Youtube comments of Tom Riley (@tomriley5790).
-
2700
-
838
-
477
-
448
-
354
-
344
-
276
-
274
-
269
-
244
-
243
-
237
-
237
-
212
-
204
-
200
-
199
-
199
-
193
-
191
-
183
-
173
-
153
-
149
-
148
-
135
-
135
-
129
-
120
-
120
-
114
-
107
-
104
-
99
-
98
-
82
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
77
-
77
-
72
-
70
-
70
-
68
-
68
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
55
-
55
-
53
-
52
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
Technology was essentially static for much of the Roman Empire - very different to today, which essentially led to the fall of constantinople (cannon/gunpowder). They did face challenges as a result of climate variation - much less severe than those we're facing today and to a certain extent those can be blamed for the collapse of the western Empire (one warning to us). In terms of these 6 guys arriving, they'd also not understand what was being said to them in modern italian, probably they'd be admitted to a psychiatric hospital, they could probably find someone from a church who could talk to them in latin (and we'd finally find out how it was really pronounced!). They'd have found christianity wierd, another thing I think they'd find odd is the split between North Africa and Europe, to the Romans the mediteranian was the centre of civilisation (surrounded by their empire) now it's a boundary. I think they'd be surprised at the presence of so much disorder in North Africa. I don't think it's fair to say they weren't into exploration - they explored everywhere around the mediterranian, where they could easily get to by sea. How much exploration they did outside the pillars or hercules is debatable, they tried to go to subsaharan africa but horses are very vulnerable to tetse flies and Trypanosomiasis which made military logistics etc. impractical (And is largely why those areas were not attacked by land based armies and vice versa why they weren't a real threat once they encountered horse based armies). China and Iran (persia) are probably the closest political survivours from that time. They might be interested in how much classical style architecture has still been built (and is indeed still being built). Modern Food would be bizarre and incredible to them, as would freezers, electricity, ice. Ostritch is tasty.
43
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
God....Excellent video Peter, done very professionally, I found this hard to watch, I don't know what it was like to record. Normally there's something that could have been done by most parties to avoid an accident but as far as I can see the SAS crew did absolutely everything right and still ended in disaster, its hard you feel so bad for them. I hadn't heard about this accident before, It's almost unbelievable that this could happen in a major European city in the recent past. I'm actually shocked that the management complete absence of any safety culture could be normalised - not fixing the broken lights, nomralising crossing a stop bar, not replacing broken ground survielance radar is literally disregarding lessons that have been learnt from other disasters, but most unbelievably accepting runway frequent runway incursions in an airport supposedly capable of flying cat 3 approaches... it beggars belief. Similarly the confusion within ATC and firefighting on its own some degree may be understandable but it just seems to further point to terrible management of the airport without serious consideration of safety. That it had been able to go on for so long and not be recognised calls into question the competency of the Italian governments regulator's, I seriously hope that changes were implemented and whatever the root causes of those whether simply incompetence or with this degree of systemic failure you have to wonder about corruption were addressed. It does seem that the Cessna crew were knowingly operating outside their competence, presumably trusting that the other holes in the "swiss cheese" would not line up, I wonder if their awareness of this and not wanting to be caught led to them not questioning things they might otherwise have done. I'm sorry to sound so vehement and appologise if I upset anyone, normally I do believe a no-blame culture yields the best results (as was clearly not the environment at this airport). In this case though I really do think the management of the airport deserved to be prosecuted.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Actually the MK8 torpedos used by HMS Conqureror were considerably older than World War 2 (and General Belgrano) entering service in 1927, they were trusted by the commanding officer of the submaine as a reliable weapon that would work well whilst he only had a limited supply of tigerfish guided torpedoes and he was concerned that they may malfunction and also that he may need them if he encountered Argentinian Submarines known to be in the area (one of which was later caught on the surface and beached in south Georgia, the other conducted attacks on the british task group and was probably detected but it wasn't recognised at the time - one of her torpedos probably destroyed a towed sonar, she also experienced problems with her modern torpedo system - leads were connected with revered polarity). Ironically given the captains faith in the MK8s a dent was later found in the side of one of the destroyers escorting the Belgrano and her position at the time fits with the area into which the torpedos would have overrun - therefore one failled to explode (and would have probably sunk the Argentinian destroyer) one of the reasons for the loss of life was the speed with which the ship sank - her watertight doors were either not closed (which seems incredible for a warship at sea in wartime) or not sufficiently maintained another was that one of the first torpedoes to hit destroyed the radio room so no Mayday was sent, the conditions were so bad at the time that it was 20minutes before her escorts realised she'd been attacked and went