Matej Rafael Risko

Was a very nice event anyway.

An educational wargame focused on the decision-making process for students of one course at Anton Neuwirth College. I let the Baltonia get smashed by the Northern Federation. Was fun but gotta say it's also a bit challenging to work with untrained people -they’ve unrealistic expectations.

It turns out that the missile was launched from an SS-18 silo that was reconstructed for Dneper SLV launches so that means that it is highly likely that the missile was indeed SS-X-30 (SS-18s aren’t tested since 2014).

I just saw some pictures re SS-X-30’s silo construction work. So possibly really Satan II

Unless they prepared silo for SS-X-30 test my best bet ‘d be the SS-19 (Dombarovskiy houses them),the SS-18s haven't been tested for quite some time, and I've been told that there is a big problem with the SS-19’s WSR, the missiles are getting old, and there is a need to address the Avangard carrier

Me: Okay, no politics at my place during thanksgiving

Cat: Mao

I think this is why it is communicated this way in advance, the feedback loop in Russia is far from perfect (after all, it was probably one of the reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine) so they are trying to prepare information environment in advance (as just responding in kind may not be sufficient)

In general, I don't prefer it, but in this case there's a conviction that sth must be done, since any actions aimed at defensive measures are ineffective and RU actions in the gray zone against Europe are cumulative in nature. We need to prevent future costs, the risk of miscalculation is too great.

I do not really understand cyber warfare, so take it with a grain of salt but my understanding is that most of the Russian cyber offensive operations against NATO states aren’t carried from Russia. Otherwise it could be done immediately, we provide some intel and targeting data.

This is a part of the direct messaging, NATO is *preparing for the possibility* and signals it in advance and intentionally creates a commitment trap (Russia is aware of it). It is necessary, have been long arguing that we need to do something of that nature (essentially almost risk-free but signal)

"Europe does not want war with a nuclear-armed Russia and so has to figure out how to respond in a way that deters Moscow but does not cross any Kremlin red lines."

Europe needs to change its attitude. We need to be willing to run greater risks. Moscow will only be deterred if it fears escalation.

Lessons From Los Alamos America has the most to lose from restarting nuclear testing.

Friends, do not argue about politics today. But if you must, argue with the in-laws about test yield thresholds and the relative merits of a "zero yield" criterion. Not college football or Congress.

Otherwise this is apparently also a reaction to the Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan being a shared security issue and the US diplomatic stance. That’s why Xi reached DJT and this is also likely part of the framework used to mitigate the perceived risks stemming from hardening the anti-China alliance

Too tired to write something substantial on Chinese paper today (I will probably do tomorrow, some things are imo interesting) but I have to say that the language (“a certain country”) and some framings (“Arms Control - okay, NFU!!!!”) gave an honest lol moments.

Future USS District of Columbia (SSBN 826) Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine front section arriving in Groton, Connecticut for final assembly - November 21, 2025 SRC: FB- Naval Sea Systems Command

Happy Thanksgiving to all my American friends. May you and your country prosper

But yeah, I get that it's not entirely fair of me until I read the book, so. But in any case, I make no secret of the fact that I don't really like this highly Marxist view of the world, which explains (reduces) motivations for action to power relations (tbh it is essentially a circular argument).

Honestly, I consider the claim that "they were not independent" to be a fallacy. The author authoritatively asserts something from a normative point of view that he considers correct (which cannot be easily verified-ie that disarmament was alternative) and retroactively argues with a confirming bias

I just did, yeah

Incidentally,this applies to MIC and state apparatuses as well,nukes are not a special case.Perhaps Im in a special position because my work (part of what I do) directly concerns policy work,but I know very well why I do what I do and that my goal is to contribute to the mil dominance over the enemy

Goes both ways, R&D is directly tied to planning—you address future threats, plan operations 30+ years down the road.

Cold War arms-control pioneers perhaps weren’t peacemakers we thought they were — Harvard Gazette Nuclear-age historian argues scientists who backed arsenals as deterrent aided military-industrial complex, hampered disarmament.

In principle I appreciate diverse perspectives in the history of (nuclear) science & society.

In practice, when it's as condescending as this, I find myself appreciating the would-be subjects of British imperial anthropology who drove their interlocutors off with spears and Martini-Henry rifles.

Yes, the strategy is based on military and political principles and assumptions. But it is not the case that people who are involved in a sort of policy work do not think about strategy and motivations.

The vast majority of things that are reflected in planning are in fact technical in nature. Planning effects, trajectories, etc is technical work that is difficult for someone without a background in natural sciences and technology. These people absolutely think about the strategy.

When I stumble across something positive in my news feed about Ukraine, anything at all, it feels like a huge, rare surprise. Most of the time it’s bombings, deaths, and destruction. So here I am, sharing one of those rare good things:

Todd Harrison is by resume at least no fool, but this is a very foolish idea, perhaps explained by the fact that in Mr. Harrison's long career he has never worked nuclear matters. This idea does not survive first contact with the facts of that domain.

A very rare work related thread.

still, I hate to say it, but an excellent layer, ngl

That's true, but as far as I know, the missile slows down significantly in the terminal phase and is within the PAC-3MSE envelope. DF-27 (ZQ) is far more problematic

Some unfinished maps i recently did showing PLARF brigades and their reach. It also includes US MDTF systems that are being deployed right now. Also included are US-Allied bases in the region and what sort of assets they have regularly. Two DF-11 brigades not included.

Ex-Slovak MiG-29AS - you can see MFI-54 MFD panel on the right and PUS-29 input panel in the middle.
Tail number (formerly) 3709.

Also, all indicators in the cockpit are imperial and not metric, but this cannot be seen with this resolution.