Toxn

Update: I've now played with Flyout a bit, and although it's lacking in a few key features and components I think it will work for a 1950s strike fighter.
 
What would help would be for the competition organizers to provide specs for the engines, gearboxes and props to be used in the competition.

Stayed up late to get pictures of Artemis 1 going up. This is the first time I've ever used my phone camera at night, so some of the pictures didn't come out very good. All the pictures are at 4x zoom. 
 

 
It's very impressive to see a second sun coming up from the north. This intensity didn't last long though. 
 
 
@Ramlaen @Sturgeon

This one might have been LoooSeR'd already:
 
It's strange - I'm a military gear nut in many ways, but seeing the gear in action is always chilling for me. It's way too easy to imagine the panic of those tank crewmen as they frantically looked this way and that through the tiny fields of view afforded by their optics. And then they died horribly to a vehicle that they probably only caught sight the moment before it fired at them.

I got GHPC and am currently playing Warpact. So far the game has firmly convinced me of the merits of laser rangefinders, thermals and good fire control in general, and made me annoyed that whatever side you're playing suddenly becomes as dumb as a brick for some reason when playing randomly-generated campaign missions. AI vehicles on your team (at least the ones that you're not immediately leading) will just sit there, while the enemy actually maneuvers. So presently the only way to succeed in by frantically hopping from platoon vehicle to platoon vehicle to shuffle all the units about.
 
If they ever get around to giving all the vehicles commander's instructions (presently only available for M60, M1 and M2), putting in more dynamic environmental opponents (dismounted infantry, aircraft, artillery etc), making the maps more usable, allowing units to inform each other of things via radio, and making your own AI buddies a bit less dumb, then it could be an amazing game.

Relatedly, I've seriously thought about trying to found high-energy biology as a field:
https://xkcd.com/2656/
 
As a post-graduate, I looked into the possibility that plant nitrating enzymes (eg: the whole nitrate reductase pathway) along with plant tissue specific promoters could be used to effectively grow a bomb. It wasn't very serious enquiry or anything, but as far as I can tell it's a perfectly feasible project to carry out.

Relatedly, I've seriously thought about trying to found high-energy biology as a field:
https://xkcd.com/2656/
 
As a post-graduate, I looked into the possibility that plant nitrating enzymes (eg: the whole nitrate reductase pathway) along with plant tissue specific promoters could be used to effectively grow a bomb. It wasn't very serious enquiry or anything, but as far as I can tell it's a perfectly feasible project to carry out.

A really nifty introduction to spin-scan and con-scan IR seekers (ie: the system used by early Sidewinder variants):
 
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=697101
 

More of JDB works in Ukraine. First one is classical Syrian-styled trucknical with 57 mm caliber autocannon (S-60) and second one is Russian truck with parts of MT-LB used as add-on armor. Inshallah, soon they will get to Toyotas with BMP-1 turrets and VBIEDs.

 

 
 

Yes but if China become the sole supplier of critical components to Russia and their main buyer for natural resources China will be the one who set the prices, not Russia.
The main risk long term is to see an increased vassalization of Russia to China. China is already the senior partner in the relationship between the two country, and regardless of the issue of the war it will only get worse at times goes on (heck if Russia is actually perceived as winning the war, the sanctions could always potentially become worse).
 
A Russia dependent on China for it's key imports and exports will have to sell it's resources for cheap and China may be actually able to get their hands on a few key technology they still have issue with (like fighters jet engines), potentially driving Russia out of the weapons export market by proposing cheaper alternatives with a similar technological level. Reduced income from sale of raw resources (potentially compensated somewhat by increased market price) and a civilian and military industry that's becoming less competitive will only see the Russian economy worsen.
 
The longer this war drags on the worse it will be for everybody but China :
Europe will be lacking energy and raw resources (at least in the short term) and is currently spending a lot to plug the biggest gaps (abyss) in it's defence (though the later will probably help in the long run). For the US, in the short term they will see Russia disappear as a threat (not that Russia was much more than a regional power with access to nuclear weapons at this point anyway) and they will be able to sell gas and weapons to Europe. Long term they'll have to face China as a country with access to cheap Russian natural resources and that didn't spent anything (be it resources, money or military potential) during the war in Ukraine (same problem apply to Europe as well). Russia will end up in a much worse situation by the end of this war, that much is a given at this point (Worse economy, severely depleted military potential, a part of the educated population having fled the country, isolation on the international scene, etc). The only question is by how much. As for the rest of the world, they'll have to suffer from the long term consequences of a major economical crisis potentially coupled in the short term with a lack of wheat for some country.  
Also keep in mind that China may not want to alienate it's western economical partners too much (at least for a time) so the support it will provide to Russia may be limited (potentially making Russia fall faster and harder and thus cheaper to buy out when they'll get really desperate).
 