back to pick up survivours - Conqueror had solutions plotted on them but did not fire once it became apparent that they were rescuing the survivours. Just to correct another post above Argentina only had 5 exocet missiles during the war, all were fired, they atempted to buy more but France refused to sell them, British intelligence also went out and bought as many as they could from other countries, outbidding the argentinians (and probably using other methods) successfully preventing them from acquiring any more - the Super Entendards that carried them (systems integration provided by the Israelis) could not operate from the 5 de Mayo carrier at the time and were purely land based with air to air refueling, the Carrier operated the A4 skyhawk and at one point was in position to launch an attak on the british Carrier group but the wind over the deck was too light for her to be able to launch them - it would have been the first carrier battle since the second world war. She was then detected (accounts vary) by a British Sea Harrier on reconaisance and ran for the Argentinian coast whist submarines atempted to intercept her, due to the need to evade argentian ASW they were unable to get in position in time. Actually an invasion had been planned in 1977 and a force started to build but but an attack submarine was sent to position herself between Argentina and the Falklands and the Argentinian government informed that she would attack any invasion force which led to it being cancelled. One other detail - when declaring the TEZ (total exclusion zone) it was stated that any ship in that radius from the falklands would be fired on - actually not in keeping with international law as firing on a civilian ship would be against IHL however it was more a matter of practicality in that it would be very difficult to confirm identitiy before firing, actually the result of this was that no insurance company would insure ships within the TEZ and so all merchant shipping kept clear, the same declaration however also stated that the UK reserved the right to fire on any Argentinian military vessel anyhwere in the south atlantic, so whether the belgrano was inside or outside of the TEZ is essentially unimportant. As for it being an "undeclared war" IHL is quite clear that war does not need to be declared for a state of war to exist. There are also some comments about the degree of US support during the Falklands, the US was in a bit of a hard place as it had supported the Argentinian government (indeed this is probably why Soviet Russia did not oppose the UK's resolution in the UN - as well as seeing lots of UK forces beaten up in the South Atlantic being entirely in their interest), some within the administration wanted to support Argentina because of this, in the end though Regan decided to support Britain, AIM-9L sidewinders were taken from NATO Stocks by britain (although probably not too consequential as the sea harrier pilots were used to the AIM-9J and all shots in the Falklands were taken within that missiles parameters) these were replaced via a new order to the US. The US provided sattelite intelligence (as well reportedly of some Russian Satellite reconaisance after they were hacked into by the Norwegians - possibly with russian knowledge - who knows!) and the USAF base on Ascension island was used extensively (actually the USAF report on the logistics of the falklands war - on the internet now is interesting reading, they were very impressed with the adapatability of the UK forces - for example when there was a problem truking enough jet fuel from the port in ascencion to the base the British laid a pipeline :-)). All in all it's such a shame so many lives had to be lost fighting over islands in the middle of nowhere to end up in the same situation as before between what had historically been two friendly nations. It's largely forgotten now but Britain and Argentina had a long history of friendship and cooperation - some of the first ships to arrive with beef after the end of world war 2 were from Argentina, Britain sent trains to pay for them the Falklands issue largely didn't exist until it was stoked up by Peron to help himself win power. Sorry for the long and disjointed post but hopefully you found it interesting.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks for your erudite comment. Actually the Harrier, designed in part by Sydney Camm who also designed the Hurricane (so great pedigree was in 2 forms at that time the RAFs GR3 (ground attack, Reconaisance)harrier didn't have a radar. Sea Harrier FRS1 (Fighter Reconaissance Strike = nuclear attack) was designed as a fleet defence fighter from incoming air attack. Differences The cockpit was 10 inches higher to give better visibility, more computing power for the HUD to enable it to respond quicker, navalised engine, folding nose cone, pulse doppler navigation radar in place of inertial system (for overwater flight) replacement of magnesium alloys with aluminium, revision of the 5 Hardpoints with outboard launch rails for single AIM9 sidewinders (All aspect AIM9L sidewinders were taken from NATO forward deployed warstocks and then resupplied by the US until after the conflict). the double sidewinder launch rails were later fitted but again not until after the conflict. Trials of fitting sidewinder launch rails on GR3s were also conducted incase there was a significant loss of sea harriers and successful (later put into service) but as few Sea Harriers were lost it wasn't needed. As far as I can tell Sea Harrier did not carry the Martel antiship missile carried by Buccaneers, which was the only British antisip missile at the time of the falklands (discounting helicopter launched AS12 and Sea skua - all fired in the falklands) but it did later carry the Sea Eagle antiship missile (1984 on Buccaneers a bit later on SHAR) until that missile was retired (read wore out and wasn't replaced) in 2000. The sea harrier actually had a decent kill ratio at red flag against US fighters.
