In other news... (humorous news items)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby SDK » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:40 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
MakingProgress wrote:I hope everybody here understands that this is a huge deal for a small country like Belgium. I wonder who is going to pay for all this ?
Spoiler:
Actually, i know who is paying for this. I am ! :x

Jeez, your fellow countrymen could at least have chipped in a bit.

:lol:

At the end of the day, it's important for any country to have some military capability, including fighter jets. Not sure on the details in this case, but you've got to spend some money sometimes.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
plytho
¡This cheese is burning me!
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:23 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby plytho » Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:37 pm UTC

SDK wrote:At the end of the day, it's important for any country to have some military capability, including fighter jets. Not sure on the details in this case, but you've got to spend some money sometimes.
As far as I understand it (pretty poorly) the F35 isn't the right tool for the job and the engineers get limited access to the code/data so they need to rely on lockheed martin for support, which wouldn't be the case for the other options.

Basically a bad technical decision was made for political reasons.
Pronouns: he him his
Avatar: The High Frontier by Angus McKie

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby SDK » Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:53 pm UTC

Fair enough. I guess I could have read that into MakingProgress's post given the implication that France was going to be ticked off about not being chosen.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Grop » Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:05 pm UTC

I heard on radio that Dassault (the French ones) had failed to be clear on the price for their planes. Which sounds like very high level of incompetence :lol:.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:23 am UTC

I think the F22's would've been a better choice. The military was under the assumption that plane design was like a video game, where at the end you unlock the super-ship that is faster, tougher, and better armed than any other ship in the game. In reality, aircraft are like guns, in that you want a combined arms approach of the best weapons for each role given to the soldiers based on their role, rather than having a single gun that acts as a sniper rifle, SMG, SAW, assault rifle, shotgun, and grenade launcher all in one. Your close air support craft like the A10 are going to be heavy and heavily armed and great at destroying anything dumb enough to be on the ground where the A10 happens to be, whereas this requirement makes it incredibly unsuited for dogfighting. Your interceptors like the F16 are great at taking out anything dumb enough to be in the air near one but less capable of much else. Your stealth craft are going to be great at taking out targets deep in enemy territory but comparatively worthless to more conventional craft at absolutely anything else due to the design requirements. The F35 is a combination of all of that, but as a result, is a combination of the weakness only.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Dauric » Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:51 am UTC

Soo... Yeah...

Catholic group publishes Catholic version of Pokemon Go.

I'd comment more but the jokes write themselves.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:00 am UTC

To take the jokes in the darker direction...

A wild school shooter appears!
Choirboi uses Thoughts and Prayers.
It's not very effective...

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Deva » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:32 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:To take the jokes in the darker direction...

A wild school shooter appears!
Choirboi uses Thoughts and Prayers.
It's not very effective...

Misunderstood the strategy. Entered at a low level. Prayed to gain experience. Amounts to setting up buffs. Countered with Foul Play, unfortunately. Turned their shiny new Attack stat against them.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

ijuin
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby ijuin » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:52 am UTC

The problem with having an all-in-one aircraft is that the mission requirements for anti-ground and air interception are mutually opposed. Anti- ground missions require an airframe with a low stall speed and engines that are fuel-efficient at low airspeeds in order to maximize loiter time where the plane can be near the much slower moving target. Meanwhile, anti-air missions are mostly fought at near Mach one, with short bursts of even higher speed, which requires an airframe and engines that are optimized for such high speed. Attempting to do both with one airframe results in a plane that has inferior performance in most of the roles compared to more specialized planes acting within their specialties, and even in a best-case scenario, the jack-of-all-trades plane will have higher fuel consumption and thus less range and mission duration than the specialized planes. The only situation where you really benefit from the jack-of-all-trades setup is when sheer numbers are more useful than cutting-edge performance (e.g. have sixty generalist planes ready instead of twenty interceptors, twenty penetration bombers, and twenty Close Air Support).