Really the best scenario for the world as a whole (Ukraine and Russia will get shafted in one way or the other anyway) is for the war to end as fast as possible (which should be obvious at this point). One reason for the war to end would be one side suffering unsustainable attrition be it in men or material. Russia still have the mobilization card to play (but that may be a hard sell to the Russian people) and potentially greater reserves of soviet era material. Ukraine meanwhile, may gain the technological edge if western weapons supply goes on and they have a population that is ready for full mobilization. On the other hand, Ukrainian moral seems to be flagging lately (at least in Donbass) and it's their country which will be in ruin when the dust settle. Russia could also stop the invasion if they manage to take enough of the Donbass to sell it as a victory, but Putin and the associated system is really playing their political future on this war (from the outside it looks like more and more that they locked themselves in a do or die situation) so it will have to be somewhat significant gains.
 
The way I see the situation right now is that Ukraine is aiming for maximal attrition of Russian forces in order to make the political and economical cost of the war unbearable while refusing to fall back in Donbass (even if regrouping could help militarily) and pushing back where they can (like in Kherson which would also double as slap in the face for Russia if they actually manage to retake it). Ukrainians knows that every territory they lose now, they'll have a very hard time reclaiming it once the war is over. Russia on the other hand is trying to gain as much control of the Donbass as possible in order to achieve a victory of some kind while taking minimal risks to limit their losses (advancing slowly while destroying everything in front of them by a massive use of artillery).
 
There is also a risk that Russia may escalate the conflict in some way (Full scale mobilization for example), the rethorics of some Russian reporter or even politicians is becoming increasingly disconnected from reality and we are hearing absurdities like a presenter saying on Russian state TV that we have entered WW3 and that Russia will have to demilitarize the entirety of NATO :
 
Or a member of the Douma seriously saying that Russia should kidnap a minister of defence from a country member of NATO while they are in official visit in Kiev.
 
Words have a meaning, and it should be high time that the Russian elites remember that. Because spouting that kind of non sense all days long on public channels will end up leaving a mark in the long run.
 
 

Who lords over the overlord?

Who lords over the overlord?

Dude, no. Just... I mean, did you fall into a coma in 2004 and only just wake up? Are you an amnesiac or something?
 
Knocking over other countries is a terrible idea if your purposes are to safeguard liberal democracy. Even if you grant someone the right to get rid of "dictators" and "terrorists" that run places in a way you don't like (and that's a planet-sized "if"), it never works. The locals never turn around, look at all the foreign troops lording it over them and go "you know what, we like these guys so much that we're going to vote for someone who aligns perfectly with their interests and never cause trouble again". 
 
If you actually believe in the concept of a liberal, rules-based international order, then the US declaring a bunch of countries guilty of a crime they didn't commit and invading them was one of the crimes of the new century. And even if you don't; it's results have been an unmitigated disaster by the very justifications that they themselves provided. No democracy flowered, no peace was achieved. The only beneficiaries were a bunch of defence contractors and an even more virulent crop of terrorists that the US effectively manufactured and spread around a quarter of the globe.
 
So if you are going to blame Russia for unprovoked aggression and breaking international norms, then you have to blame the US for showing them how it's done: never once apologizing for the act, and never facing any consequences except the inevitable blow-back that comes with some of the stupidest policy decisions in history. That's just basic mental consistency.
 
And if you really think that simply being able to paint your enemies as illiberal is all you need to justify any heinous act, then how is a democratically-elected Russian government, who sees the government in the Ukraine as the illegitimate result of a soft coup by the US, not also going to be able to use that to argue their case?
 
Learn to use your head, or get off this forum.

GeoPoliticalFutures which is a subscriber only site has its take on events keeping in mind it has multiple contributors from around the world but is American focused.
 