You can see the difference between the GR3s and the FRS1s in this picture (pointy noses are the radars of the FRS1s the GR3s were originally intended to have IR imaging in their noses but that wasn't fitted until later versions https://theaviationist.com/2012/05/22/sea-harrier-the-forgotten-hero-that-won-the-war-in-the-falklands-to-be-replaced-by-the-f-35b/ The Mirage III and IAI Dagger aircraft were designed in the early 1950s philosphy of speed being the most important thing for fighters basically as a manned SAM to get up from french bases as fast as possible and shoot down high flying soviet bombers (or reconaisance MIG25s) there was little thought for manouverability. This philosphy changed post Vietnam when it was leant that semiactive radar missiles of the time were downright awful against other fighters and if you fly quickly you get to your target rather quickly and then have to bother with things like turning and guns. The harrier (entering service 20 years after the Mirage III) was built with the intention for being manoverable from the begining. Plus the Mirage III was only supersonic on afterburner (uses lots of fuel) which it couldn't really do over the falklands as it was at the extreme end of its range. I fail to see how it could possibly be described as outclassed, the FAA believed it would be but learnt differently - there was NO air to air kill of a Sea Harrier by the Argentinian Airforce (or navy) during the whole conflict, it came off best every single time. The only proper fighter on fighter engagement where shots were fired ended with one Mirage III shot down and the other damaged - it was shot down trying to make an emergency landing at goose green when its jetissoing of its fueltanks were mistaken for bombs. There was another occasion where the FAA tried shooting long range Semiactive missiles from high altitude but they missed by a long distance. After the first few days of the war without success the FAA gave up on trying to win the air war and went completely for antishiping/ground attack. One A4 Skyhawk pilot did manage to get into a firing position on a Sea Harrier but his gun jammed (the sea harrier shot down his wingman (ejected but died) the pilots eventually became friends). If you believe A4s, Mirage IIIs and IAI daggers were better aircraft then that's your choice but honestly Sea Harrier FRS1 as flown in the Falklands was a much better fighter design, ironically it's actually a better fighter (nimble quick accelerating dogfighter) than an interceptor (Mirage III was an excellent interceptor) when for carrier defence you really want an interceptor (ala F14, AWG9 /AIM54). In actual fact the Sea Harrier was a much better fighter than even some of its own pilots appreciated and many of the losses could have been avoided if more training/time/apreciation of its capabilities had been made, Sharkey Ward (this was a guy who was an air warfare instructor and previously flown Phantoms from the old Ark Royal) kept telling people what a great fighter it was before they even got down there - it's amazing that even 30 years later people don't appreciate what a great plane it was http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1309357.the_rivalry_that_cost_lives/
I don't think the FAA even with a paper numerical advantage had the force projections capacity to establish air control over the Falklands and more to the point neither did they.
The biggest threat was probably the superentendards with exocet, as a standoff weapon they were able to be launched before they could be easily intercepted although the oppourtunity to shoot down one Super Entendard was missed due to Hermes sending her CAP out of position) If they been stockpiled or managed to get more or better launch aircraft then potentially there was a risk that one would eventually have hit a carrier - although Woodward was aware of this and positioned his ships as safely as possible. Fortunately the French didn't supply any more and British intelligence managed to frustrate the acquisition of second hand ones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The point mainly was that people hadn't realised just how more destructive a war in the Industrial age would be compared with the Napoleonic war.
Whilst many ambassadors were keen to avoid war, afterall it's basically their job to maintain good relations, plenty of politicians and leaders were keen to go to war.
The war was ultimately more than avoidable, particularly by Serbia (Serbia wanting to see a larger serbia incoporating all ethnic serbs has not changed).
