Archive through January 06, 2026
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Real-World Military:
Archive through January 06, 2026
Factual accuracy is of course vital, but also one must look at what stories are covered and which are ignored.
Is it fair to say News Outlets do change over time for very good reasos.
The old joke 'Stop sitting on the Fence, you will get a splinter where the Sun doesn't shine' - is very difficult to maintain and often both sides will not like someone who is trully neutral.
I would also bet, for those Outlets which are in the middle - will often lean the same way as the Government (to indirectly curry favour) or will lean away to balance 'Government Propoganda' so people can get a better blend of the news?
As an example - and as it's a Football World Cup Year.
1) "Goal of the Tornament"
2) "The Goalkeeper was having a wonderful game and it was only ever going to be a wonderful goal which eventually beat him".
3) "The goal was only scored after the refernee missing a foul in the build up to the goal".
All could be a report on the same game - factually correct but who are you bigging up?
But on RWM - Prime Minister Starmer is being pressured by his own Back Benchers (which is most MPs and the term is used to describe MP's who are not in the Cabinet - which is also called Front Benchers) to call out the attack as being 'against international law' - but the legal UK Opposition (Conservatives) seem to be more supportive of the US actions - and the more minor UK parties seem to be against it.
Ask a question - you get three answers!
And ask Chuck started it - Can we start as Misunderstood (or misheard song lyric) comment topic? 
"Pacific is an Ocean - the Specific Ocean is not!
(My wifes accurte hearing sometimes picks up an S in the wrong place!)
or
"You've got to staple the Vicar" (guess the song )
Back back to RWM to end
France and he UK joined in a joint operation in Syria and struck an IS munitions Depot with Precision air launched weapons - 7 years after being kicked out - the IS seem still to be in Iraq/Syria in some strength. I would guess they never really went away?
P.S, Please accept my apology if there are more spelling mistakes than nomal - somehow cut the top of a finger off (very small amount!!!) while helping my son build a Motte & Bailey castle!!) as typing with a plaster is not easy!!
Model motte and bailey castle?
Or are you getting prepared for something?
The Washington Post used to be biased to the left; however, over the past couple of years, they've made a hard right turn under the diktat of Jeff Bezos.
MSNBC and FoxNews aren't news; they're bias confirmation services and entertainment providers (with the exception of Fox Business, which is fairly straight-shooting).
Jack - Well, it's homework and had to fit on a A4 Sheet of paper! (So other than a Lego Zombie invasion...nope!)
On Venezula - Spain has now come out against the operation.... and PM Starmer seems to be wanting closer ties to Europe.
I a guessing Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagans 'US/UK Unbreakable Relationship' is pretty much now broken?
Jessica Orsini asked Chuck Strong what is a neutral media outlet (paraphrased by me).
Answering for myself only, there is no such thing as a "neutral" news outlet that reports "only facts."
Even the decision of what facts to report correctly and fully can have a profound effect on viewership's opinions due to the effects of confirmation bias and other forms of bias on the part of the reader, the outlet, or both.
One can characterize organizations as "less biased" or "more biased," but they are ALL biased to a greater or lesser degree.
Additionally, one should not limit bias to "left" and "right". While that is the predominant paradigm of modern Western media, outlets such as Al-Jazira (sp?) have other types of outlook-specific biases.
Yet further, the definition of bias can vary with the consumer of information. Jessica Orsini and I can review exactly the same news article and disagree on why or how that article is biased.
In the end, human beings judge the veracity of information based on whether they trust the source of that information. If no trust, then the source is automatically discounted, even when that source genuinely tries to report a balanced perspective (in its view).
This is one of the reasons that we have a crisis in information confidence today, despite the information age. Since everyone and his brother has access to AI and the Internet, ironically information has become MORE muddy, not less, because of the human proclivity to lie (outright or by half-truths) or spin information to manipulate others.
Indeed, the crisis in information confidence extends all the way into the hard sciences, which should be insulated from such problems because of the power of positivistic philosophy. However, due to funding methods, political motivations of research, the biases and prejudices of scientists (and trust me, they all have them simply by virtue of being human), and the difficulty of isolating correlation from causality even in bona-fide research, even scientific facts are subject to skepticism and distrust.
I am forbidden by BBS rules of giving examples of bias in science, but all you have to do is look at certain controversial topics in science. The issue is NOT one of rejection or acceptance of the magesterium of "science" - the issue lies in trust in the integrity of the messenger.
The best that one can hope for in all ages, but particularly in today's world, is to be well-informed from a wide variety of news sources from outright left propaganda machines to outright right propaganda machines (and several in between) and then try to piece together your best guess at what the "truth" is in view of your own experience.
A person of integrity must be prepared to change opinions based on changing evaluation of what the truth is.
Note that I do not propose that there is no such thing as truth. There is truth in science, psychology, and spirituality. However, discerning the truth - even in science - is monumentally difficult and should be approached from the perspective of humility, rather than simply assuming that you are right.
Again, that doesn't mean you back down at anyone's argument. It does mean you need to be prepared to change your mind if confronted with persuasive evidence of what the truth actually is.