* Prior to invasion a rumour they heard Russia was offered a deal, the USA stays out of Ukraine but Russia must stay out of Belarus, it was declined.
* Russian strategy was politically driven to scare Ukraine into signing an agreement and to undermine Nato via the new German government wanting the invasion problem to go away, Germany caved under western pressure and Ukraine resistance was higher than expected when Russia rolled in.
* Russian armed forces were operating like something out of the cold war with large armoured formations and all the problems that incurs,  puzzled why the internet is still active etc (no war is clean and you definitely don't want it broadcast to the world of today), decisions may be have been politically made rather than what's best tactically.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have dispersed requiring Russian infantry units having to sweep areas clear before armour can push through, the west is flooding Ukraine with infantry anti-armour weapons.
* The Russian Air Force has not much to hit targets wise (not because its incapable).
* Russia needs a quick win and cannot let this drag on which is what the west wants.
 
Economics
* If Russia can survive the initial shock from global sanctions it will be fine in the long run, also sanctions sometimes can have the opposite effect and actually help domestic production and technology, Russia is self reliant in many areas but will loose access to high end technology and luxury goods from the west.
* Huge risks in wheat and fertilizer production, Russia and Ukraine are both major global suppliers, if conflict drags on it will badly affect North Africa the main customers which could in turn fuel instability in an already fragile part of the world.
 
What some in the west fear the most is that a Eurasian alliance forms with its own international finance institutions and technology it hasn't happened yet but this could accelerate its creation, the USA is going to be working overtime to keep China and Russia apart.
 
How things play out remains to be seen, the west has done as much as it can without direct war, either Putin gets a compromise deal with west (no way they allow it at this point but months from now attitudes may change) or Russia breaks Ukrainian morale and forces a surrender.
 
My own view on this talk of insurgency is made by people with not much understanding, Ukraine is not Afghanistan, if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine;
* Ukraine is not a poor/undeveloped country its citizens have something to loose, bills to pay, going to school etc. they cannot afford to send their sons off to die.
* Ukraine is flat there is not many places to hide.
* Russia has a fairly effective secret police in putting down revolts once military occupation ends.
* Ukraine/Russia share language/culture/religion, Russians are not strangers to Ukraine something the Soviets and Americans failed to understand in Afghanistan.
* Entry points into Ukraine via EU can be policed by Russian "peace keeping" forces and resupplied via Belarus, Afghanistan was surrounded by unfriendly countries to USA.
 
This action by Putin defiantly backfired when it comes to Nato which was falling apart all on its own, as Macron pointed out much to the anger of western elites a few years ago. Now Nato is fully rejuvenated, Germany is going to re-arm which is going to be another problem (many in Europe are nervous about Germany with large military). The USA has gotten new military bases in EU countries Denmark/Romania and support for Nato has sky rocketed in Sweden/Finland, Turkey is being brought in from the cold. All anti-Russia hard liners are now politically untouchable in the west.

Wanted to do this post 2 days ago after digesting new events, but was too exhausted after workshifts to do effortposting, i was coming back to home during night time. My thoughts on this war, noise surrounding it, strategical implications and expectations, for those who care.
 
 
What i think.
   After 2017 it was obvious Ukraine will not do anything from Minsk agreements as Ukr politicians were publicly shitting on them and were doing nothing to make it real. DPR and LPR fate became obvious - they are not wanted in Ukraine. Putin's decision to recognize republics was constatations of situation. I expected thing to go slowly but deliberatly towards something i will describe later. But events went in very different way from what i thought would happen. Now, i'm not going to spit in the back of our soldiers executing orders, as Army should be this way, but politicians and other higher ups are free game im my eyes.
 
   Decision to start a full scale war in my opinion was stupidiest thing our political leadership have done in past 22 years. I'm not sure why or what triggered it, but looks like a plan was being worked on for long time, probably even before last year. Putin usually was carefull, but this is rackless decision.
   Our PR can scream about this operation being against nazis and nationalists, but the fact is this war is against Ukraine and everyone inside of it, as effects of war are going to touch nearly everyone who lives inside directly or indirectly.
 
   I don't have hard feelings about it, as i "burned down" during 2015, but this was wrong call. Not because war is bad, but because net result is not going to be what i would like to see.
 
 
   Good vs Evil
   Now, in medias narrative is that Good Democratical Ukraine is fighting Evil Russian dictatorship, in my view both states are dogshit.
 