Similarly Russia hasn't really changed in 100 years.... the decision to mobilise in Russia seems crazy, and turns out that it was for Russia.
If Germany had not been the agressor and had waited for Russia to make the first move I suspect that France and Britain would not necessarily have engaged in the war - but it would obviously have been a huge risk for Germany, Potentially Germany could have negotiated this - but it would have required alot of trust. Either way invading France through Belgium was a huge mistake.
France could have stated that they would not attack Germany if Germany did not attack first.
The arguments that Britain should not support Russia is hugely correct in what happened, Britain should have leaned hugely on Russia and France.
All in all it seems there was a collective lack of desire to really avoid war, however it seems that the Serbs, Austrians and Russians deserve the most of the blame, then Germany for actually invading. Everyone else is essentially a bit player in my opinion but should have been clearer in their desire not to have the war that I don't think they really saw coming.
(Similar to how Europe currently regards the war in Ukraine as not really affecting western europe - which it doesn't really, until a shell or missile starts flying)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Honestly this is an assault against well prepared positions, it's going to take time and be difficult, look at the fighting in Normandy or anywhere else, this isn't the Desert. I suspect that it's going to take time but I think that the most likely outcome is a collapse in Russian morale/discipline. It does seem that Ukraine is doing exceedingly well at cutting supplies to the troops around Marupol, it also makes sense that shells were rationed. Carefully pushing your way though the defences is going to take time, it's not easy what Ukraine is doing. I don't think why anyone expected that there wouldn't be Bradleys, Lepoards and Challengers knocked out, nothing is invulnerable. Absolutely sure that the Russians blew up the dam - it made no sense for the Ukranians to do it, plus they weren't really in a position to do it, the Russians had already been reported to mine it and it prevented Ukraine from attacking in that area. The main issue is the antiair/helicopter problem. Very balanced review kappy. NATO itself is pretty short of ground air defence systems as it's got used to relying on fighter/air superiority, personally I think this is an error (consider the Falklands) but still..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@boterlettersukkel Yeah well when I did my phsyics degree one thing I learnt early on was that people believed theories for about 2000 years, until galielo turned up and showed it to be wrong so whatever maths you do it's always trumped by experiment, that's science. But lets do a bit of theorising - corriolis effect is actually just conservation of anguler momentum, seen in a rotating frame of reference, this is a universal effect that doesn't depend on scale (at least in the newtonian limit & classical mechanics), I'll try and do some maths later, I have to go to work but in general I think it works out, water is about 1000 times denser than air, 100 times more viscous, relative pressure difference betwen the top of my sink and bottom of my sink is similar to that in a low pressure system in the atlantic, my sink is relatively only about 10^5 times smaller. So two main points - I think the corriolis effect (at least the change in angular momentum) should be similar, I don't think the resistive forces will be sufficient to prevent spinning. More to the point - I cannot see any other reason for why water would spin as it goes down a plug hole (released from rest) - it should just drain uniformly from all directions and again I have personally never seen an example of it spinning in an clockwise manner in the northern hemisphere or anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere, or why it would change at the equator (and yes I have done all of these things) so with all due respect to the theoriticians unless they can explain that to me I'm going to thumb my experimenters nose at them and say that their theory is inconsistent with experiemental results - that's science. This would actually be quite an easy thing to do - I don't know if sabine would be up for it but you'd just need to get people to pull their plugs out and look at which way it span as it went down the hole and then record whether they were in the northern or southern hemisphere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for the video - dogs, view of Spansk, dog drama, wierd creepy (probably lonely but who knows) guy, scary forrest and radars, actually the forrest doesn't look that scary later on, and great view over the city from the top of the hill - a good place to clear your head! It's always funny going back to places where you grew up, looks like it would have been a nice place to play and not get into (too much:-)!) trouble as a child, it reminded me of where I grew up in England :-)! [By the way I think a lot of people in the west wouldn't be aware of the differences in terms of Lenin and Stalin, I did read once that Lenin actually didn't want Stalin to become the leader of the communist party, because he didn't think he was kind enough unfortunately he had a stroke before the vote, I don't know if this was true but if it is it's interesting, shows the difference and it's amazing to think how different history could have been.] Thanks for a nice video, it's really interesting to see these places! Good luck for your next driving test!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So there are pretty large differences between Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's invasion of Gaza.
