RpRPoint of war is not killing your enemy (something Americans don’t seem to understand). It’s accomplishing political goals. I say political because national interest is defined by politicians and is often against the national interest e.g. German invasion of USSR or American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That is where you are so very wrong.
What you are saying is the new politically correct bs that politicians who do not fight in wars use.
The point of war is, always has been and always will be to kill as many enemies as possible, as quickly as possible, so they can never attack again.
Failure to do that means the war is never over and will never be won.
History since WWII proves this out.
RpRThe US signed a Peace Treat with North Vietnam and pulled out the vast majority of it’s troops when South Vietnam fell………Something the critics seem to leave out!
The U.S. had a pact with the South Viets to come back in if the North attacked but the Democrats in Congress turned traitor to the South Viets, Cambodians, Laotians and left them to rot.
Fifty thousand U.S. soldiers and over one hundred and fifty thousand South Viets dead for nothing.
That is why we lost the country, not the war.
In 1973 the North Viets were in the same state again they were in 1968.
Kissinger was a narcissistic as who was part of the problem not solution.
RpRThe proposed fix for the Starfighter was high wing, low tail.
RpR“War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.”
The USA lost in Vietnam because in the end there was no will power left to fight the North. In some ways it was a form of surrender as will power is as key a factor in war as bomb and bullets.
The same applies to Afghanistan – if Afghanistan continues to be unstable and a draw card for extremists, then you’ve lost the war.
It’s kind of like saying, the Germans smashed most of the Soviet Army in 1941. And then they lost the war.
He is correct.
The U.S., even in the draft era, had a military with combat soldiers dedicated to fight. (the hollywood bs in some movies insults every grunt who died fighting)
Sadly it is controlled in Washington by by narcissistic bags of fecal debris whose only concern is to be re-elected and put money in their own pockets.
There is a memorial in the town I am in now that honors the Hmong soldiers who fought and died bravely for and with U.S. soldiers, yet at the same time, the U.S. charged and tried to convict the greatest Hmong military leader who lived here till he died of being a terrorist trying to over-throw the current Laotian government.
It was finally thrown out of court but the fact that it even happened shows what bunch ****-bags control our government.
RpRWell Obama thought he could focus this only about China. And what do you get playing with the general nationalism in the region is the Filipino Coast Guard firing upon and killing an unarmed Taiwanese fisherman over territorial disputes. Obama didn’t see that coming and nationalism between Taiwan and the Philippines exploded which shows how easily any alliance can sink. Look at how only recently there was supposed to be a trilateral alliance of the US, Japan, and South Korea and that sunk with Japanese nationalism rearing its ugly head.
Obama is an ignorant self-righteous arrogant twit, raised by a wealthy grandmother.
His expertise in life was that of a community organizer in Chicago.
People in his neighborhood said he was less than useless.
RpRIn such an all out war scenario, the British will strike at the Argentine heartland Naval and Air bases.
Submarines carry more than torpedoes and ballistic missiles nowadays.
Argentina would find itself fighting a two-front war.
Also in such a all-out war scenario, Argentina would have to capture and control South Georgia Island as the U.K. would not hesitate for a minute to build a base there to attack from for one second.
Within a few years, Argentina would find itself out of money, troops and equipment.
War is not as clean as the paper wars fought on forums.
RpRCan’t agree with that statement, 1978 the Israeli’s had the F-15A which out performs the Lightning in all respects.
The F-15 had better range and electronics; the Lighting could get off the ground and reach any altitude quicker than the F-15.
The Lightning was a very agile fighter but the lack of fuel was its main weak point.
RpRAll this proves my point even further – the current best option is the OPV. The destroyer is a pointless battleship designed for wars that no longer happen.
As a wise man said, “the future is not Son of Desert Storm, it’s the stepchild of Somalia and Chechnya.”
That wise man is a fool, no one sees the future.
Concerning weapons, in a war, it is better to have them and not need them, for if you need them and do not have them, you are dead.
RpRsupposedly Air International 1978.
good thing the Saudis didn’t lend it to fight Israel.. the Israeli’s would’ve spanked it hard.. spanked it HARD!
