No-brain zones

Twitter is an amazing product.  It lets us guess the depth of thought of a populace:

In this case, the depth is easily rivaled by the store-bought kiddie-pool.

First, do people comprehend what a no-fly zone entails?  NATO would shoot down Russian planes.

No-fly zones only work when there is a disparity of force.  Picture the following scenario:

NATO establishes a no-fly zone.  After some bluster, Russia sends its planes into the no-fly zone.  At that point, either Russia calls NATO's bluff, or NATO shoots down Russian military aircraft.

What happens next?  Depends on Putin's patience and assessment of the situation:

1. Russia withdraws its air cover from Ukraine.  This could spell defeat for its ground forces, especially if Ukrainian planes are still permitted to fly and strike ground targets.
2. Russia levels the playing field and shoots down NATO aircraft or SAM sites within Ukraine.  Per NATO's article 5, it could be construed as an attack by Russia on a NATO member state.  NATO may retaliate with attacks on forward air bases in Ukraine.  Or it may strike air bases in Russia...
3. Russia preemptively strikes NATO air bases in Poland, the Baltic states, or Moldova.  NATO ground forces invade Ukraine with the objective of pushing Russian forces back into Russia.

 

If the Russians repel the NATO forces from Ukraine, NATO commanders become more nervous the closer they reach the Ukrainian border.  Will the Russian advance be satisfied merely repelling NATO?  Or will it seek territorial concessions to solidify its position?

 

Conversely, if NATO has the Russians in retreat, Russian commanders may wonder how far NATO may push into Russia.  Part of the stated Russian motive for invading Ukraine is fears over Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.  From the Russian perspective, since the fall of the USSR, Russia has seen Warsaw Pact nations join NATO.  Some eastern European nations are cordial with Russia, but many have citizens who remember their status as puppet states of the Soviet Union, and have no desire to return to that state.  Much of the USSR's "buffer" with the West is gone.  Historically, Russia has suffered the consequences of hostile nations on their borders.  It's worse if they face hostile nations backed up by alliance that spans the Atlantic Ocean.

 

Russia's very survival as a nation may depend on its capacity to withstand an invasion by NATO.  In the 1940s, the Wehrmacht reached the gates of Moscow.  At the time, Stalin was able to resist and subsequently repel the Wehrmacht by relocating industry key to the Soviet war effort to the other side of the Ural mountains.  Unlike the Germans of the 1940s, a well-supplied NATO force would not be deterred by the Russian winter, and its air power could easily reach the other side of the Urals.

 

Let's put ourselves in the position of the Russian president in such a scenario.  Forces advancing on Moscow.  Territory under NATO control.  A war crimes tribunal almost certainly in your future.  A demoralized army that didn't have much incentive to fight in the first place.  What do you have to lose?  Detonate a tactical nuclear weapon above the advancing forces.  But just like potato chips, you can't stop at just one.  Even if you can, what guarantees does the other side have that you'll stop?  Let's be generous and say NATO reciprocates with a proportional response.  What if one of their nukes misses a military target and hits a civilian one?  What if it's one of ours?  This is where the command and control begins to break down.  All it takes is a single NATO or Russian commander with vengeance on the mind to deliberately target a civilian target.  At that point, we will have crossed the Rubicon into total war:  Everything's fair game.

 

Invert the scenario:  The Russians repel NATO from Ukraine, and pursue them back across the borders into the Baltic states.  Or Moldova.  Or Poland.  Putin and his military staff, seeing those countries as former Soviet satellites simply being brought back into the fold, might stop with capturing them.  But what about what was East Germany?  How much of Europe would NATO tolerate using before detonating a tactical nuke above advancing Russian forces?  Reciprocal Russian response followed by escalation.  Again, the result is the same.

