phdhorn

Good news, the severe area has moved even more east, about 1/2 of Travis County not even in it anymore. That said, severe areas are like impressionistic paintings... foggy and blurry but colorful. We'll see. Rain still in the picture, but I doubt much more than a heavy dew.

LOL just watch Mad Vlad at his "rally" badly misquoting John 15:13, " Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." ...So? Put up or shut up, dipshit.

I think he was comparing current Russian soldiers to lawyers - 5,000 in a burial pit is a good start. (ok,ok, joke, sheesh!)

Just heard Ret. Gen Jack Keane (who is for me the absolute best analyst in the universe on military stuff/this thing) say that he expects a little more Russian success for a few reasons. All of their offenses have been stopped and Ukraine has done a mutherfuggin' brilliant job of cutting supply lines etc. But he says that the best-led and equipped Russian troops and hardware are making their way from Moscow (they're so good they defend the city) into Belarus and the border to start ramping up the offensive again, and this time it might be more difficult for Ukraine to stop. They've also been shelling pretty heavily in the west near Lviv where Ukrainian jet repair/maintenance facilities are - if they can't knock 'em all down they'll try to mess up their ability to regroup. He expects a pretty savage movement within the next few days. Plus if Mariupol falls, which is most likely, the land bridge to the Crimea and the naval strength is bridged, essentially giving the eastern sliver of Ukraine to Russia. One strength Russia does have is that they have a pinpoint view of the entire sky as their sophisticated equipment/tech for their radar/air geo of course is back in Russia. He expects the fighting to escalate esp. if Ukraine gets resupplied with missles and the like. Doesn't sound hopeful, but looks like now's the time to go full throat to Moscow if their elite forces have to be peeled off to supplement their septic tank of a military operation so far.

I watched the replay. For a bit a little closer than I thought, but after about 250Y Thomas was at least a body length or more in front, and widened the lead. It was over after the first 100 yards (shocker). The 500 is just above a sprint, so you'd certainly expect at least 2 swimmers to be neck/neck, and the winners within a body length of each other at most. Not even close, and of course completely expected for anyone who's followed this. Here's just before the finish - Thomas is in red circle, Emma Weyant (2nd) in blue, and Erica Sullivan (3rd) in yellow. As you can see, it was 1 1/2 body lengths at best. You also have to wonder how Weyant and Sullivan approached this, knowing they were absolutely going to get their clocks cleaned unless Thomas suffers a heart attack or something midway through. You have GOT to be "fuck this shit" to some degree. Neither of them sure looked very happy on the podium, did they? I don't think any reasonable person would say Thomas should never get the chance to compete for medals/championships, but it shouldn't be this. I suppose I don't think she should pull herself from competition - she can only swim in what's available. But anyone who thinks that this is anywhere near a fair thing should have their head examined. Someone had better figure this shit out or else it'll be a clown show.

We should get at least a squall line with Monday. NE of us (say from N Williamson County E and N into NE Texas), first time ever SPC initiated a "30% or greater" ("Enhanced" in common parlance) risk for this early in the season anywhere in Texas. I think their weather is gonna be fairly bad. Right now we're in "slight" risk. "Enhanced" means if you live in a spot, severe weather is almost certain to occur within a 25 mile radius. "Slight" means within 50 miles. ("High", the highest category, is almost never issued, and if it is, kiss your house and ass goodbye). Hopefully that "enhanced" line doesn't creep SW ward. Otherwise, best chance since... uh... the last time it rained a lot which I think was about a month ago. Next Mon. into Tues. is gonna be an asscheek sweater, so I'll keep an eye on it.