With Saudi pilots, they could have flying F-22s and it would have been a cluster-f; with competent pilots, different story.
The lightning had superior performance numbers, by good margin, over anything the Israelis had.
RpRThe odd silly bit about some of these what if x vs y threads is, it has nothing to do with the airplane many cases but simply what if radar missile x went up against radar missile y.
Why even bother to mention an aircraft that makes no difference in bvr potshots?
More correctly you are saying what if awacs a went against awacs b.
BVR means NOTHING if you are not sure who you are shooting at.
RpRThe only short coming the Lightning really had was its short range, beyond that it would have make quick work of the Mig-23 especially the more versatile export versions.
RpRHere is the tuned up version with 12% more relative power than Mig-21.
I estimate mach 2.45 top speed.
Same amount of missiles as in F-35.
ROFLMAO– you smoked one too many doobies and popped far too many pills.
You are living in Neverland.
RpRI think big destroyers/frigates have become the new dreadnoughts of our time.
Only problem is they’re built at the expense of smaller more useful ships.
In the U.S. Navy, if sea battles ever do take place destroyers and frigates have the same task they did in WW II, get between the capitol ships and what ever is trying to sink them.
If that mean the destruction of either of the two so be it, that was/is their job.
Now for navies that have no truly capitol ships, I guess they just get sunk for no real reason.
RpRW.T.F are you talking about? The G7 can fire standard ammunition to a maximum range of 24.6 km. It can achieve over 29.3 km with base bleed ammunition and 36 km with a Velocity-enhanced Long-range Artillery Projectile (V-LAP). The G7 ammunition has a greater lethal radius than the older US 155 mm M107 HE projectile. All this means more range and a larger lethal radius than current 76mm and 127mm cannons.
It has greater range and that is all.
If you build a 4 inch and 6 inch shell to identical statistics, except for size, the larger will always be more lethal without exception.
One advantage the AGS system does have is greater range.
As the Russians are good at pushing an old item to limits beyond the designers imagination, if they could construct a 10 inch, cannon that could fire ten rounds a minute, double mounts with a twenty plus mile range, onto their battle cruisers, they would put fear into the hears of enemy grunts within ranger.
Four ten inch shells arriving every six seconds or two every three, can have a tendency to bring on shell-shock.
RpRYou’ll have to explain that statement. The economy reforms instilled by the government in the 80s directly led to the economic rejuvenation of the country and the dramatic drop in people beneath the poverty line. Or are you claiming it happened by accident or something.–Poverty level, define what that is.
A person living “below poverty level” but owning property is worse off than one whose government takes their property?
Bloomberg said it merely moved people from the country owning property, to cities, trying to pay rent in shanty towns.
Boy what an advance.We’re talking about proof are we? Lets seen yours for that claim. Solid numbers.— You made the statement you prove it.
Again proof, and not anecdotes (and how does that disprove the decline in poverty overall? Every country has perceived inequality, but that doesn’t change the big picture.)
We all know there have been… What, thousands of “mass gatherings” per year in china or whatever? Yes there are protests, and there will be as the country gives the populace a stronger voice that economic growth has allowed. But nowhere in even the most hard line western media have I seen anything about protests AGAINST the past decades’ growth out of poverty. If you’re talking about issues of “rising inequality” — that is an issue every nation faces, both developed and developing. And rising inequality doesn’t change the fact that 85% of the population was below the poverty line in 1981 and only 13.1 were in 2008.
–Give me proof that the general populace is being lifted out of povery.
That people rode bicycles before and now many drive cars has nothing to do with poverty. The U.S. switching from horses to cars had zero to do with poverty, just a change in technology. It was balanced by which was cheaper, fueling the car or feeding the horse.
If you want to read Bloomberg articles look them up, I will not do it for you.
As I said you made the bold statement about poverty going away because of the government; give an absolute that defines Chinese poverty and that the government is the reason it is changing.
You made the statement PROVE it.
As far as poverty goes, an arms race is manna from heaven, it employs people.
Sign In