Now let's talk about nuclear war.  An entire generation has grown up far more concerned about global warming.  Or nuclear terrorism.  Full-scale nuclear conflict?  Those of us from the Baby Boomers and Generation X remember the Cold War.  When we watched The Day After or Threads, it wasn't just some movie about an unlikely scenario.  It was a nightmare scenario that we lived with daily.  It wasn't some intangible threat, it was very real.  In 1986, we got a glimpse into the affects from nuclear contamination when Reactor #4 exploded at Chernobyl.  Now imagine that happening everywhere:  Every piece of real estate on the planet that's worth anything irradiated.  Nowhere to flee to.  No safe haven.  No designated contaminated zones.  Not to mention little to no functioning governments, public order, and sanitation.  No electricity, gas, or running water.  And, after some high-altitude nuclear detonations, an electromagnetic pulse that fries most unshielded electronics, including the ignition systems of most fuel-injected engines.  Most people who survive the exchange should plan on human- or animal-power transportation for getting around for months if not years afterward.

Immediate effects?  If you are too close or are downwind from the explosion, your choices are being vaporized by a fireball the temperature of the surface of the sun, burned by heat rays, physical trauma from the blast wave, or agonizing death due to radiation poisoning from either the detonation or the subsequent fallout.  Hospitals that are still standing will be overwhelmed, and no amount of mask-wearing or remaining indoors will keep you from unwittingly contributing to the problem.

Am I getting through to you who think a no-fly zone is something NATO could do without severe consequences?.  Just think of all the things you'll miss.  Starbucks.  Twitter.  Facebook.  A first-world existence.  If you're lucky enough to survive, your life will forever be changed.

Today's stupid Twitter posts

It's like a chain of stupid:

For starters, implying a work slow-down or strike by pilots and ATC is "domestic terrorism" would've garnered a standing ovation from my high-school drama class, but under the guise of "journalism" or punditry, it's just idiotic.  The number of clapping seals, seemingly incapable of independent thought, makes me weep for the future.

I've noticed this trend among the totally-independent "thinkers" on the left, drawing comparisons to President Ronald Reagan firing the Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike.

 

It doesn't surprise me that so many people recite the same talking points-- group-think shows up a lot with political zealots.  What does surprise me is how none of then seem to understand the obvious flaws in their analogy.

The ATC union, PATCO, was among Reagan's biggest supporters in his 1980 run for President.  But they broke the law!  They were not permitted to strike.  And it wasn't like it was a new law.  The law was passed in 1955 by Congress and upheld by the SCOTUS in 1971.  Reagan's firing of the strikers was hardly unilateral:  Federal judges fined the union $1 million for each day they were on strike.

I can't speak for the ATC personnel who might've gone on strike this time, but Southwest pilots are not endangering public safety by refusing to work.  The planes are on the ground.  Southwest has competitors whom can handle the stranded passengers.

Apparently exercising first-amendment rights is now an act of domestic terrorism.

There will inevitably be some "thinker" who will fire a "gotcha" question regarding the protests of the summer 2020 in the wake of St. George Floyd's demise.

But that's easy.  People don't get arrested (lawfully, I'll acknowledge the overzealous nature of some Barney Fifes in police departments around the country) for protesting.  They get arrested for:

• destruction of property
• trespassing
• assault
• failure to comply with a lawful order of law enforcement
• looting

Hmm, a lot of those might describe "domestic terrorism", right?  Or rioting?

Are the Southwest pilots doing that?

RLL

 I learned today a friend of mine passed away last Sunday.  He was 70.

My friend, R.  Initially, he was my girlfriend's father.  Later, after my girlfriend became my ex-girlfriend, he and I remained friends.  To me, he was also a mentor and role model.  I learned carpentry skills from him.  Before I met him, I couldn't hand-saw a board with a straight cut if my life depended on it.  In helping me build rabbit cages, he taught me to never rush the cut.  He also taught me not to expect perfection:  "We're not building a church", he would tell me.  As I reflect on him no longer being in this world, having passed into the next, I think of the valuable skills I developed in no small part due to the mentoring I received from him.  Last summer, I built a new dining room table from reclaimed farm wood.  Perhaps R is looking it over right now, ready to offer feedback.

Thirteen years ago, when I still lived in Minnesota, I recall when R and I were at my house while his wife and daughter were out shopping.  He got a phone call, and the color rushed from his face.  His brother was gone.  I watched helplessly as he sat and attempted to process the news.  I recall feeling like there was nothing I could say or do to help him feel better, so I simply sat silently, wondering if I was coming across as unfeeling because I offered no words of support.  I think I understand now what R was feeling in that moment:  The shocking reminder of our mortality, that our days in this existence are numbered.  No eloquent phrase or sentiment was going overshadow that reminder.

