Write & schedule, effortlessly
Craft and publish engaging content in an app built for creators.
NEW
Publish anywhere
Post on LinkedIn & Mastodon too. More platforms coming soon.
Make it punchier π
Typefully
@typefully
We're launching a Command Bar today with great commands and features.
AI ideas and rewrites
Get suggestions, tweet ideas, and rewrites powered by AI.
Turn your tweets & threads into a social blog
Give your content new life with our beautiful, sharable pages. Make it go viral on other platforms too.
+14
FollowersPowerful analytics to grow faster
Easily track your engagement analytics to improve your content and grow faster.
Build in public
Share a recent learning with your followers.
Create engagement
Pose a thought-provoking question.
Never run out of ideas
Get prompts and ideas whenever you write - with examples of popular tweets.
@aaditsh
I think this thread hook could be improved.
@frankdilo
On it π₯
Share drafts & leave comments
Write with your teammates and get feedback with comments.
NEW
Easlo
@heyeaslo
Reply with "Notion" to get early access to my new template.
Jaga
@kandros5591
Notion π
DM Sent
Create giveaways with Auto-DMs
Send DMs automatically based on engagement with your tweets.
And much more:
Auto-Split Text in Posts
Thread Finisher
Tweet Numbering
Pin Drafts
Connect Multiple Accounts
Automatic Backups
Dark Mode
Keyboard Shortcuts
Creators loveΒ Typefully
150,000+ creators andΒ teams chose Typefully to curate their Twitter presence.
Marc KΓΆhlbrugge@marckohlbrugge
Tweeting more with @typefully these days.
π Distraction-free
βοΈ Write-only Twitter
𧡠Effortless threads
π Actionable metrics
I recommend giving it a shot. 
Jurre Houtkamp@jurrehoutkamp
Typefully is fantastic and way too cheap for what you get.
Weβve tried many alternatives at @framer but nothing beats it. If youβre still tweeting from Twitter youβre wasting time. 
DHH@dhh
This is my new go-to writing environment for Twitter threads.
They've built something wonderfully simple and distraction free with Typefully π 
Santiago@svpino
For 24 months, I tried almost a dozen Twitter scheduling tools.
Then I found @typefully, and I've been using it for seven months straight.
When it comes down to the experience of scheduling and long-form content writing, Typefully is in a league of its own.
Luca Rossi κ©@lucaronin
After trying literally all the major Twitter scheduling tools, I settled with @typefully.
Killer feature to me is the native image editor β unique and super useful π
Visual Theory@visualtheory_
Really impressed by the way @typefully has simplified my Twitter writing + scheduling/publishing experience.
Beautiful user experience.
0 friction.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Queue your content inΒ seconds
Write, schedule and boost your tweets - withΒ noΒ need forΒ extra apps.
Schedule with one click
Queue your post with a single click - or pick a time manually.
Pick the perfect time
Time each post to perfection with Typefully's performance analytics.
Boost your content
Retweet and plug your posts for automated engagement.
Start creating a content queue.
Write once, publish everywhere
We natively support multiple platforms, so that you can expand your reach easily.
Check the analytics thatΒ matter
Build your audience with insights that makeΒ sense.
Writing prompts & personalized postΒ ideas
Break through writer's block with great ideas and suggestions.
Never run out of ideas
Enjoy daily prompts and ideas to inspire your writing.
Use AI for personalized suggestions
Get inspiration from ideas based on your own past tweets.
Flick through topics
Or skim through curated collections of trending tweets for each topic.
Write, edit, and track tweetsΒ together
Write and publish with your teammates andΒ friends.
Share your drafts
Brainstorm and bounce ideas with your teammates.
NEW
@aaditsh
I think this thread hook could be improved.
@frankdilo
On it π₯
Add comments
Get feedback from coworkers before you hit publish.
Read, Write, Publish
Read, WriteRead
Control user access
Decide who can view, edit, or publish your drafts.
Build an automated postΒ machine
Our Zapier integration enables countless no-code workflows.
