For those that say Russia is no threat. This is an interesting summary. We are now in a new age of warfare, Just like the invention of gunpowder and motor vehicles changed things, the first too adapt is the winner and the west dosnt realise it fully yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZL1KzV54Cw

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
For those that say Russia is no threat. This is an interesting summary. We are now in a new age of warfare, Just like the invention of gunpowder and motor vehicles changed things, the first too adapt is the winner and the west dosnt realise it fully yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZL1KzV54Cw

Russia is kicking the West's collectives ARSE in the Ukraine!

A war they intentionally started by appointing a stupid puppet to do just that.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident all over again!

Same results!

None of that is true of course.

Of course……

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
None of that is true of course.

Of course not.

Ukraine is all liberated, and Russia is bankrupt!

Well lets go through your claims.

Russias not kicking the wests arse. The west isn't in the battle. They should be but are not.
Russia isn't even kicking Ukraines arse. That's because Ukraine has been faster to adapt too the new methods of fighting and is prepared to wage a defensive war, provoking Russia into constant attack.


The puppet comment has been debunked numerous times. Hes not a stupid man either.

And I can't for the life of me see any relationship with the gulf of Tonkin, other than its a jab at the US for no reason.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
For those that say Russia is no threat. This is an interesting summary. We are now in a new age of warfare, Just like the invention of gunpowder and motor vehicles changed things, the first too adapt is the winner and the west dosnt realise it fully yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZL1KzV54Cw

Im of course not going to watch the video. I find video to be opinion, subjective, marketing and generally dishonest.

Print a reader can disseminate.

I looked before posting here now, I gather from Wikipedia the United States operates about 140 bombers and 11aircraft carriers that carry roughly 45 attack aircraft each. Never mind anything land based, forget the Marines and Army, forget the silos and other launch platforms. Think just about an aircraft carrier, (one of 11,) and a bomber.

So whether in reprisal or on the offensive, if the USA were to send one single aircraft carrier or say a dozen of our 140 bombers to destroy a nations capitol or other large target, Russia can what? If Vlad attempted the same, he can actually what?

Currently Vlads supporting allies are DPRK and Iran, neither of which seem capable of slapping their ass with both hands.

Im sure Vlad thought the same about his ships in the Black Sea facing the Ukrainian (non existent)navy.

Shanks is right, the face of warfare has changed and whilst a US carrier or bomber could devastate any western city - carriers sink and planes crash. The unpredictable can and does happen, as Ukraine has proven.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
For those that say Russia is no threat. This is an interesting summary. We are now in a new age of warfare, Just like the invention of gunpowder and motor vehicles changed things, the first too adapt is the winner and the west dosnt realise it fully yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZL1KzV54Cw

Im of course not going to watch the video. I find video to be opinion, subjective, marketing and generally dishonest.

Print a reader can disseminate.

I looked before posting here now, I gather from Wikipedia the United States operates about 140 bombers and 11aircraft carriers that carry roughly 45 attack aircraft each. Never mind anything land based, forget the Marines and Army, forget the silos and other launch platforms. Think just about an aircraft carrier, (one of 11,) and a bomber.

So whether in reprisal or on the offensive, if the USA were to send one single aircraft carrier or say a dozen of our 140 bombers to destroy a nations capitol or other large target, Russia can what? If Vlad attempted the same, he can actually what?

Currently Vlads supporting allies are DPRK and Iran, neither of which seem capable of slapping their ass with both hands.

Times have changed Scott. That's the Hubris that's concerning some.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...destroy-us-carriers/

https://nationalinterest.org/b...-deep-trouble-210759


And as Nute has mentioned, See what Ukraine achieved with what basically amounts too remote controlled toy boats.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
For those that say Russia is no threat. This is an interesting summary. We are now in a new age of warfare, Just like the invention of gunpowder and motor vehicles changed things, the first too adapt is the winner and the west dosnt realise it fully yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZL1KzV54Cw

Im of course not going to watch the video. I find video to be opinion, subjective, marketing and generally dishonest.