I've been holding onto this article for a week after I found it. Depressing read. Basically, we're fooked if Rooskia pops off their nukes - our defense systems are next to nonexistent to protect us. Nothing new here, but it pretty much lends credence to the fact that a good chunk of us will be wiped out, most likely. I've seen some posts on here in various threads that allege that "it would be difficult" for nukes to cause a lot of damage here or whatnot, but I vehemently disagree - which is why we have to cowtow to that Neanderthal in Moscow. Anyway, you decide for yerself. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/12/nation/after-four-decades-200-billion-us-missile-defense-system-is-no-match-russian-nuclear-attack/?outputType=amp&fr=operanews After four decades and $200 billion, the US missile defense system is no match for a Russian nuclear attack By Jim Puzzanghera Globe Staff,Updated March 12, 2022, 2:42 p.m. WASHINGTON — With fears running high about a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union in 1983, President Ronald Reagan pitched an idea that seemed to come straight from his years as a Hollywood actor. “What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?” he asked in a prime-time address that featured aerial photos of Soviet aircraft and military hardware in Cuba and Nicaragua. Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was derided by critics as “Star Wars.” But building off technological advances, the US military has spent more than $200 billion in the nearly four decades since working to make that science fiction a reality. Now, after Russian President Vladimir Putin placed his vast nuclear arsenal on high alert following his invasion of Ukraine, Americans might be wondering what kind of missile defense shield all that money and effort has produced. The answer, experts said, is not a very effective one. The US only has a limited ability to destroy an incoming nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, a study released last month by the American Physical Society concluded. It said that “the current capabilities are low and will likely continue to be low for the next 15 years” to protect the US against a strike from North Korea, which has an estimated 20 nuclear warheads and relatively unsophisticated missiles. The Pentagon disputes the findings and says the most recent tests show the system can handle a North Korean attack. But the ability to defend against an attack by Russia, which is estimated to have nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads and highly sophisticated missile technology, is practically nonexistent. The US system is no match against a large number of incoming missiles — precisely the kind of attack that Russia would launch, experts said. “This idea of an impenetrable shield against an enormous arsenal of Russian missiles is just a fantasy,” said Laura Grego, a fellow at MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy who co-chaired the American Physical Society team that wrote the report. “It’s too hard to do.” It’s so difficult that the US intentionally hasn’t even tried. Official Pentagon policy states that its system is only designed to protect the nation from nuclear missiles fired by a rogue state like North Korea. For a military superpower like Russia, the US depends on its own vast nuclear arsenal of about 5,400 warheads as a deterrent. It’s a doctrine known to those who grew up during the Cold War as mutual assured destruction or MAD — any nuclear attack on the US would result in a counterstrike that would annihilate both countries. “The United States relies on nuclear deterrence to address the large and more sophisticated Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities,” according to the Defense Department’s most recent Missile Defense Review. That’s probably surprising, and frightening, to many people, experts said. “It’s fundamentally uncomfortable, this idea that we let the other guy have the ability to take us out and we expect the other guy to let us have the ability to do that, and we’re both going to stay rational and neither of us is going to cause the other to act on it,” said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C., think tank. Analysts have raised concerns that Putin has not been acting rational in his attack on Ukraine and in statements like the one he made when launching the invasion. “Anyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history,” he said in a televised speech. A few days later, he announced Russia’s nuclear forces had been placed in “special combat readiness.” The US downplayed the move and gave no indication it changed its own nuclear readiness level, known by another frightening Cold War-era acronym called DEFCON. Panda said many Americans don’t realize the US has little protection against a nuclear attack. “I’ve seen it on my Twitter mentions,” he said. “I’ve been critical of setting up a no-fly zone partially on the basis of escalation risks and people reply, ‘Well, let the Russians try to nuke us. We have a missile shield, we’ll be fine.’ It’s just a very pervasive misunderstanding.” The US must depend on nuclear deterrence because the arithmetic of our limited missile defense system and Russia’s massive arsenal doesn’t add up, said Robert Soofer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy during the Trump administration. Russia can overwhelm the US system by launching many more nuclear missiles than it could possibly knock out with its small squadron of ground-based interceptors. “There are ways that Russia can strike the United States that really makes the GBI system virtually useless,” said Soofer, a nonresident senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “If Russia wants to penetrate US missile defenses, they can.” The main missile defense system protecting the United States was developed after President George W. Bush pulled the nation out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty it had signed with the Soviet Union. The move came shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks amid heightened concern about a nuclear attack from a rogue state like North Korea and freed the US from restrictions on deploying a national missile defense system. In a rushed effort completed by 2004, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system began with 30 interceptor missiles in underground silos: 26 at Fort Greely in Alaska and four more at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Guided by radar and satellite sensors, they’re designed to pursue an enemy missile into space. There, they release a “kill vehicle” to intercept and destroy the nuclear warhead above the atmosphere after it separates from the incoming missile. The Obama administration added 14 more interceptor missiles at Fort Greely in 2017. Two years later the Trump administration started the process of adding 20 more missiles there with upgraded technology and the first are scheduled to be deployed by 2028. The US has been testing elements of the system over the Pacific Ocean since 1999 with mixed results. Of the 19 attempts to destroy the target, 11 have been successful, including the two most recent ones in 2017 and 2019 that were conducted against realistic intercontinental ballistic missile targets, according to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency. “The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat,” Air Force Lieutenant General Samuel A. Greaves, then the agency’s director, said in a statement after the test. That threat is rising. North Korea in recent days has conducted two tests of a new intercontinental ballistic missile, the White House said Thursday. But Russian nuclear missiles are more sophisticated than those from North Korea, Soofer said. So the US would need to fire multiple interceptors at an incoming Russian missile to destroy its warheads, and the system could quickly get overwhelmed. “At some point, we’re not going to be able to handle the Russian threat,” he said. “If there’s an unauthorized launch, an accidental launch, and it’s one or two missiles, I hope we can do something against it. But that’s not the way the Russians are going to operate. They’re not going to just launch one nuclear missile against the United States.” To supplement the ground-based interceptors, the US has other ballistic missile defense systems designed to protect smaller areas. One is the Aegis system, which can fire missiles from Navy ships or land-based launchers to target short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Two others are the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, mobile ground-based systems. “If the Russians were to launch a modest attack against regional targets, we have some capacity for intercepting and defeating those attacks,” said Loren Thompson, a longtime defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “We have some reasonable prospects of intercepting nuclear attacks using shorter range missiles, but when it comes to long-range missiles with which Russia could attack America, we have virtually no defense.” The US has two Aegis missile defense sites in NATO nations, one in Romania and another in Poland that the Pentagon expects to be operational by the end of this year. The US has said they’re designed to protect Europe against a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran and pose no threat to Russia. But the presence of those US facilities near Russia’s border has angered Putin, who has said they could be used to launch offensive missiles at Russia. It’s a continuation of his displeasure with the US for its missile defense efforts, starting with his objection to the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In a 2018 speech, Putin said Russia was developing new nuclear weapons designed to evade US missile defenses. Arms control advocates said that’s a downside of the US missile defense effort — it leads Russia and China to try to upgrade their nuclear weapons. “We sort of end up with the worst of both worlds, where the American taxpayer ponies up for tens of billions of spending on a homeland missile defense system that doesn’t really work that well and causes Russia and China to take steps that further deteriorate our own security,” Panda said. Despite the limited capabilities of the missile defense system to protect the US, Soofer said it’s still an important part of our national defense. “The only rational reason for Russia or China to attack us with nuclear weapons is if they thought they could disarm us and keep us from retaliating,” he said. “If we have missile defenses, even if they’re not 100 percent effective, they still don’t know how many of their missiles are going to get through. You complicate their attack and then you enhance deterrence.” Despite Putin’s threats, Soofer said there is little appetite in Washington for a costly expansion of the US missile defense system to be able to repel a Russian attack. Such a system probably would require space-based interceptors — Reagan’s original idea that proved infeasible in the 1980s and a concept that Soofer described as “the third rail of missile defense politics on Capitol Hill because nobody wants to supposedly militarize the heavens.” But Grego said a spaced-based system remains infeasible today, potentially requiring thousands of interceptors because of the complications of orbits and the Earth’s rotation. “Even if you had a Death Star, you need lots of Death Stars,” she said, harkening back to “Star Wars.” “For strategic missile defense, which is defending the US homeland from Russian missiles, it isn’t really a political decision. Physics has done that for you. It’s just too hard. You’re not going to do it.”