It isn't genocide - i.e. there is no systematic atempt to eradicate a race. This is currently occuring in Sudan, why have we not heard of this? Well Sudan doesnt have a $1Billion a year organisation invested around the world unlike Hamas.
Unfortunately killing civilians (including children) isn't inherently a war crime, deliberately targeting civilians (and or children) is.
Similarly hospitals are protected sites and should not be attacked. However it is also a warcrime (violation of IHL/LOAC) to position a military target (not necessarily military itself - includes things like fuel stores etc.) next to a hospital/protected site and doing so is actually a warcrime itself, similarly using "human shields" by keeping hostages or large numbers of civilians around a protected site.
Hamas has been in power in Gaza since 2006, it has had lots of oppoutnities to move the peace process forward or make even basic changes (giving up violence for instance) to improve the lives of Palestinians, it's failled to do so infact it depends on armed conflict to exist and as mentioned there is a $1Billion a year up for grabs. This buys them alot of social media.
Ignoring the fact that it's a warcrime to do so using protected sites, hostages and human shields whilst giving maximum exposure to casualties appears to be Hamas's tactic for defending itself against counter attack by the IDF.
So in general war (everywhere) is crap, people getting killed is crap especially children and in any war in a built up city/populated area that is going to happen. Russians are suffering, Ukranians are suffering, Israelis are suffering and so are Palestinians.
I take the point of collective punishment of Russians for their government - but really there is very little else that can be done to restrict Russia's military capability, just as Palestinians are suffering becuase of their (semi-) elected government, so are Russians....
Overall it would be much better if Hamas laid down its arms and stopped killing people, Israel gave citizenship to palestinians and everyone got on with living in peace (obviously some things would change), Russia withdrew from Ukraine and Ukraine joined NATO.
That might at least give people a chance for peace for a few more decades but it seems unlikely to happen, because as mentioned too many people and too much money is involved in not doing so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fadyal-qaisy5213 I disagree - the decision to continue the takeoff was wholy inappropriate, if there's not room to stop there's not room to take off unless you're very close to takeoff speed, simply because aircraft stop alot faster than they accelerate (as do most things). Even if the decision was made his CRM was flawed in that he failled to appropriately take command of the aircraft "My controls", leading to an unclear picture as to who was in command and who was flying the aircraft. I disagree that he "saved lives" actually he put them in more danger - rather than stopping the aircraft (which he had room to do from 57kts) he panicked and accelerated the aircraft risking a higherspeed runway excursion which he was lucky to avoid. I personally think the thing that "startled" her was not that they'd turned onto the aircraft in the wrong direction but that the captain had suddenly started behaving in the unexpected manner he started moving controls without taking control of the aircraft properly and therefore her not being clear what she was supposed to be doing, without him clearly taking control, she could have challenged this or clarified it "my/your aircraft" but for a supervised pilot with a senior pilot behaving in this manner in a culture where women are generally expected to be deferential (which I expect was why the captian didn't - under stress feel the need to explain his taking control of the aircraft) that's a very uneven heirarchy and I can see why she didn't do it. As it was she did the best thing she could - leading to a partially successful takeoff, had she been frozen in a conventional sense of partial pilot incpacitiation she wouldn't have released the nose pressure at the correct time, I feel that the investigating authority found this a more convenient explanation. Had she been the captain - I'm pretty sure she would have stopped the aircraft. It could have been avoided with the technological aids mentioned but there also seems to have been an inadequate brief before takeoff - every brief I've ever seen has been clear on the taxiing - whilst pointing "okay we're going via A, left onto J, Right onto G, left to line up on 20" etc. and single engine start and single engine short taxi is quite a heavy task loading for a pilots first rolling takeoff all of which was avoidable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danstoneman4353 well you havent listed anything about your qualifications although based on your dataset I suspect you're american so our perspectives are likely to be different and I am aware that attitudes to the pandemic have become significantly politicised there, I would point out that the US has a pretty terrible record on Public health in general and so far a poor record with regards to covid. As you ask I have diploma in tropical medicine from the Liverpool School of Tropical medicine, I've worked as a doctor in intenisve care throughout covid and seen an awful lot of people die from it, including some young people. I've had the astrazenica vaccine myself, which is based on 10 years of development research. mRNA vaccines are relatively new but it's not true that the covid vaccine is its first use, they were in use