Print a reader can disseminate.

I looked before posting here now, I gather from Wikipedia the United States operates about 140 bombers and 11aircraft carriers that carry roughly 45 attack aircraft each. Never mind anything land based, forget the Marines and Army, forget the silos and other launch platforms. Think just about an aircraft carrier, (one of 11,) and a bomber.

So whether in reprisal or on the offensive, if the USA were to send one single aircraft carrier or say a dozen of our 140 bombers to destroy a nations capitol or other large target, Russia can what? If Vlad attempted the same, he can actually what?

Currently Vlads supporting allies are DPRK and Iran, neither of which seem capable of slapping their ass with both hands.

Times have changed Scott. That's the Hubris that's concerning some.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...destroy-us-carriers/

https://nationalinterest.org/b...-deep-trouble-210759


And as Nute has mentioned, See what Ukraine achieved with what basically amounts too remote controlled toy boats.

I would agree drones are an advanced technology in warfare and a real threat.
A) does that mean the West can't respond decisively to the threat? I think not.
B) again, is the threat capable? Actually deadly? I the last few missile attacks I'm aware of, Vlads ally Iran proved its offense useless and our ally Israel seems right on target.

So whose drones work? I'm thinking our side.

And C), if a hypersonic missile or a drone attack really did take out a carrier or a military base, is Vlad or China willing to sacrifice Stalingrad or Bejing over it? Trump wouldn't flatten Tehran for sinking one of our boats? I do believe he would and it's be as easy as a push of a button.

And I see Ukraine's achievement with "remote controlled toy boats" less as their achievement and more as Vlads ineptitude.

And the subs! I forgot the submarines!

Not much of a strategic planner am I !

The USA operates 70 subs. So if we station 3 on each side of the Korean peninsula, 4 in the East China Sea, 3 in the Persian Gulf, I'm gonna guess two off shore of Helsinki,......hell Man, send the drones! I've got another 50 subs floating around looking for something to do!

So you dont watch videos, Ok, But that is covered in it. Essentially the west hasn't begun to take drones seriously enough to be creating and training brigades of drone operators.

Ukraine has and will field estimates of 4 million drones this next year. Russia is a year behind Ukraine.
Drones are cheap. Cheaper and more effective than artillery. It's the drone operators that are the investment.

China has 1000 missiles designed to kill carriers. You have 11 carriers.
Threats of retaliation with Nukes.... How very Russian of you.
As is proven. In war, red lines get crossed all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Of course……

Dump Trump" How fucking stupid! Bring back no brain Joe anoint Kamala? Again proves leftists can't read...Trump won on all levels Those with even half a brain knew the USA could not and cannot survive under the scrawny jackass symbol embraced by dumocrats

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
So you dont watch videos, Ok, But that is covered in it. Essentially the west hasn't begun to take drones seriously enough to be creating and training brigades of drone operators.

Ukraine has and will field estimates of 4 million drones this next year. Russia is a year behind Ukraine.
Drones are cheap. Cheaper and more effective than artillery. It's the drone operators that are the investment.

China has 1000 missiles designed to kill carriers. You have 11 carriers.
Threats of retaliation with Nukes.... How very Russian of you.
As is proven. In war, red lines get crossed all the time.

Ok, what do you think America's response would be to the attack and destruction of a US carrier would be?

China has 1000 missiles. Fine, do they work? Ours do. Do Russian drones, missiles, other armament like tanks work? Looks to me like they don't.

If Vlads fighter pilots had to use Cabela's GPS to find their way back to the airfield because their on board avionics don't work, what are we to think about the missiles and drones and bombs etc,..?

Has Vlad improved since these demonstrations?

You and I have seen the videos of the Russian tanks that get a case of the hebby jeebies on occasion yes? Vlads engineer's that produced that got it all tidied up along with the rest of the gear they slopped together?

I have no doubt my Military Industrial Complex as well as all our overseas friends that depend on American warfare for their survival want me to remain armed to the teeth, but frankly I've achieved saturation.

