maturin

See, now you've retreated to an even more extreme scenario. Before you were talking about a T-55 flanking an Abrams to shoot at its side armor. Because the facts aren't on your side there. All the estimates I can find for 100mm HEAT rounds put the penetration abilities at under 400mm RHA. That's less than an RPG-7 round. It also means that only a lucky shot will damage a late-model Abrams from the side. More than likely, the first few rounds are ineffective, at which point that T-55 had better run and ride real fast. Of course no tank is built to withstand any high caliber hit to the rear. But if you rely on a rear armor shot, you have no business sitting in a tank. You should be hiding in a built-up area with handheld AT and leave the deathtrap obsolete MBT behind. I could go sneak up on a heavily armed soldier right now (taking advantage of terrain, of course) and stab him with a screwdriver. But no one would ever dream of calling me a serious military threat. Not unless you are extremely biased in favor of screwdrivers. And at the end of the day, sneaking up on an infantryman in MOUT is no more or less likely to happen than sneaking up on an MBT in similar fashion.

You're REALLY stretching it here. Trying to put an excessively rosy spin on basic facts. A T-55 is a serious threat if it sneaks up on the flank of a modern tank. Okay. What you've basically just said is that a T-55 is LESS dangerous than a teenager with an RPG. Because the teenager can actually move stealthily and conceal himself, while a decent RPG warhead is more powerful than anything the T-55 carries nowadays. Impressive. Yes, using the Gulf War as a point of comparison is quite unfair. But let's be honest here. No matter what model T-72 you are talking about, the Abrams can still kill it from any angle and at considerable range. And the T-72 can't do the same.

Who said anything about a sim? Armor and damage handling on the level of ArmA, WoT or WarThunder would be sufficient.

A fixed radar like that would likely feed you information on a plotting board (if you're kickin' it old school, like in Sam Simulator). So you could just use the aircraft labels on your F10 map and pretend.

Nothing. America has long-range SAM systems, IR AA and nothing inbetween.

If socialism is a form of capitalism, then so were all the other economic systems before it, and the words become meaningless. The middle ages had merchants and monopolies and supply and demand and currency manipulation too. Honestly, that sounds like a lot of meaningless platitudes to me. What were people fighting over before there was capitalism? Is it really capitalism if you and smash all the neighboring tribe's canoes so you can fish better than them?

An Abrams can shrug off a hit like that, over the frontal arc, according to any RHA estimate you'll see. Anyways, the most important factor at work here is the heedlessness of the AI and the lack of detail in the environment. In real life, it would be extremely unlikely for a slow ATGM to cover 8000m before a tank could reach any sort of cover. And of course, it would be popping smoke as it skedaddled. Not to mention, even in flat, agricultural areas of the Georgia or the Kuban, you are unlikely to see engagement ranges of more than a few kilometers, because vegetation along the edges of roads and fields will provide concealment. In the hills and forests that make up most of the region, you are more likely to get the Western Europe average of 800m, at which point no one will be using missiles.

In the media, shelling refers to anything that goes boom, often repeatedly.

And I accuse the people who entirely justify Robin Hood's actions of being sloppy moralists with an opportunistic bent. The Robin Hood example is hopelessly muddled because it dives head first into social science, but at the same time you can approach it from a simple perspective. Certainly the system of class hierarchy and excessive taxation was unjust. But that does not entirely excuse Robin Hood's violent, often lethal efforts to continue his banditry. It is simply a mitigating factor. The moralist may forgive and minimize Robin Hood's crimes against the rich, many of whom must also have been decent people with no real complicity in Prince John's tax policy (legal minors such as women and children, etc), and who must have suffered in non-monetary ways from the constant threat of attack. And I don't think I have to point out that much of Robin Hood's support stems from an approval or revenge, of the unjust getting their just desserts. And that is far from a moral judgment. And if you look into the usual themes of the Robin Hood legend, you will see that I am right. Robin is always described as an outlaw, underscoring the transgressive nature of his actions. Far from stubbornly insisting that his actions were completely just, the audience of Robin Hood tales relishes in the heroic context that ALLOWS Robin to commit crimes and escape moral censure. This is the dynamic that I have already brought up. When people point to situations where they say violence is moral, they are acting out of a rebellious desire to trespass against moral laws and be exonerated by circumstance. Certainly, at the end of the day, Robin Hood is far less moral and less free of sin than someone who merely raised funds for the poor in a way that did not require violence and theft. As I said, it is the definition of stealing that is at question here, not the morality of stealing itself. And again you bring in the thorny questions of the individual vs society. But I would say that a perfectly moral society would not contradict the personal values of any of its members, and incorporate consent at all levels of interpersonal relations. At the same time, a society does have some limited right to impress duties and moral standards on its members. You are bringing up a potential contradiction in morals stemming from a societal dispute. Thankfully, philosophy only has to deal with one sentient species at the moment.

Theft is a special case because the moral censure of the act is embedded in the very term itself. If a theft is not wrong, then it ceases to be theft and becomes a simple act of taking, or use, or borrowing. But I am mostly explaining my own view of morality here. I view morality as subjective but based in broad characteristics of the human psyche that are usually shared across cultures. I don't see how morality can be objective or derived from natural laws, and don't believe in any creator or supernatural forces that could arbitrate moral rules. Therefore, theft is always wrong, but the criteria of what constitute theft are open to interpretation. And since the most important aspect of theft is the lack of consent by the victim, it is the victim's interpretation of theft that matters. If someone from a culture that does not believe in private property takes an object from someone who obviously does, then that is theft. I contend that certain actions are always wrong, because I believe that people must adhere to their morals, whatever those may be, in a fashion that recognizes the absolute strictures of those rules. People who say that 'killing/stealing is usually wrong but not always' are not thinking morally, but opportunistically, seeking to excuse themselves from the dictates of their conscious. People need to realize that the moral imperatives can conflict, and when they make compromise one rule for the sake of another, they must be honest with themselves about what they are doing.