against cancers in oncology before covid, your body also produces huge amounts of mRNA all the time. I'm familiar with treating infectious disease and vaccination, I do believe that covid vaccination is safe for everyone - there is always a balance of risks and risk is never zero which is why there is ongoing monitoring, people are also highly likely to experience symptoms which are a normal response to a vaccine which may make them feel unwell (fever, chills, myalgia etc.) this is normal. There are a few cases of clots forming in patients after the first AZ jab (none after the second) but this is still extremely rare (as mentioned comparable to the risks of crossing the road every 3 months), vaccination has been shown to reduce transmission of covid and there is no evidence whatsoever of a risk to fertility, as mentioned this is not something seen with vaccination. Covid infection itself does definitely produce widespread coagulation infact in general I have seen more clots in patients infected with covid than in any other condition, we routinely treated patients for this clot burden. Similarly should people present with symptoms or signs of CSVT or PE after vaccination everyone is now very aware of this possibility (although again very unlikely) and they can be treated, although as of yet I have not been involved with the treatment of any vaccine related problem. There is a risk with doing everything (eating a meal, crossing the road, having a vaccination) at the moment given the covid pandemic vaccination is safe, which isn't to say entirely risk free and I believe appropriate to reduce the risk of covid and future covid waves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1, Two islands - The gas turbines are mounted high in the ship as they're light enough to do so and the power transmitted electrically to the shafts so the exhausts could literally have gone anywhere. Having two islands breaks up the disruption to wind and airflow over the deck caused by one large island. Any damage likely to take an island is highly unlikely to leave the flight deck in a condition to be used and most likely will have sunk the ship. Even when carriers were taking hits I cannot recall an incidence of this actually happening, I also can't recall an incidence of a carrier taking a hit on its island. The carrier is not fought from the bridge anyway. I strongly suspect a large proportion of why there are two island is interservice rivalry no other navy has done this and separating air ops from sailing seems to me a mistake.
2, Abraham Lincoln Transited the Suez Canal in May 2019. If you have nuclear power you can uses that fuel for flight ops and your escorts not for moving yourself through the water. Plus you can have excess power for future weapons that are likely to be very power hungry (eg. lasers) QE can't do this. The real reason is simply cost. Mid life refueling time depends on the design and as it only needs to be done once you'll spend longer refueling/off station for fueling in a conventional design than a nuclear one. Oil supply to the UK is from the North Sea (highly unlikely to remain viable in a conflict) or the middle east also highly vulnerable to disruption. The UK has large stockpiles of uranium and the ability to reprosess it, we won't require anymore for tens of thousands fo years. New Zealand is a lovely country but hardly strategically vital for a nuclear powered carrier.
3, The carriers were supposed to have been designed with space for and the capability to fit catapults but BAe didn't do any design work on this or take it seriously from about 2000 so when the government actually said they wanted to do it it would be massively expensive to retrofit them. EMALS was unproven then it isn't now, the US Navy was betting on it for the future of its carriers and realistically never going to allow that technology to fail, plus if QE had had nuclear power she would have had a source of steam should it be necessary to fit steam catapults.
The reason she doesn't have catapults is because of the short sighted decision in the 1980s to go with a short take off vertical landing design rather than the more capable CATOBAR design and it then becoming prohibitively expensive to change them- the National Audit Office has stated this.
4, She will operate with just 12 JSFs again for cost reasons.
In short are there some benefits to gas turbine propulsion, two islands and stovl aircraft? Yes but they don't outweigh the costs (and no other navy has made these decisions).
The QEs will be carriers and it will be good for the RN to have a carrier force again. They are not really supercarriers though and dont' really add much more capability currently to the what the Invincibles would have offered if they had flown JSFs, appart from stealth they will be less capable than the French carriers. In summary like so many MOD/British projects short sighted decisions interservice rivalry and saving money in the short term have compromised it and it will have to be lived with, it's unlikely that there will be money available for a refit (which would likely be more expensive than doing things at the time of construction)
Issues you didn't touch on: JSF is also not really fast enough to work as a carrier launched air defence interceptor (it was never designed for this) the US Navy will rely on its escorts but the RN has pitifully few antiaircraft escorts and they will be mandatory for each carrier stretching capability further. Similarly the RN has not invested in a phased array or more modernised airborne early warning radar, or a cooperative engagement capability.
