thebestaquaman

Honestly, I've read a psychological study on this that basically concluded the it should be called "dadsplaining" because it's based in a natural instinct of wanting to explain things to help your kids grow.

That's a lot like how other NATO countries operate as well. But my impression was that the American national guard units were professional full-time units, is that not the case?

Out Norwegian equivalent (the Home Guard) consists of civilians (i.e. people with normal jobs) that train a number of times a year, some of which have their equipment at home so that they're ready to deploy on short notice. They have some coordinated training with the army, and are intended to function as a kind of "local force" in their region, with in-depth knowledge about local conditions that the ordinary army doesn't have.

I can't speak for everyone, but I believe the peace time professional militaries of most democratic European countries would be dwarfed by the number of people those countries would be able to mobilise in a war time situation.

In the case of Norway, we have a standing army of some 20-30 k soldiers, with a reserve (i.e. peace time civilians with ordinary jobs that have pre-set places to meet up in the case of a conflict) of some 50-70 k soldiers. If shit hits the fan, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get another 100-200 k to volunteer (at the peak of the cold war I believe we had standing army + reserve of some 500 k). The issue is that we are nowhere close to being able to equip that many soldiers.

That's just Norway, one of the smallest populations in Europe, and we would likely be able to field 100 k + soldiers within a week or two, with another 100 k following up in the next months, given that we have the equipment for it.

Call me naive, but I honestly believe that people in democratic countries would be willing to enlist if there is a real threat of an autocratic regime invading at taking over. Given that we have sufficient numbers of well trained soldiers to hold out the initial weeks/months and train those mobilised, and sufficient equipment to give the mobilised, I hope that we would be able to put a solid force on its feet relatively quickly.

Also, just the sheer population of Europe (≈ 450 million in the EU) is so much larger that e.g. Russia (≈ 150 million) that we should collectively be able to field several million soldiers as long as we have enough equipment for it, and enough trained personell to train the mobilised. So I definitely think it's reasonable to focus on building equipment stockpiles in peace time, rather than having huge standing armies.

At some point it looks like the road will become so congested that it becomes an issue in itself. I've heard that the Russians deploy very few recovery vehicles, so blowing up a couple more tanks on that road could actually cause a problem for them. With the (very delayed) mud season coming they can't go off road to get around either.

That's not even mentioning the morale hit it must be to constantly be driving through absolutely wrecked convoys like this on the way to the line.

Keep it up Ukraine! And get your ass moving on more supplies Europe!

I used Iran as an example because they specifically have a religious leadership that uses exactly the Quran to justify their laws.

There are plenty of non-Muslim Iranians that have burned Qurans in anti-regime protests, specifically to separate the religious regime (symbolised by the Quran in that context) from the country and its culture as a whole. That is: They are specifically protesting the religious regime, and therefore don't burn the flag, which they don't associate with the regime.

I would elaborate a bit more, and I think you have a good analogy with "burning a cross in a black family's yard".

Just like burning a cross to protest the church is different from burning it in someone's yard to threaten them, burning a Quran in the context of protesting against (for example) the Iranian regime is different from burning the same Quran while simultaneously encouraging violence towards Muslims.

If my understanding is correct he isn't being punished for the Quran burning alone. It's what he's been saying while also burning the Quran.

A more similar example would be burning a flag while saying something along the lines of "All immigrants from X country are terrible people and we should use all possible means to force them out of the country", with a strong "won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest" connotation.

Essentially, burning a symbol would be ok in an isolated sense. Inciting hatred and violence, and using the burning of symbols to aid you in delivering that message is not.

That's just not how they're using drones. They have specialised drone units, as well as drone operators that are attached to ordinary infantry units. If every guy in your unit is operating a drone, you're ridiculously vulnerable to people advancing on your position, if only because a drone, while being accurate, has a stupidly low "rate of fire". See my other comment on suppressing an enemy.

If a couple dozen soldiers with or without armoured vehicles are advancing on your position, you need a certain rate of fire to keep them pinned down to prevent them from advancing. One drone hitting that group every 30 seconds does far less of a job in that regard than a single MG sending out bursts every two seconds. Of course, once you've pinned down the advancing enemy, drones are great, but you can't get away from small arms being essential in combat situations where distances are < 400 m, which is a lot of them.

Even in WWII, most soldiers didn't usually see the enemy they were firing at with small arms. Even if your sentiment that small arms combat is a negligible part of modern warfare was correct (which it isn't), this comment would still be wrong.

Yes, most casualties are not caused by small arms but by artillery. That doesn't means small arms are useless, they just fill a completely different role.

When fighting with small arms, the major goal is fire superiority, which essentially means firing more bullets in the general direction of your enemy than what they fire back. You will generally be firing at either known enemy locations ("A guy is in that building, let's shoot at the building.") or suspected enemy locations ("There might be a guy behind that bush"). This prevents the enemy from popping out and shooting at you so you can manoeuvre on them and use grenades or call in artillery or mortar fire. Sometimes you will hit people as well, because you are shooting at places it's likely that they are (the guy in the building eventually gets hit if enough people shoot enough shots at the building). Very rarely will you see an exposed person that you shoot and observably hit.

Ok, I've done some double checking: The Bantu expansion is approximately what I thought it was. I believe the language group I was thinking about that survived the Bantu expansion was the Khoisan.

My (very coarse) knowledge of this comes from a mixture of reading Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) and from following it up with some Wikipedia. In short: The genetic makeup in a lot of the world is relatively dominated by the groups that were the first to adopt agriculture in their respective regions. Before the Bantu expansion, phenotypes south of Sahara were more varied, just like the phenotypes in the Americas were more varied before the corresponding "European expansion", or the equivalent expansion that happened in South-East Asia (I don't remember which society stood behind that one).

According to Diamond, we can trace a lot of (most?) surviving human phenotypes and languages back to relatively few societies, which after adopting agriculture, more or less wiped out / displaced neighbouring cultures due to increased resistance to a lot of infectious diseases and massively increased food production / need for land. This mostly happened less than 10 000 years ago, i.e. far too recently for natural selection to have a major impact on things like skin colour, hair type, height, facial features, etc. afterwards.

So: While major trends in phenotypes are of course a result of natural selection / evolutionary pressure in specific regions (resistance to skin cancer / sunburn vs. vitamin D production, or cooling down more efficiently with a wider nose vs. retaining heat with a slimmer one, or having an eye-shape that lets in more light vs. provides more shade), a lot of what we see today is simply a result of what phenotype the first group a given region that adopted agriculture had. This means that looking at the dominant phenotype in a region today will not necessarily give a good impression of what phenotype that is "optimally designed" to survive in the conditions of that region.

I seem to remember that the majority traits south of Sahara (black/very dark skin, and curly hair) can be traced back to something called the "great Bantu expansion", which was essentially the result of a group of people with these traits developing agriculture and wiping out most other peoples south of Sahara, much like the Europeans did to the Americas.

Some cultures south of Sahara did survive, which can be seen both genetically, and in some languages that are completely from other languages in the area (I believe the family of languages with "clicking" sounds is an example).

I'm on my phone now, but I'll have a double check and come back.

I knew it was just a matter of time before we would see something like this, with pretty much everyone having though something along the lines of "why don't they get a drone with a net to take out other drones?". But HOLY SHIT we're actually seeing air-to-air combat between drones now! I can only wonder how long it will be before we start seeing bomber / recon drones with escorting fighter drones being attacked by enemy fighter drones equipped specifically for that task.