I’ll check if I have anything handy at work.
1 Like
Being reported as a Storm Shadow attack.
5 Likes
I broadly agree with your take, and especially that Moldova wants to resolve it peacefully and Ukraine has already confirmed that it will act only on request from Moldova so I don’t expect war in Transnistra.
Tass has taken note and conveyed that Russia is “keeping a close eye … and was ready to react”.
But the plane loads of weapons and ammunition from Poland to Moldova suggest that something that requires weapons and ammunition might occur.
A “good will gesture” from the Kremlin could result in warships in the Black Sea Fleet requesting permission to assist in the evacuation of Russian troops from Transnistra so that they can “spend more time with their families”.
A Moldovan honour guard escorting them through Rumania to an agreed Black Sea port could help them to feel more secure when passing through a hostile NATO country…
Pure speculation. There are many other possibilities. Russian morale would not be improved by that one, but it might agree with Moldova that a peaceful removal of the garrison would be a desirable option.
Ukraine might count that as a victory - perhaps by denying having had anything to do with it.
Problem with the AI experts warning is that it does deliberately exacerbate panic about “the risk of extinction from AI” as a “global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”.
It is notorious that neither pandemic risks nor nuclear war risks have been adequately resolved as a global priority.
Omission of “climate change” when talking about “extinction” could hardly be accidental given the current abysmal panic mongering in support of counter productive “solutions” like windmills and solar panels.
I don’t think they are as unaware of the dangers of panic mongering as those climate scientists who attempted to accelerate action on a long term danger that way.
Perhaps they are. But they do know a lot more about how AI research is developing than climate scientists know about either economics or politics and they should be taken seriously.
As reported in Al Jazeera, the US is trying to get round Japan’s ban on lethal weapons by negotiating commercial sales of TNT for the manufacture of ammunition for Ukraine.
Apparently Japan’s more lax export controls on dual use products allows scope.
However, of the several TNT manufacturers, it seems only one makes industrial TNT, entirely for military ammunition buyers.
2 Likes
ICI was once an Australian companyand bug maufacturer of TNT for mining
In the way of Australian businessmen, they changed ICI to Orica then ran the company down. IDK what they do or can do now - if they still make TNT why not sell that to US?
Orica is a global force in the mining explosives industry. It’s a solid company. It wasn’t run into the ground, it sold off the parts of ICI Australia that weren’t viable as local orphans. ICI UK sold off the Australian arm to pay for a bad business venture, but the Australian business was designed to be a local branch of the behemoth, not to stand alone. The Poms set it up to fail.
For example Orica sold off the auto paint business to a global paint company because the global auto makers would only award to global suppliers, not to a supplier specifically limited to Australia. The local business wouldn’t be able to keep up the technological arms race and would just die over time if kept within Orica. The sale kept the paint business operating with new owners and gave Orica the capital needed to go all in with explosives.
There’s a difference between ammunition explosives and mining explosives. I do not know the specifics. We do have some level of ammunition TNT production, which I suspect is heading to France. We’ve got local production, but I think there’s pretty obvious reason that we aren’t loudly publicising where and how we are shipping it.
Maybe we are.
Back in 2021, the US Defense Dept approved Australian made TNT for military use. ANNOUNCE by then Defence Minister Payne.
This allowed for the export from the Thales plant at Mulwala, operating under a lease from the Commonwealth.
Reportedly, domestically, it has been used for 155mm high explosive artillery for M795 , sourcing toluene from Viva in Geelong.
The Thales production is supposed to be part of the Cooperative R&D agreement between the US Army Armaments Center and Thales.
Good insight into the latest tanks RU is using on the battlefield
2 Likes
The Oryx team have noticed very few modernised T-72s. Most losses are simply repaired and not upgraded tanks.
2 Likes
Yes. They probably did that just before I invested in the bastards.
My superpower is investing in the wrong companies at the wrong time.
2 Likes
Turns out this story was all a mistake, the guy said the wrong thing 
1 Like
Interesting video - warning other russians about what happened to his friend after he was drafted
1 Like
USA to train F16 pilots confirmed by Biden
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1664546229525655552?s=20
1 Like
Slight chemical processes differences; inputs and outputs handling are similar. I mean, with some investment, it is easier to convert or add a line for military propellants and high explosives than than to start from scratch.