Look Scott, I dont have kids. So any threat from any nation with Nukes to use them, I will straight out say, bring it on.
You have kids. Is the response you really want a nuclear retaliation?

Its war, your carrier is going to be involved in standard warfare against another nation, and if they sink your carrier in standard warfare operations, its par for the course and fair game. It's not a nuclear instigating circumstance. All it is is an embarrassment for the US.
Russias Kinshal and Oreshnik missiles work.

Chinas missiles definitely work.

Your Abrahams proved partially unfit for purpose and destructible with drones in Ukraine.
And if your carriers prove to be destructible, where the hell are your planes going to operate from? Plus Russia has shot down at least one f16 in Ukraine with its old missile systems.

Now none of that says I think Russia could win, or china for that matter.... If the US and rest of the west was united and had the guts. But US is disenfranchising its "allies" left right and centre, and I dont for one second think you guys have the guts to withstand the casualty rate of this kind of warfare. Russia has proven it does.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Look Scott, I dont have kids. So any threat from any nation with Nukes to use them, I will straight out say, bring it on.
You have kids. Is the response you really want a nuclear retaliation?

Its war, your carrier is going to be involved in standard warfare against another nation, and if they sink your carrier in standard warfare operations, its par for the course and fair game. It's not a nuclear instigating circumstance. All it is is an embarrassment for the US.
Russias Kinshal and Oreshnik missiles work.

Chinas missiles definitely work.

Your Abrahams proved partially unfit for purpose and destructible with drones in Ukraine.
And if your carriers prove to be destructible, where the hell are your planes going to operate from? Plus Russia has shot down at least one f16 in Ukraine with its old missile systems.

Now none of that says I think Russia could win, or china for that matter.... If the US and rest of the west was united and had the guts. But US is disenfranchising its "allies" left right and centre, and I dont for one second think you guys have the guts to withstand the casualty rate of this kind of warfare. Russia has proven it does.

Well there's no doubt here that we have the resolve. You've confused yourself by assuming our dozens of "police actions" to Introduce Democracy is evidence of our softness.

Negative.

The US gets all soft and squishy because we don't care. We don't care about Kurds or Armenians, we don't care about Northern Alliance Afghans or Vietnamese Hmongs. All these police actions are like Boy Scout trips gone bad. "Rules of Engagement"! What idiot came up with that? If they don't look American shoot them.

A drone strike blows up one of our carriers and the thousands of Americans in it and we are going to kill the enemy. The United States will show Israel how to really get it done and mean it. The Gaza Strip will look like a Bar Mitzvah party.

As far as anything Russian "working", you'll have to demonstrate that. We've seen the stuff that doesn't work redundantly.

The world including yourself sees no downside to America being waist deep in perpetual war. It's all been sanitized enough so no one really gets hurt. Knock out a barracks with a drone, hit a refinery with a missile, counterattack Hamas/ Gaza but don't really attack, don't touch all the Hamas defensive positions that,.... well,.... yes happen to be in hospitals and school rooms. It's like little kids in a pushing contest, shove some, scuff a knee, blacken an eye and maybe even pull some hair, but no big teeth get knocked out!

I'm out of interest and patience. No to you, no to police actions, no to Introducing Democracy, no to being a global arms dealer, no to being world cop, just no. No more Military Industrial Complex and its fear and fervor driven by the latest boogie man their today calling drones.

Am I for nukes? Fucking A. Sink one of my carriers and I think you did it I surface 6 subs in your harbor, pump our our septic tanks on your beach and then launch. Your capital gets vaporized, your refineries, (every single last one,) gets vaporized. I'm not gonna occupy and try to rebuild, I'm gonna dive to 700' below the surface and put "The Hunt For Red October" in the VCR player.

Theres a peaceful solution that's real easy, leave me out of it. You get all sweaty about drones and hypersonic whatever. You do it.

Se Scott, You are talking shit and getting upset. When you have no clue what the conversation is about. After all you didn't bother to watch. You just made it about yourself and your nation.
Idyl Braggadocio.