Leovan
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Leovan » Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:39 am UTC

Belgium probably needs the fighter planes for air police purposes similar to Switzerland, which I'm much more familiar with (being in the Air Force, officially anyway). With a small military force you generally appreciate having a generalist plane simply because you don't need to train people to maintain more than one type of plane. And you really don't care about being able to access the details of the code cause your one IT guy doesn't have time to bother anyway. Going for the F35 could also be motivated by the fact that it will probably have spare parts and upgrades available for many years to come, as opposed to the older Rafale.
Although frankly, the air police duties could be accomplished by some Pilatus training planes and support would be closer and cheaper. Being part of NATO probably gives some minimum capacity requirements though.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:02 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think the F22's would've been a better choice.

For who? The F22 isn't sold to other countries.

As for the F35's performance. The UK has entirely gone for the F35-B (jump jet) variant, to take off from our carriers. Which is even more limited in terms of manoeuvrability, range and weapons. Still, at some point the onboard software might work!

User avatar
pkcommando
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:22 pm UTC
Location: Allston, MA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby pkcommando » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:56 am UTC


Just wait until you get a St Francis of Assisi - his Animal Swarm is practically a Game Breaker.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:49 am UTC

The problem with having an all-in-one aircraft is that the mission requirements for anti-ground and air interception are mutually opposed.

I am not sure if that is true? After all, the original teen-series fighters turned out to be capable multi-role fighters. Covering interception, air superiority, and fighter-bomber roles with relatively minor adaptations or even with the same aircraft.

For a country like Belgium, that was a matter of economics - use their f16s for anything that it might vaguely do. But the US, with its infinite budgets, also used F15 variants to replace both the f106 and the f111, apart from it's designed air superiority role. The US even uses f16s both as light bombers and as domestic interceptors - that's a budget decision, but one that the US could clearly avoid if it didn't work. Same goes for the many roles of the super hornets - it might save money, but it seems to work well.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby cphite » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
The problem with having an all-in-one aircraft is that the mission requirements for anti-ground and air interception are mutually opposed.

I am not sure if that is true? After all, the original teen-series fighters turned out to be capable multi-role fighters. Covering interception, air superiority, and fighter-bomber roles with relatively minor adaptations or even with the same aircraft.


Correct.

Belgium wants to be able to intercept incoming bombers, defend against incoming fighters, and possibly strike ground targets like RADAR installations. The F-35 can do all of that adequately; and it makes more sense financially than buying specialized aircraft for each of those roles. If they ever find themselves needing a heavy ground hitter like the A-10, for example, odds are very much that it'd be part of a larger campaign involving the entire EU - in which case there are allies that have those capabilities.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:04 pm UTC

Ugh, ninja'd

Zamfir wrote:
The problem with having an all-in-one aircraft is that the mission requirements for anti-ground and air interception are mutually opposed.

I am not sure if that is true? After all, the original teen-series fighters turned out to be capable multi-role fighters. Covering interception, air superiority, and fighter-bomber roles with relatively minor adaptations or even with the same aircraft.


A fighter jet can carry anti-air missiles, anti-ground missiles, bombs, whatever you have, but a fighter jet can't be used for close air support. It's close air support and air interception whose designs are mutually opposed. As mentioned earlier, CAS requires a relatively slow craft with a low stall speed and some extremely heavy armaments and extra armor for surviving AA fire, whereas the air interception/superiority role requires the fastest and most maneuverable craft you can get. And the military even claimed that the F35 would be replacing the A10, which to my ears sounded like an extra promise made to cover up the fact that the project was overbudget and behind on schedule and wouldn't likely even fulfill its original promises and if you just give us a little more money and time it will be super awesome, guys!

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:41 pm UTC

Yeah, I read ijuin "anti ground" as bombing, not as shooting people from the sky. The F35 for the latter seems more internal politics of the US DoD then anything else.

Bombing is an important capability for a country like Belgiumshooting not so much. International diplomacy requires that you do a few symbolic bomb runs once in a while, to show that you also hate Oceania this year. But I doubt that the US army is waiting for Belgian gunships to aid them, symbolic or for real.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:58 pm UTC

apologies, I forgot I still have editing capabilities and accidentally wiped your post. No harm meant, I made a mistake. --Zamfir

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Dauric » Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:18 pm UTC

The wiki on the F-35 says one of the aircraft it's principally designed to replace is the F-16, which is not only a light multirole fighter, but also one of the U.S. major weapons exports to all our allies, which is also what the F-35 was designed for.