   Ukraine is highly corrupted country that was run by oligarchs before coup in 2014 and now sort of run by oligarchs together by nationalists with piece of sovereignty outsorced to US foreigh policy makers, a country that effectively suppressed opposition in 2015-16 and where you have less rights than even in Russia, if you are not following "main course". One time per few years population needs to go to specific places where they instal another politicain as a leader who will became highly unpopular by the end of his term.
 
   Russia is highly corrupted country that was run by oligarchs before Putin and now sort of run by oligarchs together with Putin and his "clan", a country that sort of suppressed opposition in 2000s and where you have some rights, but there are workarounds, if you really want to. One time per few years population needs to go to specific places where we approve prolongation of power of our leader.
 
   Personally, i fail to see who is here an actual good guy. Both, in grand scheme of things, are kind of assholes. Maybe reason for people far away to see this conflict differently than war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is mix of agressor vs defender and Goliath vs David situation, and the fact that what they see on videos is a country and people more relatable than some Middle Eastern Arabs that are getting democracy delivered to their homes. But that is how i see it.
 
 
   Why this war is in such way it is (copy pasted from Discord): 
 
   I think we started this war with soft boxing gloves on, for some fucking reason. Maybe they expected less resistance, which may show how much attention they gave to situation on Donbass and how well they took into account 8 years of nationalistic propaganda and having armed conflict in 2.5 regions.
 
   Note absolutely no videos coming from our MoD, nothing about combat. Also note how for several days we used no artillery, very limited cruise missile strikes and no airstrikes (like in Syria with 100+ sorties per day from small base in Hmeimym). All this led to major units not being destroyed, equipment partially left in working condition. Internet was not turned off, mobile phones working. They did jack shit on this front. They did half measures and got half results.
 
   Thanks to that UAF was not destroyed. Convoy routes left undefended. No use of CAS, no proper AA coverage. Big units in bypassed cities left without serious blocking formations. They can orginise by using just mobiles phones. Thanks to ability to film and upload videos to the internet, net is now flooded with videos of Russian equipment destroyed and soldiers killed. Uplifting material for other side. All this instead of getting moral collapse of enemy faster and destruction and murder to minimun turned 180. Ukrainians are fighting back harder that what was anticipated is my expectation.
 
   Another boggus decision was using such small number of forces for operation. I saw claims of ~50k in initial phase. 100k is possibly going to be total number of forces. Ukraine is 40+ mln country. Not sure how they will hold it. Even with Rosgvardia there is not enough people to hold whole country.
 
   In the end results will be same on grand scale, but path to that result will be bloodier and longer. I guess thats why Putin fired that big star commander. But i guess they had plan B for bloodier route, which is why we now see MRLS used to bombard enemy.
 
   You can't "half-fight" the war, trying to look friendly on tv. What was supposed to be public flogging of Ukraine starts to be 1939 Soviet war with Finland, where USSR technically won, but Germans, looking at how it was won, thought Red Army was umm.. "incompetent" and decision to invade USSR was taken with taking into account poor results of that war. 
 
 
   Expectations, future
   After declaration of recognition of republics i thought we will start to help rebels in taking back 2 oblast', and this will be the end of hot-ish phase of conflict in Donbass region after quick strike against main forces of UAF in this region (which are most of their forces) and enforcing some sort of political comma in a conflict and moving to next phase.
 
   Reality went in different direction.
   I suspect this war will continue for a week (optimistically), 2-3 weeks if Russian command will not unfuck their plans, or turn into strange military stalment for a month or 2 when most of Ukraine is going to be technically captured, but vast territories and many towns/villages will not have any occupation forces to keep an order, so motivated people will have space to continue strategically unorginised conflict until we will pump necessary amount of internal troops to put it down enough for law enforcements to handle situation.  
 
   After that expect new government, neutral status and Russian troops leaving, with scars of stupidity of leadership. And after some time - nationalists will rise, again, maybe even at bigger scale. Reason - they were screaming about Russian invasion for 8 years and now it is a reality. Their voice was heard by people in Ukraine before, but and now it have big and firm foundation to stand on thanks to this war happening.
 

The propaganda out there right now is insane...

Dude, no. Just... I mean, did you fall into a coma in 2004 and only just wake up? Are you an amnesiac or something?
 
Knocking over other countries is a terrible idea if your purposes are to safeguard liberal democracy. Even if you grant someone the right to get rid of "dictators" and "terrorists" that run places in a way you don't like (and that's a planet-sized "if"), it never works. The locals never turn around, look at all the foreign troops lording it over them and go "you know what, we like these guys so much that we're going to vote for someone who aligns perfectly with their interests and never cause trouble again". 
 