Now, I know that everyone has heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' before they can even spell the words. I do not follow your thinking here. If property is held in common, then taking property does not constitute stealing. The morality of stealing is determined by the consent of both parties. This should be obvious. I can stand in front of two people, each holding an apple. If one considers the apple his, and one considers it communal property, then I could take both apples and only have stolen one of them. Stealing is still universally wrong. Indeed, the only definition of stealing is 'taking something when it is considered wrong.' If I take an idol from a shrine, it can be considered stealing even if the object is supposed to belong to imaginary gods or abstract concepts.

Stealing is always wrong, and stealing is not forbidden by law, but by morality. Stealing entails a disrespect for the victim; it deprives them not just of property but their free choice and opportunity to use that property for any purpose. It can be an emotional as well as physical crime against their sense of security or even their respect for the thief him/herself. Stealing bread from the rich when you are hungry is WRONG. It's just a question of degree. You could easily envision a situation where a moral rich person would readily forgive the thief his crime, because circumstances made the immoral act so seemingly minor.

That is certainly my belief. And any statement to the contrary is a dangerous invitation to self-deception and abuse of false morality. All killing is wrong. It is a 'sin,' whether you believe in God or not. It is a trespass against yourself and society as well as your victim. The difference is the degree to which that wrongdoing can be accepted by society, and whether the killer acted under sufficient mitigating circumstances to be forgiven and to forgive his or herself. Killing and war is never the only option, nor the best option. So you say that a man wants to kill you for your wallet, or harm your loved ones. Most of us would say that lethal force is justified in such a case, but the best, most moral act would still be to escape from him or incapacitate him. Now, do not imagine for a minute that I am condemning the use of lethal force in self-defense, or that I am advocating absolute pacifism. Far from it. Sometimes the better, more moral choice is physically impossible or infeasible. Sometimes killing and war and necessary. But it is never good. It is never anything more than a vile act and a tragedy. In the world today we see millions of people and dozens of governments, all of whom wait in feverish anticipation of the day when an enemy will give them an excuse to wage righteous war or embark on justified killing. They salivate at the prospect, and in mind this betrays a mind that harbors more evil than many murderers, who may kill because they are lost, desperate or starving. Killing can be rationalized and excused, but it is never right, and always demands forgiveness.

Are there any major technological roadblocks to making lasers that are powerful enough to destroy hypersonic missiles in the terminal phase? Because that would revolutionize naval CIWS and the whole Pacific balance of power.

I would be shocked if the real aircraft had such a lethally-designed autopilot system. Sneeze and bump the stick while flying straight and level and your trim will send you into an uncontrollable spiral of death when you disengage the autopilot.

If we have that level of technology, then a bidepal or quadripedal design is the very LAST thing we would develop. How about a sort of weaponized metal serpent that can bury through earth to dig its own foxhole, or mousehole buildings in urban combat, turn on its side to roll down roads or climb cliffs and terraces like a reverse slinky?

The periscope could be mounted on the exterior of the turret, but then you would be limited to a small camera with fiberoptic cable and a TV screen. Useful at short ranges, maybe, but probably not providing the resolution necessary to scan the countryside from a high ridgeline.

lolwut?

Assuming the SAM simulator is accurate, 20 seconds is rather too long for acquiring a target that isn't jamming, maneuvering hard or at treetop height. Maybe it's a good average for the entire process of tracking and engaging a target, start to finish. The OSA is a very simple system, where you just point the radar and match the range. Target elevation is acquired just about automatically, by setting the TV system to scan through the full range of elevations. Of course, that's only the simple method that leaves you open to ARMs. If you had to visually acquire the target by searching with the narrow-FOV targeting TV, it could take ages to find anything.

Most of the victory conditions in the missions are arbitrary bullshit, and you have little chance of success unless you go into the mission files and read the trigger data. Which isn't to say that it's not realistic, how the margin for victory is uncertain. But the briefings often don't tell you what targets will magically cause the entire Russian army to win, if destroyed.

The rest of the pilots died, didn't they? Or maybe they just released the one guy because he's a Russian speaker.

A one-in-a-million sabot shot could definitely go through two sides of the canopy and the pilot's head. A little bit of bulletproof glass isn't enough resistance to make the penetrator consume itself in a toxic fireball, which is the real killer.

Edit: Figured it out. The setup screen is just wicked unergonomic.

This game seriously needs some more tutorials. Not so much for the gameplay itself as for the content setup. How am I supposed to use the new Osa module if there's no valid operations for it? Most of all, I can't figure out how to make live fire missions. There doesn't seem to be any way to move your SAM site or change the location of target waypoints. So all you can do is have some Apaches uselessly wandering around, fifty kilometers out of range. Anyone have any insight on how to set up decent live fire practice? The operations are brutal and not a good place to learn the ropes.

The FCC has always been a terrible agency. Its members work in a revolving door environment with the companies they are supposed to regulate. If they behave, the media giants will give them six figure salary executive positions after a few short years of public service, which is mostly spent preventing news anchors from cussing and allowing the country's news outlets to be owned by fewer and fewer companies. And so we have had a free press controlled by an oligarchy for over a decade now.