As far as replacing the A-10... I think that was a bit of puffery regarding the F-35B's STOVL (Short Take Off /Vertical Landing) capabilities given the Air Force has been considering replacing the A-10 for over a decade at this point (to be fair the A-10's are between 34 and 46 years old. No new ones have been produced since 1984 and the company that made them, Fairchild Republic, went out of business in 2003).

Problem with replacing the A-10 is that it was designed to deal with Soviet SAM batteries and armored columns. To properly design a replacement system you have to have a credible threat to design it against, and there's no military forces that pose that kind of Cold War armored tank threat to the U.S. at this time (emphasis on the conditional "at this time"). At the moment the U.S. is having more problems dealing with asymmetrical warfare (Plainclothes insurgents/terrorists Vs. a well-equipped uniformed military), cybersecurity and plain old psychological warfare. A-10's don't provide a lot of utility when your opponents are embedded in groups of civilians or the threats are coming through your own media outlets.

Until someone's dumb enough to try to roll an armored column through U.S. or allied territories we're unlikely to see a credible replacement to the A-10.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:55 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Problem with replacing the A-10 is that it was designed to deal with Soviet SAM batteries and armored columns. To properly design a replacement system you have to have a credible threat to design it against, and there's no military forces that pose that kind of Cold War armored tank threat to the U.S. at this time (emphasis on the conditional "at this time").
(...)
Until someone's dumb enough to try to roll an armored column through U.S. or allied territories we're unlikely to see a credible replacement to the A-10.

But, the Russians haven't thrown away their tanks. I'd have thought the US would want to keep a counter to them around, otherwise, what would be stopping them taking control of parts of eastern Europe? It's not like we'd use nukes against them for it, otherwise we all die. Genuine question.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1842
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:57 pm UTC

that being said, the A-10 is one of the best CAS platforms out there. It sees a fair amount of action in Iraq and Afghanistan, even today - look at how useful it has been against Taliban sites and ISIL bunkers.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:apologies, I forgot I still have editing capabilities and accidentally wiped your post. No harm meant, I made a mistake. --Zamfir


No worries. Nothing that important, just noting that the F-35 ironically probably makes more sense for Belgium than the US.

Dauric wrote:Problem with replacing the A-10 is that it was designed to deal with Soviet SAM batteries and armored columns. To properly design a replacement system you have to have a credible threat to design it against, and there's no military forces that pose that kind of Cold War armored tank threat to the U.S. at this time (emphasis on the conditional "at this time"). At the moment the U.S. is having more problems dealing with asymmetrical warfare (Plainclothes insurgents/terrorists Vs. a well-equipped uniformed military), cybersecurity and plain old psychological warfare. A-10's don't provide a lot of utility when your opponents are embedded in groups of civilians or the threats are coming through your own media outlets.


We do always design for the last war.

That said, a lot of potential threats do still have tanks, so the role still makes a great deal of sense. Close air support isn't *just* killing tanks, as well. It's also killing technicals, buildings with hostiles holed up, etc. Asymmetrical warfare by it's nature tends to have close in conflict. As a result, the A-10 gets used in every conflict. Even if we don't end up in a cold war, an A-10 replacement would be really useful.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Dauric » Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:50 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Dauric wrote:Problem with replacing the A-10 is that it was designed to deal with Soviet SAM batteries and armored columns. To properly design a replacement system you have to have a credible threat to design it against, and there's no military forces that pose that kind of Cold War armored tank threat to the U.S. at this time (emphasis on the conditional "at this time").
(...)
Until someone's dumb enough to try to roll an armored column through U.S. or allied territories we're unlikely to see a credible replacement to the A-10.

But, the Russians haven't thrown away their tanks. I'd have thought the US would want to keep a counter to them around, otherwise, what would be stopping them taking control of parts of eastern Europe? It's not like we'd use nukes against them for it, otherwise we all die. Genuine question.


