14 ms·

> Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most. Except we can (and do!)

by ff317 2mo ago

> Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most. Except we can (and do!) accomplish that with much simpler airplanes. The staggering costs and complexities of an F35 (the thrust:weight, maneuverability, and stealth) don't make sense for any "peaceful" application.

MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
[flagged]
- adrianN 2mo ago
  „We spent money on weapons, let’s use them“ is actually a frighteningly common argument.
  - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
    Yes, it is the refrain of the warrior narcissist, a heinous human mental virus condition, which can see no value in human life worth more than to simply build a bigger mirror for them to stare and admire their own identity at the cost of so much human life.
- atmavatar 2mo ago
  I believe the point is that doing supply drops with C130s and C17s is vastly more efficient than any hackjob you could do with F35s, both in terms of throughput and cost. With that in mind, if you were to say the US should spend more on cargo planes and humanitarian aid drops and less on fighters like F35s and starting unnecessary conflicts around the globe, I'm totally with you.
  - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
    The F35's are already there, they are highly effective means of delivery in emergency conditions, they can get there faster than a C130, why not de-weaponize them and use them to drop high tech water desalination devices on the beaches of Gaza? Why not? Because there are too many in power who think that their identity is more valuable than human life. That power is perpetuated by the tip of the spear that is the F35. So, not only do we _take that power from them by turning the F35 into a Real Peace Machine™_, we do it with haste in order to address the current immense crimes the warrior narcissists have already committed. Spend a billion dollars to make these devices, de-commission the F35's from the task of bomb dropping, paint it pink and turn off its stealth, and have them drop the cluster medical kits immediately. Oh, of course this is a fantasy, but what means of peace didn't start out as a fantasy, eh kids? The point is not just to turn the F35's into peace-making devices - but to remove their potential future use by warrior narcissists to commit more heinous crimes against humanity. Two factors: save the children. Stop the warrior narcissists from further atrocities. Full-scale de-weaponization of everything. No exceptions.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - YZF 2mo ago
      The transport airplanes are also there. Aid has been dropped from them to Gaza and some of it killed people and it was generally a drop in the bucket compared to aid entering via land. Instead of fantasizing about F35s which are a very expensive way of delivering incredibly small amounts of things we should fantasize about getting more trucks to deliver stuff where it's cheap and massive amounts. That's a lot more tractable and achievable. We can also fantasize about what peace looks like and it doesn't look like dropping things from F-35s, that's generally what you do when you gave up on peace (which holds for both bombs and supplies). Since the "ceasefire" about 21,000 tons of medical aid has entered Gaza. The amount of water already delivered is also immense and if you were to replace/complement this with desalinization you need to build a proper desalinization plant or repair the one that was already there. Let's fantasize about what more is needed and working with the different parties to get there. An F-35 can carry about 10 tons. So you'd need 2000 sorties to deliver a similar amount under the most ideal conditions each sortie costing something like $100K. A C-130 about 20 tons and has about x3-5 less operational cost per hour. It's not just about carry capacity it's about systems to deliver them (like parachutes or whatnot) which a C-130 is already fitted with. So for air delivery of stuff (which is ridiculously low volume and expensive) the C-130 is the preferred choice between the two. We also happen to have an inventory of things on pallets that are ready for C-130s. It's still not a great choice anyways. A commercial truck can carry 40 tons and operating costs would be something like $100 and the trucks are also already there and moving. If we need to get more of those that's what we should work on (and for all those options you need to work with the people on the ground and in the region. The problem isn't capacity/capability it's the politics and the situation on the ground. If we're fantasizing maybe start with Lennon's "Imagine no religion" ;)
      - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
        Imagine no warrior narcissist identity. Religions are just a subset of that identity. Warrior narcissists will subjugate any human organization to build their mirror - religion, government, media - anything. Sure, we can discuss the logistics. We, the peace-makers, should be smashing the mirror no matter what it takes. For me, that is efficiently represented by the de-weaponization of all the things, not just the F35. But, still. Use the F35 to drop cluster medical kits. That'd cost a pittance and it would make far more peace than the million dollar GRU or glide kit.
- hansvm 2mo ago
  > you can't possibly be saying XYZ...rant about XYZ, among other things No, obviously that's not what they're saying. There must be some reasonable interpretation then, right? Let's look at the chat thread and see what we can find. > be very cautious about evil uses of seemingly safe technology when developing initial capabilities >> that's super hard since most things can be repurposed >>> (your other comment) it's actually easy though, just look at how we could repurpose these death machines >>>> (their comment) but...that's wildly inefficient The subtext to their answer is going an entire opposite direction to your rant. People are saying that turning anything into a killing machine is easy, and their comment is saying that doing so is sometimes Pareto-suboptimal, and so wildly so that no semi-rational-at-least-a-little-bit-sometimes military is going to bother trying to weaponize your silicone basting brush or what have you. They're not saying that you should mass-murder people, as you, yourself speculated.
  - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
    >No, obviously that's not what they're saying. It is what they are saying, because they have misunderstood the point: You talk about 'efficiency' while there are children dying, limbs severed, bombs still falling. The F35 is there, it has one purpose: murder. Turn that immediately into another, singular purpose: life. Nobody is saying "manufacture new F35's that only drop pansies". The point is, de-weaponize. That can be done with far greater ease than anything else. And that is the only point that matters, while limbless children are dying by the minute.
    - 15155 2mo ago
      All of this random F-35 shit is completely missing the point. The F-35 isn't "there" - no aircraft is "there" because the costs to operate them far eclipse their acquisition costs, always. If you said "scrap the F-35s, spend money on humanitarian purposes" - you'd have a cogent (albeit naive) point. "Use one of the most expensive per-flight-hour aircraft in the world to do a mission it can't do and wasn't built for" is not intelligent. Roughly, just considering fuel: the F-35 burns ~10,000 lbs/hr of JP-8 and can haul just 18,000 lbs of relatively small/multiple payloads. A 747 burns ~20,000 lbs/hr and can haul over 300,000 lbs of palletized loads. See the issue?
- Libcat99 2mo ago
  While I would much rather see medical kits distributed to Gaza today than bombs, this could (and should) be accomplished not by converting F35s. Dismantle the F35s, and drop supplies with a C130 or other military transport capable of airdrop, which will be VASTLY more cost/fuel efficient, thus allowing you to do a lot more of it than you ever could with a fleet of F35s. Which I'm 95% certain is exactly what the other folks you're arguing with are suggesting.
  - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
    Dismantle the F35's: sure. Once the victims they created are safe. But if the F35's were used to murder, they can be used to rescue, too. So do that as fast as possible. In fact, turning the F35's into medical-supply dropping devices immediately would have another very, very important impact: it would be making amends for all the death and calamity their warrior narcissist pilots, who have spent their lives learning to murder efficiently, have been causing. We paint the F35's pink to make amends for the murder they have caused.
    - 15155 2mo ago
      > In fact, turning the F35's into medical-supply dropping devices immediately In your scenario, how many people are dying as a result of the carbon impact of this foolish waste of fuel and other resources as opposed to using the right tool for the job?
    - Libcat99 2mo ago
      So you, when given the choice. 1. Save/heal/supply as many people as possible. 2. "Make Amends" by painting aircraft pink. You choose 2. This is where you and I disagree.