Oops yeah I got confused, thought the House passed it. But my scuttlebutt is that they will. Thx for the update.

Senate just approved it. I guess Biden needs to sign it. Great, now we throw a rip in the time-space continuum. Yeah I know that movie takes a beating from critics, but I think it's one of his better ones. And even if not, where do you think the guys got the inspiration for this?

13 posts in and no one has has made a funny on the name "Fukushima?" Make that yet another thing in 2022 to be depressed about.

interesting article from Washingtonian Magazine (a good monthly for D.C. sort of akin to Texas Monthly) on how they tried to DST us permanently in the 70's and it was immensely unpopular (also if you don't remember we actually had 2 years in the 70's when DST was year-round): https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/03/15/the-us-tried-permanent-daylight-saving-time-in-the-70s-people-hated-it/ tl;dr: 1) Data iffy, but perception was that kids were being mowed down by drivers in the dark mornings. 2) Public loved the idea of year-round DST (79%), but three months into it, once they actually had to do it, cratered to 42%. As for me, don't much care. Change it, don't, whatever.

Poopy chance of rain as a cold front, er wind shift, comes in Thursday. Pretty good chance of rain Monday - first severe outlook of the season. Stay tuned if it gets significant. At this point nothing terrorizing, but it is March and here we go.

Well, no problem, was sort of posting more as a uniform statement, not to you... unfortunately the "quote" feature often reads like "stick it up your ass" and of course none intended. Carry on. Let me check on the clima... er.. weather this week. (Hint: another chance of rain that is gonna fall flat I think Thursday).

No, weather is a 1-30 day blob. Climate is a (whatever). Weather is not climate. Like this rain thread is weather, not climate. The End.

Well not really natural causes... prostate cancer metastasized in his bones. The PR said it and it's "natural" I guess (lots of people end their natural lives due to cancer) but at 71, definitely premature. He did work right up to about six months before his death, quite a trooper. Makes his role in "The Doctor" pretty ironic - see it if you haven't. Good stuff (Elizabeth Perkins was superb). RIP.

Yes but what a way to go. I love that shit. Thankfully I have the discipline to only eat it about twice a year.

This is a relatively long article on how the Poland/MIG/F-16 deal fell through, but well-written: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/10/poland-fighter-jet-deal-ukraine-russia-00016038 sorta tl;/dr: 1) Ukraine pleading for more aircraft 2) Negotiations began between Poles (when they offered a deal) and a few other NATO countries. 3) But, EU foreign affairs sec./foreign policy chief Josep Borrell opened mouth 2/28 and said, "we got us a DEAL here." But it wasn't yet.** 4) Ukraine ran with it, partly out of hope, partly "cat's outta the bag" pressure to provide. 5) Poland, Slovakia and Romania (all sources for the MIG's) knocked it down and cited that they won't enter Ukrainian airspace to deliver them 3/2. 6) Enter U.S. with that complex "MIG's to Ukraine, F-16's to Poland" potential deal 3/3. 7) Deal seemed to have legs, but then quickly halted, mostly due to U.S. military experts' fears. (F-16's WAY too high-tech even for Poland and they didn't want them having that tech so close to Russia, plus the biggie - supplying a NATO country with these to be taken into Ukraine = ramping up to war.) 8 ) U.S. tells Poland though, go ahead and send MIGS if u want... however the F-16's we'll give you will take months to deliver (needs a lot of vetting). 9) Poland a bit irritated, then offered the 28 MIG's to Rammstein, where Ukrainian pilots would travel, pick up, and fly into Ukraine. 10) U.S. caught by surprise for that, still said too much U.S. involvement (use of U.S. base) = ramping up, plus Scholz said, "no, not in Germany you won't"). 11) U.S. military experts said nix it, Poles were out of order, and it's too much of an escalation. Encouraged Poles to deliver as they might/could. 12) Tensions got a little tense, Harris sent over to kind of smooth things out. ** It's worth noting that a deal might have been doable in secret ("how did those MIG's get there?") if Borrell didn't shoot his mouth off too quickly.