Rest in peace, R.  Thanks for the reminder to live in the moment.

Acquittal

 Former Trump has been acquitted of impeachment a second time.  This is only a surprise to people who see impeachment for what it is in modern times:  A show trial with a kangaroo court.

Consider the following:

• Trump was charged by the House of Representatives with "Incitement to Insurrection". The Democrats and their media allies made every effort to connect Trump to the rioters who breached security at the U.S. Capitol on 6 January. During the trial, they played video of the rioters who were stupid enough to allow themselves to be filmed. They submitted this as evidence of a crime. I agree: A crime committed by the rioters. What they failed to do was connect the rioters to Trump. After all, the charge was "incitement". If one can't draw a line from Trump's words to the criminal acts perpetrated on the grounds of the Capitol, there goes the case. They included his speech on 6 January that “if you don’t fight like hell" in the articles of impeachment, a phrase commonly uttered by the Democratic members of Congress, including the impeachment managers themselves!
• The media routinely and deceptively implied or outright lied about the content of Trump's speech at the rally (a legal, constitutionally-protected protest), insinuating that his words encouraged supporters to invade the Capitol, despite a cursory examination of the speech explicitly encouraged supporters to peacefully protest the certification of the election results. I know some conservatives have said not to ignore the two months of Trump's rhetoric prior to the the events of 6 January, but if anything, that hurts the case against Trump: If anything, Trump's speech should have cooled passions to below the threshold of lawlessness. If Trump's supporters were whipped into a frenzy, the implication is they're acting on orders and not with free will. But if the speech encouraged peaceful protest, then the supporters acted with free will and Trump deserves less blame.
• Unlike the first impeachment trial, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice John Roberts, declined to preside over the second trial, which started after Trump had left office.
  
• Speaker Nancy Pelosi has railed against the "cowardice" of the GOP senators in voting to acquit. Excuse me, Madame Speaker, but it seems we have two paths before us:
• The impeachment trial was like a civil or criminal jury trial, where the prosecution and defense present evidence, question and cross-examine witnesses, and try to persuade a jury of the defendant's guilt or innocence, all while an impartial judge rules on the admissibility of evidence, testimony, etc. as a matter of law. If the impeachment trial was this, then the majority of GOP senators were not persuaded by circumstantial evidence and testimony. In other words, the impeachment managers did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump was guilt of incitement. The verdict would need to be unanimous. Trump's life and liberty would have been imperiled by a conviction.
• The impeachment trial was less beholden to the rules and procedures governing civil and criminal trials. Members of the jury (senators) were pretty sure of how they were going to vote on the verdict beforehand. One two-thirds were required to convict. A member of the jury was permitted to vote on the verdict and preside over the trial (Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT). The worst penalty Trump could have faced would be to be barred from running for political office again.
• So which is it, Madame Speaker? Were the senators "cowardly" for refusing to vote to convict in a trial where Trump's guilt would've had to been proven, or one where the verdict was known before the trial began (Uncle Joe from Georgia sends his regards).
• Pelosi also criticized Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for refusing to take up impeachment before Trump had left office. That's a bit disingenuous: The Senate was in recess from 7 January through 19 January. Now, as Sen. Majority leader (until 20 January 2021), McConnell could have called the Senate back early, but it was doubtful a trial could have begun and concluded in the time allotted. In fact, the articles of impeachment against Trump were voted upon by the House of Representatives on 13 January, so the soonest the trial could have begun would have been the next day, 14 January.  Remember that, while new senators had assumed office and retiring/defeated senators left office on 3 January, the leadership structure was set to change on 20 January.  Six days to adjudicate a trial?  Maybe in Stalinist Russia or some banana republic.
  

 And now they're talking of barring Trump from office through other means:  civil or criminal court (Question:  Why didn't they pursue this in the first place?) or passing legislation (Pretty sure they need to re-read the Constitution).

At some point, you gotta wonder if it's personal.