One of my favourite podcasts, ‘Common Sense’ by an American chap named Dan Carlin has commented on the gun issue recently in what I thought were two very interesting shows with a perspective that I had never heard before.

234-Aiming for effectiveness

244-Gunning for Violence

Not very modern, but the Kalinin K7 was a monstrosity:

I’ve always thought the Tu-22 was one of the most stunning aircraft in terms of looks, but as you say, this capability is bascially aimed at one thing – to destroy large groups of capital ships. The USN will need to react to this if they want to remain the pre-eminent power in the Pacific.

And I’ll have to take a trip to China to see the Backfires 😀

I suspect that one day when the uber expensive F-35 is the mainstay fighter bomber of Western airforces in the 2020s it’s main targets will continue to be low tech insurgents wielding 70+ year old AKs (yes some of the AKs found in Taliban hands are 1951 vintage), RPKs and RPGs as well as the universally beloved IED.

You seem to be forgetting the leaps and bounds in the capability and use of UCAVs, which are designed fight this exact kind of warfare.

I was going to, I looked up my local candidates and decided that the least worst option was probably the labour candidate, but then I found out that he was disqualified for what amounts to a criminal misdemeanor.

That, the fact that my polling card hasn’t turned up and that I’m working away all day means I won’t be voting, but I feel bad for not doing so, even if I think that the entire of these commissioners is a terrible idea and a waste of money.

There needs to be a ‘none of the above’ option on all ballot papers imho.

Given that the ROKAF are only facing a handful of poorly maintained aircraft with an already significant technological disadvantage flown by poorly trained pilots, I don’t think that any advanced stealth types are really necessary. They need large numbers of ground attack aircraft with a few multi-role aircraft to win the skies. More KF-16s would do the job nicely.

I have a very low opinion of Bain capital and their ilk, I think that it’s their brand of reckless capitalism that got us where we are now.

Obama actually reduced the deficit by about 8% in his first term.
U

Energy – I think that continuing to build a fossil fuel economy is a bad idea, and domestic oil production under Obama is already up.

As for the trade deficit, there isn’t much he can do other than start a massive trade dispute with China over their currency valuation and the embassy, really? I’m yet to see any evidence that Obama was aware of the incident as it unfolded and failed to act. Fox news has been spouting it loud and often but they seem to be clutching at straws imho. I can’t see how the man who would order a mission as risky as the bin Laden takedown would just sit on his hands during an embassy attack.

I’m a little late to the party, but here goes.

I’m hoping for an Obama win, simply because I think that it’s the least worst option. Part of the reason for his limited successes is, I think, due to the obstructionism of the Republican party, who have made it their job to try to block literally everything he has put forward. Senator McConnell said so himself when he said their first political objective was to deny Obama a second term. The way they harp on about they harp on about the economy you would have thought it would be that. If the GOP win this election is effectively endorses this strategy. If the President isn’t from your party, filibuster everything, make them look bad. It might win the next election but it makes for a dysfunctional nation.

Speaking of the economy, yes the US needs to reduce its debts. Unfortunately the Republican party has a very poor record with this, party because their economic policy boils down to one thing: tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy. They have a point that regulation can be stifling, but there is also a necessary level of regulation – not none at all, which is what the GOP seem to want. Cutting corporation taxes doesn’t help companies actually turn a profit in the first place, something which too few people seem to understand. Obama’s policies will help the US economy become one of the future, with a clean energy industry, a healthier population and a more intelligent approach to foreign relations. Romney’s plan is ‘drill baby, drill’, throw out a plan he himself put forward as governor, and international antagonism.

On a personal level I like Obama, he seems to be an intelligent, though not always politically savvy man. As for Mitt Romney, I genuinely do not know. His opinions have changed wildly over the years, not always a bad thing, but it always seems to be that his view is whatever will help him get elected. Frankly, I think the man is a liar. I also dislike his religious affiliation. It’s his right to attend whatever church, religion or whatever he wants, but it seems to me that a persons religious beliefs inform their whole worldview, and I think that Mr. Romney’s beliefs are dangerously irrational.

/rant, and apologies if I hit a nerve with anyone.