Clean wars are gone. and the rest of the west is truely contemplating fighting without you guys at their side. You won't nuke anyone. You didn't when the two towers fell, a civilian target on US soil. You won't if one of your carriers gos down.
What you will do is rally around your allies and ask us to die for you again.

If we get in a declared shooting war... assuming its conventional, and they sink a US aircraft carrier, we will double down on conventional attacks. I doubt we would use a nuclear deterrent.

However, if 2-3 carriers are vaporized by hypersonic missiles as a sneak attack, well, who knows. If we had nukes on 12/8/41 I would have not been surprised if Tokyo would have become a mushroom garden.

Face it, if we lose a couple carriers by hypersonic missile, there are only two actors potentially responsible. No one was really quite sure "who" did 9/11 for a few days... and when we did find out, it was a nonstate actor that was primarily responsible.

I'm under no misapprehension that if we were suddenly sneak attacked that the war would be "clean"... It would look a lot more like the air war on Germany and Japan, and medieval attitudes about collateral damage would be there at least for a while.

I doubt we would go nuclear for an attack on purely military targets, but if you threatened politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if the system had a disproportionate response. The government does tend to think as they are more important than the people they are supposed to represent/protect.

I do think that drones will cause issues for us, but not indefensible ones... if nothing else a airburst nuke EMP is going to turn all those drone electronics to so much scrap plastic. That I could see happening...

No doubt that if we get into a major war the casualties will be more like WWI than GWOT.

An honest question.

If the us gets in a shooting war again. Not talking surprise attacks here, a declared conflict, and it sends a carrier group and the carrier and one or two support vessels get sunk or hit badly. Would they risk another?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Se Scott, You are talking shit and getting upset. When you have no clue what the conversation is about. After all you didn't bother to watch. You just made it about yourself and your nation.
Idyl Braggadocio.

Clean wars are gone. and the rest of the west is truely contemplating fighting without you guys at their side. You won't nuke anyone. You didn't when the two towers fell, a civilian target on US soil. You won't if one of your carriers gos down.
What you will do is rally around your allies and ask us to die for you again.

You've not a clue.
It's not idle nor braggadocio. I and we are no longer interested in your foreign entanglement. It's that simple.

As for the rest of the West, please do. Please, pretty please go fight without us at your side. Our failures and fumbles "Over There" are obnoxious and redundant. We're not supposed to be there, that's why we left generations ago.

Seriously, how hard do you think some of my forefathers would back hand me across the face, them having fled Old World bullying just to have me advocate going back to participate?

It's not just that you don't have kids so no skin in the game, it's also that your a Kiwi, politically/ strategically nutless! You are an international zero!
Yes I'm certain your quite the Man and could beat me and everyone else half to death so no insult intended there. You get to saber rattle, call, "to arms to arms!" Which means nothing more than "You go Uncle Sam cuz I'm sitting on my hands!"

If I were in charge and had Afghanistan to do over again I'd blow the smithereens out of everything there and then tell Iran and Pakistan, "you've got it from here, let me know how I can peacefully supply assistance." meaning food, tractors, concrete culvert parts. After destroying the place I'd not allow one single American boot on the ground there period.
And it should have been that simple.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
An honest question.

If the us gets in a shooting war again. Not talking surprise attacks here, a declared conflict, and it sends a carrier group and the carrier and one or two support vessels get sunk or hit badly. Would they risk another?

Again, we have 70 some submarines, 140 bombers, missile silos with rockets that have electronics that do work,....



What's the question?

We're not you, we don't need a foreign big brother.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
An honest question.

If the us gets in a shooting war again. Not talking surprise attacks here, a declared conflict, and it sends a carrier group and the carrier and one or two support vessels get sunk or hit badly. Would they risk another?

Depends on the war and why.

If it was enough for us to declare war, I think we would... that's why you build multiples.

For a principle like free use of the sea lanes, I don't know. I suspect we would use alternative forces, like the subs or air launched cruise missiles.

To help defend New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Hawaii against the Chinese Communists? Yes.

