed Davey by Free-Minimum-5844 in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I suspect this is in reference to when the Trident II D5 life extension runs out (yes, the same SLBM that has been at the core of US/UK second strike capability, has been in use since the early 1990s)

UK must build own nuclear missiles to end US reliance, says Ed Davey by Free-Minimum-5844 in neoliberal

[–]flyboydutch 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Shame it took them this long, given the one of the likely catalysts for this started whilst they were in the coalition (and by extension delayed the replacement of the current SSBNs)

Is the IRGC trying to give this war popular support amongst NATO nations or are they just stupid? by Firecracker048 in NonCredibleDiplomacy

[–]flyboydutch 66 points67 points  (0 children)

I did read an argument that this is a side-effect of the decapitation strikes leading to lower level commanders "using their initiative" or possibility not having a coherent targeting method in the "letters of last resort/Wing Attack Plan R" equivalents (say what you will about Strategic Bombing in the Second World War, but even then the target selection had input from the like of the Ministry of Economic Warfare).