If you actually believe in the concept of a liberal, rules-based international order, then the US declaring a bunch of countries guilty of a crime they didn't commit and invading them was one of the crimes of the new century. And even if you don't; it's results have been an unmitigated disaster by the very justifications that they themselves provided. No democracy flowered, no peace was achieved. The only beneficiaries were a bunch of defence contractors and an even more virulent crop of terrorists that the US effectively manufactured and spread around a quarter of the globe.
 
So if you are going to blame Russia for unprovoked aggression and breaking international norms, then you have to blame the US for showing them how it's done: never once apologizing for the act, and never facing any consequences except the inevitable blow-back that comes with some of the stupidest policy decisions in history. That's just basic mental consistency.
 
And if you really think that simply being able to paint your enemies as illiberal is all you need to justify any heinous act, then how is a democratically-elected Russian government, who sees the government in the Ukraine as the illegitimate result of a soft coup by the US, not also going to be able to use that to argue their case?
 
Learn to use your head, or get off this forum.

Recent influx of people here turned this thread from something that looks like information being shared into a shit show. Great job, i guess. 

Crew of one tank stuck a Soviet flag. Deffinetly rebuilding Soviet Union now, with 5 years plans, taking all oligarchs toys and giving it to worker class, nationalisations of all factories, including toilet paper ones.
 
This is real one.
 
You guys act like they hanged a black person and now drive around whith his corpse.
 
 

The US is the ultimate exemplar of modern industrial propaganda, and learned from the old master (the UK).
 
This is easy to demonstrate (if filled with tedious quotations and references), because where else is the narrative of "giant, technologically-advanced country rolls over smaller country and dominates them for twenty years for no good reason, only to leave in shame as the local lads make it too hard for them to stay" Full Metal Jacket and not Red Dawn: Kabul edition. Who else could even think of pulling of the move of "these guys fought the Reds and so we armed them and helped radicalize them, then they sat around for twenty years and did more or less nothing, then someone completely different hurt us and so we decided that they were evil monsters and had to go". That's some Eastasia-level shit right there, and that's without even looking at the sequel where they go "so we just left, but never lost, but are going to punish these guys forever about it, but the real fight were the lessons we learned along the way".

The US is the ultimate exemplar of modern industrial propaganda, and learned from the old master (the UK).
 
This is easy to demonstrate (if filled with tedious quotations and references), because where else is the narrative of "giant, technologically-advanced country rolls over smaller country and dominates them for twenty years for no good reason, only to leave in shame as the local lads make it too hard for them to stay" Full Metal Jacket and not Red Dawn: Kabul edition. Who else could even think of pulling of the move of "these guys fought the Reds and so we armed them and helped radicalize them, then they sat around for twenty years and did more or less nothing, then someone completely different hurt us and so we decided that they were evil monsters and had to go". That's some Eastasia-level shit right there, and that's without even looking at the sequel where they go "so we just left, but never lost, but are going to punish these guys forever about it, but the real fight were the lessons we learned along the way".

Dude, no. Just... I mean, did you fall into a coma in 2004 and only just wake up? Are you an amnesiac or something?
 
Knocking over other countries is a terrible idea if your purposes are to safeguard liberal democracy. Even if you grant someone the right to get rid of "dictators" and "terrorists" that run places in a way you don't like (and that's a planet-sized "if"), it never works. The locals never turn around, look at all the foreign troops lording it over them and go "you know what, we like these guys so much that we're going to vote for someone who aligns perfectly with their interests and never cause trouble again". 
 
If you actually believe in the concept of a liberal, rules-based international order, then the US declaring a bunch of countries guilty of a crime they didn't commit and invading them was one of the crimes of the new century. And even if you don't; it's results have been an unmitigated disaster by the very justifications that they themselves provided. No democracy flowered, no peace was achieved. The only beneficiaries were a bunch of defence contractors and an even more virulent crop of terrorists that the US effectively manufactured and spread around a quarter of the globe.
 
So if you are going to blame Russia for unprovoked aggression and breaking international norms, then you have to blame the US for showing them how it's done: never once apologizing for the act, and never facing any consequences except the inevitable blow-back that comes with some of the stupidest policy decisions in history. That's just basic mental consistency.
 