In Austin suburbs within 20 miles (which is most of us in ATX area): Sat. - about 4 a.m. - 9 a.m. or so Sun. - (most people won't freeze, but those who do...) about 5 a.m.- 9 a.m. I've had longer freezes where I didn't bother with pipes, and was fine, but I'm leaving town on Friday a.m. so I'll prep 'em just in case. Normally I'd probably just leave a faucet dripping and not even bother with wrapping, since Sat and Sun are going to be sunny - the sun will heat things up fast. Like I said, nuthin' much at all here.

More like a toot. Sat. dawn to about Sat. noon. Then for some in suburbs/hill country, Sun. about the same (city should be > freezing). Then poof. Friday into Saturday will be cold, but nothing like even the colder blasts this year. It'll be a "calm cold", that is clearing overnight Sat. and no precip, Sat will be sunny and almost 60°. About 70° Sun., and off into the 70's all next week. Frankly, this is nuthin'.

Good point on the bolded. I had wanted to post that at some point during this thread and kept forgetting. Russia has an overwhelming superiority of tactical nukes.

You seem to have an edited copy. Here's the original:

Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Commander of NATO, was just on and he said the exact same things as Petraeus. That while these Ukraine victories over Russia are welcome and wonderful things, in the long run it's actually what you said -that Russia's playbook is to grind it out and use their superior numbers while they turn a lot of Ukrainian cities into rubble. That's what's going to happen and I don't know the solution to stopping it except Rush's own complete collapse. However, if things go worse for Russia and Putin sees no other resort, he'll use nukes - it's hard coded into their strategy. And yes, I think their nukes are formidable. Because the generals and knowledge people I've read think they are. That with nukes, there's not a lot of room for ineptitude like the conventional war so far. My opinions aren't necessarily the generals', and like you I would love to see something done. But tese guys know far better than me what's happening and they're all saying these things to prevent worldwide calamity. This is a war unlike any in history, and over 80 years since a country as powerful has initiated aggression. The only thing I would add is I think it's pretty clear that if Putin directly tangles with a NATO country unprovoked, or attacks one, unfortunately it's on on a global scale and we're all in and I don't think there's much deliberation there and I think North Korea and China absolutely definitely know that and can see that, that's why China is being so guarded in their public statements. Nukes will be used, probably tactical and more locally destructive. This isn't about punishing Russia, this is about saving the world now, and involves the most nuclear-armed country on the planet. I certainly respect your opinion and many people feel that way, that we just can't stand back, but I also can see it being 20 times worse than it is now, affecting most of the planet once the buttons start getting pushed. It's not a good choice, I understand. For now I'll stick with the pain of having to restrain effective attacks and hopefully coming up with a strategy to get this done. I would not want to be a general right now. We've really never been this close to military-induced catastrophe. Certainly it's worth being careful before we take the leap. Once we take it, we will see nuclear war.

I just listened to Gen. Petraeus on Fox say throw out the history book an all analogies in the past, this one is different because of nuclear weapons. And he was talking specifically about not getting Putin backed into a corner so much that he uses n, because he will and it's not even a Putin thing, it's a Russian military playbook go-to procedure, and has been for decades. That makes it even easier for Putin to use it because it's not purely him but the policy. Not only would No Fly likely usher that in, but Petraeus was even talking like we can't completely annihilate Putin in Russia, but keep an opt-out strategy open for him, because he will absolutely use nukes when he feels he has no other option. Imagine the fun trying to walk that tightrope if you're a Western general.

Shackleton's story is maybe the most fantastic for human endurance I've ever come across. However, maybe it's not so epic... this is a picture of his wife: Nothing personal, but might explain why he was so desperate to repeatedly get to the farthest end of the earth away from civilization - at any cost.