Until we have a comparable replacement for the A-10 they'll still be around. Talks of replacing them with the F-35 effectively ended in 2013, we'll be keeping them airworthy as long as possible, but currently there's not enough pressure to build more to justify a dedicated replacement. Eventually there will be as the older airframes finally exceed the ability to keep them airworthy, but the fact that aircraft such as the F-35 were proposed as non-dedicated alternatives to the A-10 show we haven't hit that point yet.

When it comes to "conventional warfare" nobody spends as much as the U.S. Even Russia has not been able to maintain their Cold War spending (which even in the day was a fraction of the spending the U.S. had for their military). A direct military challenge to the U.S. would necessarily be horrendously expensive, not only in existing material but in supplies and logistics to mobilize that force. Given the apparent effectiveness of vastly cheaper and arguably more effective alternatives to an outright armor mobilization (like the political and psychological warfare that Russia used to annex Crimea, or the propaganda machinations used by Russia in the 2016 presidential elections) we're likely to see significantly more developments in those arenas of international conflicts before we see WWII-styled massed tank battles again.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:10 pm UTC

The Chinese strategy in the Pacific and world wide is interesting. It's creating a world wide system (one belt one road)of bases in order to emulate US Military bases on the cheap. Instead of a carrier, you have a militarized island. Instead of a logistics hub, you have a commercial port backed by China.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Dauric » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:27 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The Chinese strategy in the Pacific and world wide is interesting. It's creating a world wide system (one belt one road)of bases in order to emulate US Military bases on the cheap. Instead of a carrier, you have a militarized island. Instead of a logistics hub, you have a commercial port backed by China.


China's rather a different kettle of fish from Russia in a way. China made a point of being an irresistible manufacturing opportunity. There's no incentive for China to get in to an aggressive armed conflict, they have too much to lose in the way of economic activity. Push boundaries, quietly set up outposts on otherwise insignificant islands to extend their "territorial waters" sure, at least as long as it doesn't trip the U.S. to actually engage in armed conflict...

... and the U.S. is going to let a lot of shit slide with little more than angry words in the U.N. because we have too much to lose economically if the major manufacturing base for most of the products we consume suddenly becomes inaccessible because of outright armed conflict.

That said this is changing, and I think one of the reasons China's been altering their internal economic policy (and being more aggressive with control over their neighbors and "traditional territories") from being a manufacturing hub, to being a consumer economy is they see a lot of U.S. manufacturing moving to Mexico and Mexico being in the kind of position to capitalize on that movement the way China did before.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

MakingProgress
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:41 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby MakingProgress » Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:32 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Yeah, I read ijuin "anti ground" as bombing, not as shooting people from the sky. The F35 for the latter seems more internal politics of the US DoD then anything else.

Bombing is an important capability for a country like Belgiumshooting not so much. International diplomacy requires that you do a few symbolic bomb runs once in a while, to show that you also hate Oceania this year. But I doubt that the US army is waiting for Belgian gunships to aid them, symbolic or for real.


Still, i do not have the feeling that the Belgian interventions in Syria and Iraq were only symbolic.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Zamfir » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:28 am UTC

It's a few percent of all the total effort- not enough to change outcomes, and not enough to give Belgium itself a say in what happens.

As a thought experiment: Instead of flying F16s, Belgium just sends a yearly donation to the US to run a few extra squadrons for wars like Syria. The US can presumably run those squadrons for less money due to scale advantages, and they could be used more effectively because of a tighter integration in the total structure. This is not entirely hypothetical - Germany did this in the first Gulf War to stick to the letter of its constitution, which forbade foreign wars.

It's obvious that neither Belgium or the US is interested in such an arrangement, for reasons that I would call symbolic. Belgium does not participate in the campaign to help the campaign - that goal would be better served by a monetary donation. It participates to show support, to be part of the effort, to be partially responsible.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:09 am UTC

And also because European integration isn't yet at the point any country would be happy to get rid of its own army altogether. So, Belgium is likely to want to have an army to defend itself no matter what.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Zamfir » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:29 am UTC

Seriously, I don't think that plays any role when buying jet fighters for Belgium. They assume that any foreseeable self-defense will be fought as junior partners, in NATO or something resembling NATO. There is no realistic scenario where a few dozen f35s make a difference to Belgium's ability to defend itself on its own.