Share new drafts in Slack channel
New draft from RSS feed item content
New scheduled draft from Google Doc
New spreadsheet row from published post
Create new template draft every Monday
Send an email for every published thread
Create draft for new items in feeds folder
Thank new followers with a post
Share new drafts in Slack channel
New draft from RSS feed item content
New scheduled draft from Google Doc
New spreadsheet row from published post
Create new template draft every Monday
Send an email for every published thread
Create draft for new items in feeds folder
Thank new followers with a post
Ready to write better content and grow your audience?
Get started with our generous free plan.
John Keess
@jhkeess
Historian covering war and strategy, with an emphasis on Canada in the Cold War. Developer of the FA/FO cycle of military development
𧡠Thread
1/ Ok, some hullaballo about the fact that an F-22 from the USAF shot down a balloon over Canadian territory. Generally, the criticisms come in two forms:
A- π¨π¦ ought to have this capability
B -πΊπΈ imperialism, &c
There are serious technical problems with both. Let's begin.
(1.5) - I will include recommended reading throughout in the form of book covers.
[Photo descriptions in square brackets]
2/ NORAD stood up in 1957 - operationally - followed by an official π¨π¦-πΊπΈ exchange of notes in 1958. At the time leaders from the two countries had a mix of military and political concerns, but they agreed on the main threat:
A surprise Soviet strike against πΊπΈ bombers [Tu-4s]
3/ At the time, the Western allies in NATO relied on πΊπΈ security guarantees, and πΊπΈ guarantees rested on the deterrent provided by the bombers of the USAF's Strategic Air Command (SAC).
If the Soviets could take out SAC in a first strike they would have Europe at their mercy.
4/ Ok, so you have to do two things:
I- Provide warning of a Soviet attack to give SAC time to get off the ground (relatively easy)
II - Put up air defences that make such a first strike unlikely to be successful (relatively hard)
5/ From a πΊπΈ point of view, it made sense to just do I as far north as possible, then do II as far south as possible. The Pinetree radar line, active in 1951, incorporated earlier radar lines to provide detection and ground control intercept over southern π¨π¦
6/ π¨π¦ scientists / mil officers / political leaders were not keen on this idea since the easiest way to destroy nuclear bombers is with nuclear air to air missiles, and that's a lot of "canned sunshine" getting opened over major π¨π¦ cities
[AIR-2 Genie nuclear-tipped A-A rocket]
7/ Problem is that it is very expensive to build radar lines, and π¨π¦ simply didn't have the coin. Theπ¨π¦ solution was to build semi-automated radar fences - less capable but cheap to build - and pair them with a heavy fighter carrying its own radar
8/ Voila. The π¨π¦-built McGill Fence (1956) and CF-100, and, less successfully, the CF-105.
After 1954, the Eisenhower administration put a lot of funds into air defence over USAF objections and expanded air defence networks northwards.
9/ The beauty of the NORAD agreement was that it allowed the Canadians and Americans to cooperate on technical matters (something the Canadians wanted) while keeping other allies out of decisions about the American national deterrent (something the Americans wanted)
10/ NORAD was established in 1957, with official diplomatic recognition in 1958.
The CF-105 is another thread for another time, but one important part of the Arrow cancellation story was the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) - but probably not how you think
11/ Military planners knew that Soviet ICBMs were coming by the mid-1950s. Sputnik may have surprised the public, but not the generals.
What the Soviets did build - rockets - was just as important as what they didn't build - a big fleet of supersonic bombers [Soviet R-7 ICBM]
12/ Early ICBMs could skip over air defences. But they were also very inaccurate, making them bad first-strike weapons. Supersonic bombers, however, are great first strike weapons. They can put a big bomb on a precise target - like, say, a SAC airbase.
11/ But this is where it becomes a numbers game. ICBMs are not accurate, but they're easy to protect by putting them in silos. The USAF starting doing just that in with the Titan II and Minuteman I ICBMs in 1962 [Titan II in silo]
12/ So really the question became - could the Soviets build supersonic bombers faster than the Americans could build hardened ICBMs, and later ballistic missile submarines SSBNs carrying SLBMs?