My 42 quatloos.
ENOUGH, NO MORE DISCUSSION of media bias. We have real wars to discuss.
IRAN has major riots in 108 cities. The currency has collapsed and is now officially worthless. The Ayatollah is reported to be on the verge of flying to Moscow for his health. The Republican Guard is reported to be shaky and expecting orders to crush the riots, but unsure if the troops would actually obey orders.
The peace plan in Gaza appears to be on the verge of collapse as Hamas refused to disarm or give up power.
And now for something completely different...
Does anyone know why the Trump class "battleship" (perhaps better described as a really large cruiser) is not (apparently) going to be nuclear powered? According to the the information released to date, it is projected to be about 35,000 tons, perhaps a bit more, and to be powered by a gas turbine + diesel system. But unless I'm missing something (always possible, of course), the numbers don't seem to add up. I believe the Arleigh Burke class has twice had to have its generator sets upgraded to support the extremely capable (and extremely power-hungry) electronics (especially the radar) of the Flight IIA and Flight III series. The Trump battleships extremely large cruisers will carry even more extensive electronics, multiple lasers (some of which are higher-powered than anything currently operational - at least according to publicly available sources) and a 32 megajoule railgun! Of course, megajoule is a unit of energy rather than power so to even estimate a power requirement we would need to have an estimate for the proposed rate of fire. But I think we can safely assume the actual power requirements, taking everything into account, will be... nontrivial.
While nuclear power would raise the "up front" costs for this thing, I'm skeptical that the ship (as described) would work without it. This might be deliberate deception to disguise the intended capabilities. Or it might be that, at least for now, no serious design proposal (even preliminary) exists. Deception, or vaporware? In any case, nothing happens until Congress says "OK".
Alan
Absolutely agree - Nuclear powerered would make sense.
3 reasons why they may not want to do it
Uppfron Cost
Complexity
Where will the ship be intended to be based?*
* - i.e. What are the rules on Nuclear Powered ships going into the Home Waters of Japan and New Zealand (and possibly Australia??)?
Could they be banned from using those Ports....
...which might well be the expected main areas of conflict for them???
You don't have to go nuclear to have enough power for lasers. You can use gt generators, electric motors for propulsion, and batteries. It largely depends on if you plan to move a lot while shooting lasers, and what the cycle times and engagement times are like. Do you want to be doing 32 kts while firing all lasers continuously for 2 hours? Or will you stop dead and fire lasers for 5-15 mins in short bursts? Or something in between?
I can see some lasers working on a Trump BC (or many modern electric ships) from a power perspective, but the laser tech is IMHO pretty immature to be relied on heavily at this time. It's getting there.
Generally, the Trump BC specs are minimal and IMHO pretty notional. You could generate a much more detailed and consistent spec by sitting down with ChatGPT for 20 minutes. It's not hard really, you are basically just designing a modern Kirov class BC with modern systems.
--Mike
Mike,
I don't think the lasers per se are the issue. The problem is supplying so many power hungry systems in aggregate. Having to "... stop dead and fire lasers for 5-15 mins..." is a problem, especially when you consider how much power is also required for the SPY-6 radar and the other sensor and EW systems.
And, a... railgun?
I completely agree the currently available specs are minimal and notional. But why? If you're going to make this big announcement, garnering lots of media attention, why wouldn't you have something a bit better and more finished?
One of the details to emerge from the recent action In Venezuela is a released report listing names (from both parties) of Senators and Congressional Representatives who have received campaign donations from the currently incarcerated maduro (and his wife…) both of whom have now pleaded not guilty to a huge laundry list of crimes.
Don’t suppose we could demand the politicians return twenty years or more of those donations on the theory that is plunder from the tax payers of that nation?
Nah.
Didn’t think so.
Breaking news:
It appears that there were sixteen sanctioned oil tankers in Venezuela harbors at the time of the U.S. arrest of Maduro.
It is now reported that all of those oil tankers (known to have carried oil from certain nations that the world community’s have banned the export or sale), are under weigh and heading into the Atlantic Ocean.
Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to how many get away?
Quote:By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 05, 2026 - 01:02 pm: Edit
i.e. What are the rules on Nuclear Powered ships going into the Home Waters of Japan and New Zealand (and possibly Australia??)?
The US has a CVN based in Japan. Our SSNs make regular visits Australia and Japan. Australia is buying nuclear subs and currently training on US Virginia SSNs. I'm not sure what the current stance of New Zealand is, but I think they've relaxed their stance in recent years.
If a list of names of Congress members receiving donations from Maduro exists and has been discovered or released, then the FBI should investigate; if the claims are found credible, said members of Congress should be charged for campaign finance violations.
However, it does not appear to be the case. The claim of such a list appears to go back to a post on X by one Joshua Hall, with no supporting documentation; no subsequent support has been forthcoming.
There appears to be two letters released, neither of which originated by a JoshuaHall.”
One is “ Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, a former Venezuelan military intelligence chief known as "El Pollo" Carvajal, has written to former US President Donald Trump from federal prison, accusing Nicolás Maduro's government of operating as a "narco-terrorist organisation".