3 Likes
The glbal demand for tnt is high
1 Like
Apparently, the only constraint on Thales production for artillery at the Mulwala plant was the small domestic market and the high cost of transport for exporting.
The US Defense approval was seen as a major breakthrough for Thales expansion at Mulwala.
Outside of Thales, there is a fair sized explosives industry, much of it for the mining sector.
3 Likes
Not sure if you are being sarcastic about it. That fact check confirms that the Guardian accurately reported what Colonel Hamilton, Chief of AI Test and Operations, USAF said by linking directly to the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Highlights from the RAeS Future Combat Air & Space Capabilities Summit of 23-24 May:
He notes that one simulated test saw an AI-enabled drone tasked with a SEAD mission to identify and destroy SAM sites, with the final go/no go given by the human. However, having been ‘reinforced’ in training that destruction of the SAM was the preferred option, the AI then decided that ‘no-go’ decisions from the human were interfering with its higher mission – killing SAMs – and then attacked the operator in the simulation. Said Hamilton: “We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realising that while they did identify the threat at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.”
He went on: “We trained the system – ‘Hey don’t kill the operator – that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.”
This example, seemingly plucked from a science fiction thriller, mean that: “You can’t have a conversation about artificial intelligence, intelligence, machine learning, autonomy if you’re not going to talk about ethics and AI” said Hamilton.
It further confirms that Colonel Hamilton “seems to have retracted his claim” and concludes:
We don’t have access to internal documents or third-party verification of every simulation or experiment the US military has run with AI. But the only source of the idea that this simulation ever happened has since appeared to walk it all back. As it stands, we have no evidence that such a simulation ever took place – and strong evidence, in the new testimony of Col Tucker combined with the US Air Force denial, that it didn’t.
The “strong evidence” consists of “new testimony” that Col Tucker “admits that he mis-spoke” following a USAF denial.
Here it is, in all it’s glory, at the link above:
[UPDATE 2/6/23 - in communication with AEROSPACE - Col Hamilton admits he “mis-spoke” in his presentation at the Royal Aeronautical Society FCAS Summit and the ‘rogue AI drone simulation’ was a hypothetical “thought experiment” from outside the military, based on plausible scenarios and likely outcomes rather than an actual USAF real-world simulation saying: “We’ve never run that experiment, nor would we need to in order to realise that this is a plausible outcome”. He clarifies that the USAF has not tested any weaponised AI in this way (real or simulated) and says “Despite this being a hypothetical example, this illustrates the real-world challenges posed by AI-powered capability and is why the Air Force is committed to the ethical development of AI”.]
Anybody that finds that reassuring will be even more reassured that the US Air Force is committed to the ethical development of AI as confirmed by numerous fact checkers verifying that they have said so.
The item is near the end of the long “Highlights” link, all of which is worth looking at for a very current update on “Future Combat Air & Space Capabilities”:
The topics ranged from lessons from the current war in Ukraine, resilience and agile operations, interoperability, space, multidomain operations, future sixth-gen platforms, low-cost drones, loyal wingman, to training, cyber, simulation, AI, deterrence and hypersonics and even speculative fiction’s role in predicting the future.
1 Like
Ukraine minister of defence.
“Had a meaningful meeting with the Hon. Richard Marles @RichardMarlesMP, Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Defence.
We discussed Ukraine’s priorities for strengthening defense capabilities. Another package of security assistance will be announced by the 
government in July.
I asked our Australian friends to consider the possibility of training Ukrainian pilots, providing medical evacuation vehicles and means of electronic warfare against drones.
I was moved by my colleague’s remarks of admiration for Ukraine’s extraordinary bravery which inspires so many people.
Invited him to visit Ukraine.
”
https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1664632375135936517?s=46&t=A5S-z5IJslFoC5SVN0Jodg
6 Likes
I take the omission of any reference to tanks and IFVs as indicative that the priorities highlighted in 3 recent videos from Ukraine are expected to be addressed in an announcement next month.
With rather more than a strong hint that “our Australian friends” should now “consider the possibility” of helping the Australian government come to a more rapid conclusion that it could also help with:
- Training Ukrainian pilots
- Providing medical evacuation vehicles
- Means of electronic warfare against drones.
1 Like