I can't help thinking that these combine to leave the carrier vulnerable - relatively poor fighter cover, relatively poor (potentially jamable) ability to detect airbourne threats and limited ability to disminate that ability rapidly. Combined with the likely dissemination over the next few years of more advanced combat aircarft and antiship missiles leave our carriers vulnerable (more so than the USN who are also worried about theirs).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a huge problem with checklists they can prevent sense being used, the necessity for memory actions to be completed, that said it is ridiculous that they didn't check the "emergency checklists." As you say the pilot almost certainly didn't have faith in the flight engineer. All in all spending 6 minutes (12 minutes both ways) flying. This crew really was not up to any sort of acceptable standard, likely because of nepotism and corruption within the Saudi airline and political structure, the initial management, management of the return. Why on earth the pilot would say not to evacuate is unexplainable, how he didn't believe that there was a fire on the aircraft when there was reports from the cabin crew.... completely crazy. I can understand falling back on just getting the aircraft on teh ground and in many ways flying it normally would be the way to do it, but all he had to do was apply max breaking and order an evacuation, why did he roll all the way out? Why didn't he evacuate, completely crazy. Turning the PACS off too was crazy, why did they do it? This video made me so sad/angry, it was all so avoidable this was clear idocy....crazy.
I think this is the worst aviation I've ever heard of... not sure I'd want to fly on a Saudi Airline.
The lack of training and equipment for the fire crews is another unbelievable aspect to this what was IACOs involvement in this, how was situation allowed to occur? A horrendous situation for the poorly trained fire crews to be in, their managers and those responsible for the structures and services as well as the management of Saudi Airlines (and the Saudi government) should have been held responsible for it.
The failure of the FAA to act on the NTSBs recomendation takes it to another level....Honestly it's mind blowing....
As you say the flight attendants were absolute heros here, they were horrendously let down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's quite a legalistic view that "speeding" i.e. breaking the speedlimit is what suddenly divides bad speed from good speed, indeed until the 1974s there was no speedlimit on the UK motorway network. I've seen the results of plenty of road accidents and it is grim, however I've also seen the results of multiple people being stabbed to death which society also doesn't appear to really care about, society has already decided that some people dying is an acceptable cost for using cars (infact having also worked in other places aroudn the world societies are amazingly tolerant of people dying in return for what they consider their freedom - plenty of BBB's videos during lockdown would also support this. My view - high speeds can be driven safely - Germany proves this on the small proportion of its autobahn network that is derestricted, most of the autobahn does indeed have speed limtis. We now have vast parts of the motorway network that have variable speed limits which reduce the speed limit below 70 when it is considered safer. I would suggest that it would also be possible to perfectly safely have parts of the motorway network (M6 in the borders and M5 into the South west) late at night that are virtually empty where the speed limit could either be removed, back to the situation in the 1950s with an advisory speed limit (similar to the derestricted parts of German Autobahn). Certainly I think raising the speed limit on the whole motorway network to 80 would be reasonable. It is also worth noting that there IS approximately a 10% safety margin of error in your car's speedometer - you can see it if you watch your speed on a GPS device (which gives true speeds) therefore if you're driving at 80 indicated then you're likely driving in the low 70s. Lower speeds will give better fuel economy and reduce emissions - an argument that doesn't apply (at least directly) to electric cars. From a practical point of view if you hit something at 80 you're equally dead as you would be at 70, similarly in reality the difference between stopping in 350feet to 430 feet is unlikely to make a real difference as you're talking about making a full emergency stop from those speeds which is only going to be the case if something were to fall on the motorway infront of you - in general it is going to be traffic slowing or relative closing speed, which comes down to my other point that it is not how fast you are going but when and where you drive at that speed. One problem with the obsession with speed as a metric for enforcement is that it removed consideration of dangerous driving for example tailgating, passing people at a high relative speed or undertaking, which is strictly enforced in Germany and which is much more likely (in my opinion) to lead to an accident, it has also led to traffic police essentially disappearing from the roads in favour of cameras.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscarbosio9881 Senor, en inglaterra tenemos muchas barques hundido por guerra es algo que occuri. No es una crima. En la misma messaje que declare la zona de exclusion se dice que puede ataque barcos argentinos in qualquier parte del atlantico sur (y los marineros abordaron una barco argentino que sigue el task groups cerca de asencion.) Belgrano fue una barqua de la armada argentina en tiempo de guerra, tienia ordenes a ataque la flota britanico y la armada britanico y el gobinero lo sabe porque el codigo no fue segura. Belgrano fue al sur y 5 de May fue al Norte para atraper los britanicos entre los dos. Belgrano fue algo mal que occri en una guerra, la misma como HMS Sheffield, Coventry, Antelope, Sir Galahad y Ardent (o Hood, Bismark, Royal Oak, Queen Mary, Invincible, Barnham, Glorious, Scharnhorst, Prince of Wales, Repulse.... )
