5 ms·

As there are no evidence that any Kinzhal was intercepted.

• _kbh_ 3y ago
  The lack of any scorch marks or impact craters around or anywhere near the patriot sight is a pretty good indication it was intercepted. Same with the giant flashes in the sky.
  • gdy 3y ago
    "The lack of any scorch marks" Even the US says there was 'minimal damage'. [0] There is no evidence to the number of Kinzhals launched and to the number of Kinzhals intercepted. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-...
    • _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Even the US says there was 'minimal damage'. [0] Yes, minimal damage from flying debris from something, but it's clear from that satellite imagery nothing hit any part of an actual patriot. > There is no evidence to the number of Kinzhals launched and to the number of Kinzhals intercepted. Exactly, no evidence of anything but minimal damage to a patriot either. Kinda pathetic given the size of the attack that Russia cannot even take out one air defense system that they clear know where is.
      • gdy 3y ago
        "no evidence of anything" Including the number of 'intercepted' Kinzhals which is exactly my point. I don't see what you are trying to argue about.
        • ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
          the point is that the default is russia is lying, due to their long history of lying, and nothing anybody else says or does changes that
          • gdy 3y ago
            It's comical that you called it 'bayesian prior' and now say you'll never update probabilities.
            • ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
              the flaw in your logic is that things (!russia) does don't affect the high probability that russia is lying, which is, again, the bayesian prior only the changing behavior of russia can change russia's history of behavior, and it can choose to change in a more honest direction anytime (but has not done so)
              • gdy 3y ago
                They do, imagine two states that both have high probability of lying and one says "A" and another says "not A". They can't be both lying, can they?
                • ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
                  you're thinking about it wrong, they don't have any effect on each other, even if you think you can use one to reason about the other if russia says A, we can assume !A due to russia's history of dishonesty, literally with no other information necessary someone else being dishonest, even if true, doesn't make russia more honest, so we can still assume !A indeed, because russia's history of dishonesty is so long and strong, we can stop right there, unless russia proves its probable lies are actually truthful (such is the fate of a liar) if they don't like it, they can start being honest and keep it up for a few decades to show they've changed
                  • deleted 3y ago
                    [deleted]
                  • gdy 3y ago
                    Now that's just pure russophobia.