by ff317 2mo ago

MomsAVoxell 2mo ago

[flagged]

adrianN 2mo ago
„We spent money on weapons, let’s use them“ is actually a frighteningly common argument.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  Yes, it is the refrain of the warrior narcissist, a heinous human mental virus condition, which can see no value in human life worth more than to simply build a bigger mirror for them to stare and admire their own identity at the cost of so much human life.
atmavatar 2mo ago
I believe the point is that doing supply drops with C130s and C17s is vastly more efficient than any hackjob you could do with F35s, both in terms of throughput and cost. With that in mind, if you were to say the US should spend more on cargo planes and humanitarian aid drops and less on fighters like F35s and starting unnecessary conflicts around the globe, I'm totally with you.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  The F35's are already there, they are highly effective means of delivery in emergency conditions, they can get there faster than a C130, why not de-weaponize them and use them to drop high tech water desalination devices on the beaches of Gaza? Why not? Because there are too many in power who think that their identity is more valuable than human life. That power is perpetuated by the tip of the spear that is the F35. So, not only do we _take that power from them by turning the F35 into a Real Peace Machine™_, we do it with haste in order to address the current immense crimes the warrior narcissists have already committed. Spend a billion dollars to make these devices, de-commission the F35's from the task of bomb dropping, paint it pink and turn off its stealth, and have them drop the cluster medical kits immediately. Oh, of course this is a fantasy, but what means of peace didn't start out as a fantasy, eh kids? The point is not just to turn the F35's into peace-making devices - but to remove their potential future use by warrior narcissists to commit more heinous crimes against humanity. Two factors: save the children. Stop the warrior narcissists from further atrocities. Full-scale de-weaponization of everything. No exceptions.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - YZF 2mo ago
    The transport airplanes are also there. Aid has been dropped from them to Gaza and some of it killed people and it was generally a drop in the bucket compared to aid entering via land. Instead of fantasizing about F35s which are a very expensive way of delivering incredibly small amounts of things we should fantasize about getting more trucks to deliver stuff where it's cheap and massive amounts. That's a lot more tractable and achievable. We can also fantasize about what peace looks like and it doesn't look like dropping things from F-35s, that's generally what you do when you gave up on peace (which holds for both bombs and supplies). Since the "ceasefire" about 21,000 tons of medical aid has entered Gaza. The amount of water already delivered is also immense and if you were to replace/complement this with desalinization you need to build a proper desalinization plant or repair the one that was already there. Let's fantasize about what more is needed and working with the different parties to get there. An F-35 can carry about 10 tons. So you'd need 2000 sorties to deliver a similar amount under the most ideal conditions each sortie costing something like $100K. A C-130 about 20 tons and has about x3-5 less operational cost per hour. It's not just about carry capacity it's about systems to deliver them (like parachutes or whatnot) which a C-130 is already fitted with. So for air delivery of stuff (which is ridiculously low volume and expensive) the C-130 is the preferred choice between the two. We also happen to have an inventory of things on pallets that are ready for C-130s. It's still not a great choice anyways. A commercial truck can carry 40 tons and operating costs would be something like $100 and the trucks are also already there and moving. If we need to get more of those that's what we should work on (and for all those options you need to work with the people on the ground and in the region. The problem isn't capacity/capability it's the politics and the situation on the ground. If we're fantasizing maybe start with Lennon's "Imagine no religion" ;)
    - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
      Imagine no warrior narcissist identity. Religions are just a subset of that identity. Warrior narcissists will subjugate any human organization to build their mirror - religion, government, media - anything. Sure, we can discuss the logistics. We, the peace-makers, should be smashing the mirror no matter what it takes. For me, that is efficiently represented by the de-weaponization of all the things, not just the F35. But, still. Use the F35 to drop cluster medical kits. That'd cost a pittance and it would make far more peace than the million dollar GRU or glide kit.
hansvm 2mo ago
> you can't possibly be saying XYZ...rant about XYZ, among other things No, obviously that's not what they're saying. There must be some reasonable interpretation then, right? Let's look at the chat thread and see what we can find. > be very cautious about evil uses of seemingly safe technology when developing initial capabilities >> that's super hard since most things can be repurposed >>> (your other comment) it's actually easy though, just look at how we could repurpose these death machines >>>> (their comment) but...that's wildly inefficient The subtext to their answer is going an entire opposite direction to your rant. People are saying that turning anything into a killing machine is easy, and their comment is saying that doing so is sometimes Pareto-suboptimal, and so wildly so that no semi-rational-at-least-a-little-bit-sometimes military is going to bother trying to weaponize your silicone basting brush or what have you. They're not saying that you should mass-murder people, as you, yourself speculated.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  >No, obviously that's not what they're saying. It is what they are saying, because they have misunderstood the point: You talk about 'efficiency' while there are children dying, limbs severed, bombs still falling. The F35 is there, it has one purpose: murder. Turn that immediately into another, singular purpose: life. Nobody is saying "manufacture new F35's that only drop pansies". The point is, de-weaponize. That can be done with far greater ease than anything else. And that is the only point that matters, while limbless children are dying by the minute.
  - 15155 2mo ago
    All of this random F-35 shit is completely missing the point. The F-35 isn't "there" - no aircraft is "there" because the costs to operate them far eclipse their acquisition costs, always. If you said "scrap the F-35s, spend money on humanitarian purposes" - you'd have a cogent (albeit naive) point. "Use one of the most expensive per-flight-hour aircraft in the world to do a mission it can't do and wasn't built for" is not intelligent. Roughly, just considering fuel: the F-35 burns ~10,000 lbs/hr of JP-8 and can haul just 18,000 lbs of relatively small/multiple payloads. A 747 burns ~20,000 lbs/hr and can haul over 300,000 lbs of palletized loads. See the issue?
Libcat99 2mo ago
While I would much rather see medical kits distributed to Gaza today than bombs, this could (and should) be accomplished not by converting F35s. Dismantle the F35s, and drop supplies with a C130 or other military transport capable of airdrop, which will be VASTLY more cost/fuel efficient, thus allowing you to do a lot more of it than you ever could with a fleet of F35s. Which I'm 95% certain is exactly what the other folks you're arguing with are suggesting.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  Dismantle the F35's: sure. Once the victims they created are safe. But if the F35's were used to murder, they can be used to rescue, too. So do that as fast as possible. In fact, turning the F35's into medical-supply dropping devices immediately would have another very, very important impact: it would be making amends for all the death and calamity their warrior narcissist pilots, who have spent their lives learning to murder efficiently, have been causing. We paint the F35's pink to make amends for the murder they have caused.
  - 15155 2mo ago
    > In fact, turning the F35's into medical-supply dropping devices immediately In your scenario, how many people are dying as a result of the carbon impact of this foolish waste of fuel and other resources as opposed to using the right tool for the job?
  - Libcat99 2mo ago
    So you, when given the choice. 1. Save/heal/supply as many people as possible. 2. "Make Amends" by painting aircraft pink. You choose 2. This is where you and I disagree.