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronblack2700 there's lots of footage of african's having escaped as well. The only stuff I've seen is "got sent to the back of the que" (Shouldn't everyone be going to the back of the que?) or had to wait for women and children to board trains first (seems reasonable too...). Now I'm not saying there wasn't racism but there's racism everywhere (loads in the US and its ridiculous between the different tribes in Africa). But seriously if you want to undermine something (especially at the moment) you'd do stories about them being racist - Russia is an expert at infomration warfare. Similarly I'd point out that of African nations - Eritrea supported Russia. Angola, Algeria, Burundi, Central African Republic, DRC, Equatorial Guinea, MAdagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda all abstained) Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guinea-Basu, Morocco and Togo did not vote. So whilst Ukraine should be ashamed of the incidents of Racism, Africa has plenty to be ashamed of too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NATO expansion aspect to the invasion of Ukraine is there - it's just far from the direct link that the internet/KGB/GRUbots like to make.
Russia's economy is based nearly entirely on oil and gas exports, its major customer for these was the European union (and it still sells alot to them). Germany belived that this made Russia dependent on cooperation with Europe and so encouraged gas exports/imports believing this would result in an avoidance of conflict. This continued throughout the cold war.
In 2013 (From memory) oil and gas was discovered under Dontesk, Luhansk and in the Black Sea off Crimea.
Russia/Putin offered extremely generous terms to the Ukranians for Gazprom to come in and provide the technology to exploit them and was awarded the contract after a (probably dodgy) election. After the Mandian revolution the russian oil companies were thrown out and BP, Shell and other Western oil companies moved in provide the technology for Ukraine to exploit them. This was a major threat to Russia from Putin's zero sum/great power fromer KGB mindset - if Ukraine's oil and gas reserves could be recovered and pipleines built to the Europe, Europe would no longer be dependent on Russian oil/gas and could potentially destroy Russia's economy by sanctions. There was also the risk that if Russia allowed Western Europe to develop an oil and gas economic relationship with Europe then Europe may expand european union membership to Ukraine to capitalise on this and well extend military protection through giving Ukraine NATO membership in order to protect and secure its oil and gas supply. Russia had previously scared off western oil companies and frustrated pipleline building in Gerogia by invading there, if Russia delayed and Ukraine got EU or NATO membership that may not be possible. Therefore in 2014 Russia made up various excuses (nazi's persecuting russians, nato expansion, historical etc.) to invade Dontesk, Luhansk and Crimea.... So far so good. But there was a problem, Crimea has insufficient fresh water for its population and agriculture. Therefore after the invasion Ukrane cut off the Crimean canal. Despite the construction of the Kerch straight bridge Russia was not able to supply enough water to support their military and civilian population in Crimea.... Therefore in 2022 they either had to return Crimea to Ukraine, or occupy land that would create a land bridge to Crimea and take the Crimean Canal. Despite their other set backs in the war they have occupied and created the land bridge to Crimea (so Lloyd Austin was incorrect when he said Russia had not achieved it's strategic objectives) and they did control the crimean canal until the feeding damn was destroyed (possibly to flood the land downstream but who knows). This is why Crimea and the land bridge has been key to this whole thing from the start..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" after the charge of the British Light Cavalry during the Battle of Balacava when Lord Raglan sent an order ordering them to charge the Russians atempting to remove captured guns from an overrun Turkish position but this was misunderstood as to be an order to attack the Russian emplaced artilery in a direct frontal attack, despite taking enormous losses and basically being anihilated the survivours fo the charge took the guns. It was very contentious in British society afterwards.
I
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
II
“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
III
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.
IV
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered.
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
V
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell.
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
VI
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
As an aside, Captain a horse in the novel "Black Beauty" told from the horse's perspective describes his experiences during the charge.
Kipling wrote "The last of the Light Brigade" to reproach the country and government for treatment of veterans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1