Cold-war Sweden might a useful contrast - similar country in terms of population and economy, same part of the world facing similar potential threats, but at least somewhat prepared for isolated self-defense. Perhaps not exactly prepared to win against the soviet union, but at least to make such a conflict unattractive. Such a strategy looks rather different - more money, more planes, more emphasis on domestic production and technology.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:50 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The Chinese strategy in the Pacific and world wide is interesting. It's creating a world wide system (one belt one road)of bases in order to emulate US Military bases on the cheap. Instead of a carrier, you have a militarized island. Instead of a logistics hub, you have a commercial port backed by China.


It's not entirely unlike what we did in the pre/early WW2 era, when carriers were not yet commonplace. Islands are not mobile, but they are logistically a lot easier in many ways.

The system's vulnerable to cargo interdiction as well as being overwhelmed with localized force from a more mobile opponent one island at a time. Basically, Japan's entire problem with WW2 after losing their carrier fleet. For China, this will probably suffice against most regional opponents, who lack that sort of mobile firepower to flatten them one at a time, but Japan is notably one of the top few carrier-based countries(I'd rank them US, France, Japan, with everyone else coming in a distant fourth). Given a tendency for island conflict in the area and generally lessening anti-military sentiment in Japan, this may be relevant.

Zamfir wrote:Seriously, I don't think that plays any role when buying jet fighters for Belgium. They assume that any foreseeable self-defense will be fought as junior partners, in NATO or something resembling NATO. There is no realistic scenario where a few dozen f35s make a difference to Belgium's ability to defend itself on its own.


Yeah, it's largely a team effort thing. It does, however, provide them with an on-site reaction force, and on a tactical level, that can matter a great deal. Being able to fly a CAP or not without getting another country involved can be utterly critical.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:03 pm UTC

Imma gonna put this here about the choices for the new GB£50 note (which very few of us will see, anyway, this side of post-Brexit hyperinflation), although I might have put it in the Science (fleeting?) area as they're looking for a representative figurehead from the scientific world to emblazen upon it, or just in News In Brief.

But some of the 'choices' ("Harry Maguire riding an inflatable unicorn"), battles (Margaret Thatcher: Hail, Yes!/Hell No!) and whole other ball game (which incarnation of The Doctor?) definitely tickled me, as I hope it'll tickle you.


(BBC motto: Inform, Educate, Entertain. Johnny Ball isn't yet in the running, though. Johnny Morris? Raymond Baxter? Magnus Pyke? Running low on eligible females, in that front. Ada Lovelace or Rosalind Franklin were already in my mind. Or annoy people with Marie Curie, French-naturalised Polish woman with no actual ties to Britain. But I'm sure we could relocate this to a thread of its own if we wanted to seriously discuss this.)

solune
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:58 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby solune » Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:25 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Imma gonna put this here about the choices for the new GB£50 note


BBC wrote:A year ago there were doubts that the £50 note would continue to exist at all.

Fears that the largest denomination note was widely used by criminals and rarely for ordinary purchases prompted a government-led discussion on whether to abolish it.


I don't get why there's so much push to banish all cash transactions. It seems to me that if you see a drug dealer carrying a briefcase full of cash that would be a great help in securing a conviction.
And following a physical briefcase seems easier than tracking tax evasion through 10 swiss accounts and 5 shell companies.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Dauric » Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:28 pm UTC

solune wrote:And following a physical briefcase seems easier than tracking tax evasion through 10 swiss accounts and 5 shell companies.


Which is why legislators with access to 10 swiss accounts and 5 shell companies won't do anything to endanger them.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:31 pm UTC

solune wrote:
I don't get why there's so much push to banish all cash transactions. It seems to me that if you see a drug dealer carrying a briefcase full of cash that would be a great help in securing a conviction.
And following a physical briefcase seems easier than tracking tax evasion through 10 swiss accounts and 5 shell companies.