In the letter, Carvajal claimed that during his years leading Venezuela's military counterintelligence, he witnessed high-ranking officials coordinating drug trafficking operations and establishing alliances with armed groups…..” copies published by the Miami Herald and a publication in Bogata, columbia.
The other, reputedly a follow on letter by the same person (who is currently in Federal custody awaiting his own trial), did include the names of U.S. politicians supposedly paid cash donations.
I have not located any current references to the supposed second letter, though Snopes has not yet posted a status of the second letter.
If it is a hoax, it certainly has provoked a lot of comment.
Snopes is hardly definitive.
On the powerplant for the battle... Very Large Cruiser...
I know I'm just a dumba__ed Civvie here, but I'd like to paraphrase things from the book, "Electronic Greyhounds;" it's a book about the development and operations of the Spruance class Destroyers and their derivatives (including the Aegis Cruisers).
Rickover wanted to go with nuclear power, despite its expense, when the Aegis ships were first proposed. BuShips shot down that idea, opting instead to put Aegis on a pre-existing hull type (the Spruance) and giving us the Ticonderoga class as, if you can believe this, a "Lower Cost Aegis Platform."
While I don't know if it really fits in with what this new battlesh... Really Large Cruiser... Is meant to be doing, but the book does point out some REAL advantages of gas turbine propulsion.
Nuclear power plants take time to build up steam (Um, they have poor acceleration from zero) unless they're kept running at high power. High power makes noise.
By contrast, gas turbine power can go from zero to full power in under a minute. This fast reaction can make the difference in sub-hunting.
Gas turbines are also inexpensive to build (relative to the cost of a reactor), something important to consider, given the frequent cost overruns involved in most ship procurement deals.
Nuclear power plants need constant monitoring by VERY specific trained individuals; usually several of them. Can AI replace some of them? Possibly. Enough? I don't think the Navy would risk that just yet; they do tend to be rather conservative when it comes to radical changes.
By contrast, gas turbine engines have been tested (and tested) in terms of predicted reliability. Lessons learned from integrating AI to reduce the workload of power plant engineers in the Burke class destroyers can potentially allow a MAJOR reduction in the crew quantity needed to maintain gas turbine engines in follow-on ships.
For these reasons, I'm not expecting these new Really Big Cruisers to use nuclear power plants.
The Very Large Cruiser (VLC) will likely need far more power to run radars, sonars, propulsion, the rail gun, and, depending on the strength, and frequency of use, lasers.
If you are using it to hunt subs you are asking for it to be lost, it needs to be doing whatever it is designed to do, and will need nuclear power plants, just like our carriers and sub forces, we have the nuclear techs to do this. We are a long way from the San Diego class, that could not justify the cost of nuclear reactors, with the advancement of electronics use.
I suspect that its overall size will be a liability, unlike the large naval guns used on dreadnoughts and their successors, there is very little a non carrier can do to justify making this such a large target, with to much capability in one place. If there is a need, consider redesigning the Zumwalts with VLS and replace the remaining deck gun with something less advanced, the ship itself appears to work well other than the development cost, which has already been paid for.
What we need are tripwire frigates, and a decent next gen Burke. More "Burkes" in the water will make better use of the non-railgun systems by making them harder to kill in one attack, and to have them at more places at a time.
IF we had a decent number of DDs and FFs, the VLC maybe a useful idea, as Command ships, short of enough of a fleet to justify such a design, they are to much risk, with too little return.
Local 'expert' talking head said it was illegal to arrest Maduro because he wasn't the biggest narco dealer in Central/South America. Isn't that a little like saying you can't write tickets to people doing 75 in a 55 zone because someone is going 90???
Garth L. Getgen
Ryan
I had thought about that issue but is there (from certainly Japan and New Zeazland 'non-nuclear weapons' legal side of things) differentiation between
1) A Nuclear Powered ship which uses conventional weapons (Yes, launching aircraft from a catapult is a grey area- but the plane is non-nuclear...)
2) A Nuclear Powered Ship which uses that Nuclear Power, to directly power (the Lasers/Railguns) Weapons.
Therefore in simple but legal wording - is that considered a Nuclear Weapon?
I don't know, but if you was a supporter of non-nuclear weapons (noting Japan is unique and what 'we' may thnk is suitable, they may not) - is that directly using Nuclear Power may take it from 'permitted but we don't like it, to non-permitted and so banned'?
In other words and I would guess, it's all down to the original post WW2 Law and intent of it in Japan say? (Which indirectly New Zealand may have copied?)
I'm reminded of the Alaska-class large cruiser (hull symbol "CB"), which was of similar displacement and (given material advancements) comparable armor. And the current official tag of "BBG" harkens back to the Boston-class guided missile cruiser (hull symbol "CG"). Perhaps we could settle on "large missile cruiser" ("CBG") as the acceptable terminology here (since whatever else they may be, they're not battleships)?
Garth: was that local talking head firmly lodged in a local... waste elimination port? Because it certainly sounds like it. Whatever valid arguments for or against the taking of Maduro there may be, that's not even remotely one of them.