And if you really think that simply being able to paint your enemies as illiberal is all you need to justify any heinous act, then how is a democratically-elected Russian government, who sees the government in the Ukraine as the illegitimate result of a soft coup by the US, not also going to be able to use that to argue their case?
 
Learn to use your head, or get off this forum.

Dude, no. Just... I mean, did you fall into a coma in 2004 and only just wake up? Are you an amnesiac or something?
 
Knocking over other countries is a terrible idea if your purposes are to safeguard liberal democracy. Even if you grant someone the right to get rid of "dictators" and "terrorists" that run places in a way you don't like (and that's a planet-sized "if"), it never works. The locals never turn around, look at all the foreign troops lording it over them and go "you know what, we like these guys so much that we're going to vote for someone who aligns perfectly with their interests and never cause trouble again". 
 
If you actually believe in the concept of a liberal, rules-based international order, then the US declaring a bunch of countries guilty of a crime they didn't commit and invading them was one of the crimes of the new century. And even if you don't; it's results have been an unmitigated disaster by the very justifications that they themselves provided. No democracy flowered, no peace was achieved. The only beneficiaries were a bunch of defence contractors and an even more virulent crop of terrorists that the US effectively manufactured and spread around a quarter of the globe.
 
So if you are going to blame Russia for unprovoked aggression and breaking international norms, then you have to blame the US for showing them how it's done: never once apologizing for the act, and never facing any consequences except the inevitable blow-back that comes with some of the stupidest policy decisions in history. That's just basic mental consistency.
 
And if you really think that simply being able to paint your enemies as illiberal is all you need to justify any heinous act, then how is a democratically-elected Russian government, who sees the government in the Ukraine as the illegitimate result of a soft coup by the US, not also going to be able to use that to argue their case?
 
Learn to use your head, or get off this forum.

I sincerely hope you said the same thing about the US, UK when they decided to invade  Iraq, bombed Syria, funded "moderate rebels" in Syria, toppled the government of Ukraine, destroyed Libya, etc. in the 21st century.
 
Just a reminder,  foreign backed regime change coups are as legal as military invasions.  They are both illegal according to international law.  The hypocrisy and double standards are mind blowing. It highlights how  conditioned / brainwashed people have become. This is absolutely surreal.
 
To be fair the US and the satellite states that participated in these actions should have been sanctioned, particularly after it was determined that they had lied to the world, repeatedly. For some "strange reason" this did not happen. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have accrued, millions of refugees and trillions of dollars in damages were generated in the past 20 years because of the actions of the US and its enablers.
 
The 2003 Iraq war and the lack of response to aggression  was a watershed moment in World history. It demonstrated that might makes right and that "international law" including the UN are worthless / pointless in the grand scheme of things.
 
The US should have been severely sanctioned  for what it did in Ukraine, let alone the other mentioned places. The regime change coup in Ukraine in 2014 was one US coup too far. If the shoe would have been on other foot, the US  would have not been thrilled if Russia or any other nation would have had the "brilliant" idea to send their version of Vicky Nuland Cookie Monster to Mexico or Canada to bring  about an Anti-US regime change right at the border of the US. If we use the Cuban/Turkey missile crisis as an example we all know what these actions could and would lead to. Neither Russia, China, or any other US rival was dumb enough to attempt this in the past 50+ years.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer - wind turbines without any bird-scaring features (such as painting one blade black) kill plenty of birds. But far, far less than an equivalent coal power plant does.
 
I'd expect tidal power to kill plenty of fish and crabs and such, but again far, far less than, say any form of technology which involves jetting a huge plume of heated or briny water into the sea (ie: nuclear power or desalination plants). 
 
Really, the biggest issue with tidal is just that it's damn hard to make anything with moving parts that doesn't degrade or get encrusted with sea life after a few years. The sea is not a happy environment for anything with moving bits that's also supposed to sit in one spot for years on end without maintenance.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer - wind turbines without any bird-scaring features (such as painting one blade black) kill plenty of birds. But far, far less than an equivalent coal power plant does.
 
I'd expect tidal power to kill plenty of fish and crabs and such, but again far, far less than, say any form of technology which involves jetting a huge plume of heated or briny water into the sea (ie: nuclear power or desalination plants). 
 
Really, the biggest issue with tidal is just that it's damn hard to make anything with moving parts that doesn't degrade or get encrusted with sea life after a few years. The sea is not a happy environment for anything with moving bits that's also supposed to sit in one spot for years on end without maintenance.