Cash is what poor and relatively powerless people use to escape notice.

Tax evasion through swiss accounts and shell companies are what the rich and powerful use to escape notice.

That's why the rich and powerful are going after the former.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:21 pm UTC

As far as £50 notes, there's also a criminal bias in that they're beyond what many normal, sane, law-abiding individuals might wish to carry in one papery-item. Even if you're paying £200 quid in cash for something, get 10 Twenties from the petty-cash (FCVO 'petty') or ATM to pay it. There's little retail market for Fifties either singly (with change due) or in bundles.

Most shops will not accept them (perhaps also due to the risk of high-value forgeries, more expensive to produce than it would be worth the trouble to go to for lesser notes, and relative rarity lowering confidence on the "this looks/feels/smells odd" ability of the cashier.

I've had two £50s, in my life (neither of them when I was carrying hundreds in cash on me, and I've never hauled around anything in the thousands in cash-form) and they went into the bank-counter where they would accept them for direct deposit into my account (or, because I had an account, I could easily have had them changed-down to short-cut the deposit being almost immediately withdrawn again, should I have so wished). Bank staff are obviously more familiar with such a rare promissory note (and will also take defunct issues of currency no longer publicly legal tender, for related reasons).

Without other financial instruments (BACS payments, etc) it's possible that inflationary influences on money might have brought 50s into 'range' of the normal person for transactions, like lesser notes were historically 'high value' (ten shilling notes, £0.5, were not everyday use, once, for example), but there are a number of alternatives that make more sense than exchanging half-a-ton at a time in a single piece of paper.

Unless you're trying to skirt around electronic traceability (criminality below the level of those with offshore-laundries, above the level where small bundles of notes - a score and five, for a pony's worth of debt; up to a bundle of 25 twenties for a monkey) and a suitcases of fivers and tenners can probably be replaced by a discrete jiffy-bag stuffed with bullseyes, if you need discretion at that stage of the game…

Leovan
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Leovan » Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:06 pm UTC

That thinking is so weird. I always have a $100 in my wallet for backup in case someone doesn't take card. When I first came to the US I got terribly annoyed with all the 20s the ATMs kept giving me since I hadn't set up my accounts yet. So I needed 1000 cash to pay the first rent. I had to carry around a huge wad of 50 20s.
In Switzerland I'd regularly get 200CHF notes from the ATM and nobody balked at accepting them including my college cafeteria... Our largest denomination is the 1000CHF.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Grop » Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:10 pm UTC

Indeed in the euro zone as well many people who are not criminals may carry notes of higher value than £50.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Zohar » Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:27 pm UTC

Grop wrote:Indeed in the euro zone as well many people who are not criminals may carry notes of higher value than £50.

I went to Spain for vacation during my time in college and my dad gave me 500 euro for spending money. Except, he gave me a single bill of 500 euros. It took a long time until I found a business who was willing to break it.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby speising » Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:47 pm UTC

it seems the 50£ hold a similar spot in the ecosystem as the 500€. the 200€ note, however, really is a bit of a unicorn. i don't know if i've ever seen one, as the ATMs only give up to 100's and for large cash transactions, 500's would be more adequate.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Grop » Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:57 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:I went to Spain for vacation during my time in college and my dad gave me 500 euro for spending money. Except, he gave me a single bill of 500 euros. It took a long time until I found a business who was willing to break it.


Definitely not the most practical note for everyday spending. Doesn't mean people in the other businesses thought you were a criminal.

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1448
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Xenomortis » Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:53 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:As far as £50 notes, there's also a criminal bias in that they're beyond what many normal, sane, law-abiding individuals might wish to carry in one papery-item. Even if you're paying £200 quid in cash for something, get 10 Twenties from the petty-cash (FCVO 'petty') or ATM to pay it. There's little retail market for Fifties either singly (with change due) or in bundles.

I've been on the receiving end of a few £50's - they weren't *that* uncommon from tourists.
Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pex and 13 guests