To make an air raid in retaliation for just hitting the carrier? Probably not.

We have shown that we have a limited tolerance for nonexistential fights. But one only has to look at the US Civil war to see that if there is a existential crisis, Americans will go to the last measure. (Note that was both sides of that war...)

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
An honest question.

If the us gets in a shooting war again. Not talking surprise attacks here, a declared conflict, and it sends a carrier group and the carrier and one or two support vessels get sunk or hit badly. Would they risk another?

Again, we have 70 some submarines, 140 bombers, missile silos with rockets that have electronics that do work,....



What's the question?

We're not you, we don't need a foreign big brother.

Sweden only has 3 Gotland class subs, but one of them “sunk” a US carrier, multiple times. The unexpected happens and will continue to happen.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/20...and-class-submarine/

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
An honest question.

If the us gets in a shooting war again. Not talking surprise attacks here, a declared conflict, and it sends a carrier group and the carrier and one or two support vessels get sunk or hit badly. Would they risk another?

Again, we have 70 some submarines, 140 bombers, missile silos with rockets that have electronics that do work,....



What's the question?

We're not you, we don't need a foreign big brother.

They will get their sorry arse handed to them.

As usually happens!

Vietnam?

Well and truly FUCKED!

Afghanistan?

Not just FUCKED!

Ran off cowardly leaving all their military equipment behind!

Iraq!

Same results!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Se Scott, You are talking shit and getting upset. When you have no clue what the conversation is about. After all you didn't bother to watch. You just made it about yourself and your nation.
Idyl Braggadocio.

Clean wars are gone. and the rest of the west is truely contemplating fighting without you guys at their side. You won't nuke anyone. You didn't when the two towers fell, a civilian target on US soil. You won't if one of your carriers gos down.
What you will do is rally around your allies and ask us to die for you again.

You've not a clue.
It's not idle nor braggadocio. I and we are no longer interested in your foreign entanglement. It's that simple.

As for the rest of the West, please do. Please, pretty please go fight without us at your side. Our failures and fumbles "Over There" are obnoxious and redundant. We're not supposed to be there, that's why we left generations ago.

Seriously, how hard do you think some of my forefathers would back hand me across the face, them having fled Old World bullying just to have me advocate going back to participate?

It's not just that you don't have kids so no skin in the game, it's also that your a Kiwi, politically/ strategically nutless! You are an international zero!
Yes I'm certain your quite the Man and could beat me and everyone else half to death so no insult intended there. You get to saber rattle, call, "to arms to arms!" Which means nothing more than "You go Uncle Sam cuz I'm sitting on my hands!"

If I were in charge and had Afghanistan to do over again I'd blow the smithereens out of everything there and then tell Iran and Pakistan, "you've got it from here, let me know how I can peacefully supply assistance." meaning food, tractors, concrete culvert parts. After destroying the place I'd not allow one single American boot on the ground there period.
And it should have been that simple.

But it wasn't what happened was it. Instead you clutched defeat from the jaws of victory in the way you left Afghanistan. And no one in their right mind thinks the US would implement your plan of action.
So why the hell would any of us think your threat to Nuke, or your ability to succeed going off of past actual occurrences would be any different. So yes Idyl Bragging.

Your armed forces have proved time and again that air superiority without feet on the ground dosent work.
That your nation is afraid of casualties.

Russia and China are not. Your weapons are the best, most expensive in the world... mostly... But the whole point of the video was that war has changed and a 500 dollar drone is now capable of doing what a 100,000 or even million dollar guided missile once was, and it does not discriminate between a Russian or US tank or field position.
And we might well be a political Zero. But it was your crew that came to us begging for us to validate your actions in Afghanistan and Iraq via participating.

Now I repeat, because you make yourself look quite silly with this "The west needs America but we dont want to play" BS.

Instead of wanking on about not watching videos, You should have just watched and realised that wasn't what this was about.
It was simply that war has changed, and collectively the west has some catching up to do. Nothing about nukes, or carriers, or the US role in any of it.