No. they couldn't [Royal Navy Trident II SLBM launch]
13/ Ok, so what?
By the late 60s, most military planners dismissed the idea that the Soviets or the Americans would make a go of a "limited" nuclear strike with limited objectives. Any nuclear war was going to be all-in.
(tactical nuclear weapons excepted...another time.)
14/ This means that any bomber strike would be accompanied by a missile strike. Missiles that could not be defeated. Ballistic missile defence (BMD) proved to be too expensive to operationalise, so by the late 60s / early 70s, NORAD's main role went from interception to detection
15/ This doesn't mean NATO manned fighters were redundant. It just meant that it didn't make sense to have more fighters than necessary to deal with limited incursions, or to have something "warm" to heat up in the event the Soviets went on a bomber building spree [CF-101 Voodoo]
16/ When the Canadian government replaced the CF-101 interceptor in the 1980s, for example, they selected the cheaper, multi-role F-18 over the more expensive, air-superiority F-15. It made sense, since the CF-18s could serve in NATO roles as well.
17/ Ok, so on the balloon. The first balloon was destroyed by an F-22 Raptor, the sort-of replacement for the F-15, because the F-22 can fly *really high*, just like the balloon.
The RCAF doesn't have F-22s because they are too specialised for π¨π¦ requirements and are πΊπΈ-only
17.5/ Notably, there aren't that many F-22s around anyways since the USAF/DoD/Congress determined that spending a lot of money on a large fleet of pure air-superiority fighter isn't worth it. They've since changed their minds (new F-15s, NGAD), but that's neither here nor there.
18/ In theory, the RCAF could have a large fleet of sir-superiority fighters based far to the north, as was planned for the CF-105. Let's say we wanted to do what the "A" people want and decide to "defend our own airspace" against any reasonable threat on our own [LAC - #4988516]
19/ First, wish the navy good-bye. Can't afford it anymore. Second, ask what exactly we'd be defending.
Sorry fellow Canadians, but we are not target #1 in a major global conflict. We are often most useful to an enemy as a route to attack the US. So we'd spend a lot of $...
20/ ....guarding the *πΊπΈ* nuclear deterrent. And there wouldn't be a lot of money left over for a broad-based defence policy supporting other national objectives.
*and we would still be reliant on American tech / data....even the CF-105 used πΊπΈ avioncs, wpns, and engines*
21/ Spending untold sums on superfluous, expensive air defence to destroy balloons and cutting back on commitments to allies in the process, thus weakening NATO, would be a major strategic win for an adversary
22/ As for the Bs - NORAD is the opposite of πΊπΈ imperialism. It's a binational joint command with a Canadian deputy who regularly orders American assets around. There are specific diplomatic protocols in place to ensure dual-chain political consultation.
23/ To put this in perspective, the RCAF has ~80 active fighters in service. The USAF has ~2,500, plus a many other supporting assets. If they wanted to, the πΊπΈ could extend what one π¨π¦ strategist called "an involuntary American guarantee" of North American security...
24/ But they don't, and they haven't. Canada and the US are each others' oldest continuous, standing alliance partners, and have been since 1940. The two great, messy, democracies have disagreed on a lot, but that's the point, no?
25/ Let me sum up:
a - The air defence of NA is largely about securing the πΊπΈ nuclear deterrent, which underpins the alliances π¨π¦ depend on
b - Geographically this requires secure π¨π¦ airspace
26/ c- π¨π¦ do not have the resources to do this on their own
d- even if π¨π¦ did, it's a poor strategic ROI
27/ Ok, so what? If we are a junior partner, should we abandon NA AD entirely?
Obviously not. Strat questions aren't on/off switches. Participating in the AD of NA buys π¨π¦ a seat at the table. As a country with a small pop and massive resources, π¨π¦ will always need allies
28/ But if NA AD is not an on/off switch, how much is enough?
ah-ha - you've hit the question that expert planners, ministers, & generals have been working on for decades. And maybe that's a discussion too big for a tweet
(More recommended reading to follow some other time)
You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: typefully.com/jhkeess/5gvgMMR