Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Putin threatening to station nuclear weapons off US coastlines.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post

    I've consistently argued that "returning" the Panama Canal to Panama was one of the worst geopolitical errors in American history. I'm going to go even further and say that the US should have just annexed the entirety of Panama in the early 1900s as a territory like Guam or Puerto Rico and we wouldn't have this present mess with the Chinese owning the canal.
    And you've been consistently wrong.

    Our CVNs won't fit through it. By the end of this year half the bulk cargo haulers in service will not be able to use the Canal. Oil tankers long ago outgrew it.

    And the Nicaragua Canal looks to be a competitor soon.

    Comment


    • #32
      I think we need to increase the Navy's ASW inventory. We need something bigger than those "FRIGATES" the admirals want so bad and more Orion type aircraft.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
        I think we need to increase the Navy's ASW inventory. We need something bigger than those "FRIGATES" the admirals want so bad and more Orion type aircraft.

        Pruitt
        Are the Russians or Chinese building that many subs?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

          They have, arguably though it has grown worse with the positioning of more missile defense systems near their borders, the slow dismantling of all their proxies and now backing out of arms control treaties.

          I think we fall into the trap of acting as though our adversaries don't have the same motives as us and won't elicit the same reactions as we would. If you turn the tables, we'd already be at war if Mexico and Canada was aligned with Russia while building up their forces and running joint military drills in NA. So the way Russia has been reacting all this time is not remotely unwarranted or paranoid. Arguably no one is more paranoid than the US. Muslim ban being the most recent example of our paranoia. Fearing NK has the capability and willingness of striking CA being another.

          Trump and Obama both talked about improving relations with Russia while campaigning but once in office they took extremely aggressive actions against them which has unnecessarily escalated tensions. When Russia responds in kind we act surprised and paint them as the bad guys.

          What if the US allowed Russia to defeat terrorists in Afghanistan. What if we didn't bring down Syria and Iraq creating a breeding ground for more terrorism. Would the world be more safe, or does our fear of Russia and the desire to keep them weak trump everything else?
          1. We haven't done anything aggressive to Russia. Maintaining the ability to defend yourself or allies isn't an act of aggression. Responding to the actions of an aggressor in Ukraine is likewise not aggression on part of the side playing defense. Russia has suffered consequences for THEIR aggression but those consequences happened for a reason. We didn't act first.

          2. Russia's history as an aggressor warrants strong border defense but European forces aren't there to invade them so yes, they are paranoid.

          3. Russia made itself weak. We didn't dismantle their satellites. Their satellites ran screaming to us after years of Soviet oppression and mismanagement. That's on them. Likewise if they spent their time building their economy instead of desperately trying to rebuild some semblance of empire and global power they'd be in much better financial shape than they are now. Their isolation and poverty is entirely of their own doing. We're not the ones making them weak.

          4. There is no Muslim ban. I'm surprised you still believe that myth.

          5. Giving Russia a free hand in their Afghan war would have been the better option in hindsight but their determination to win that war no matter what is another factor of how Russia made itself weak. We didn't make them invade Afghanistan. They chose to invade and suffered consequences.

          Summing up, Russia has a long standing history of getting themselves into trouble and blaming everyone else. They're the town drunk that picks a fight, gets rolled, then babbles about how everyone is out to get them as they nurse a black eye.
          A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
            I think we need to increase the Navy's ASW inventory. We need something bigger than those "FRIGATES" the admirals want so bad and more Orion type aircraft.

            Pruitt
            That's what the 66 Burkes are for. Also, the new frigates will have much greater ASW potential than the LCS.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

              Are the Russians or Chinese building that many subs?
              Not really, but we have to keep the American people afraid of the boogeyman.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by johns624 View Post

                Not really, but we have to keep the American people afraid of the boogeyman.
                You're right. Controlling people begins by identifying a threat, telling them who is causing it and then claiming that only you and your party an properly deal with it. And that, in turn, allows for demands for hugely exorbitant funds in order to provide the necessary defenses. There is always a "gap" against which we must act.

                Sheeple need herdsmen.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by johns624 View Post

                  That's what the 66 Burkes are for. Also, the new frigates will have much greater ASW potential than the LCS.
                  I am looking for something bigger, better armed, bigger crewed. and slower than the LCS. We even used Air Ships (Blimps) in WW II. We used a LOT of smaller ships in WWII.

                  Pruitt
                  Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                  Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                  by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post

                    I am looking for something bigger, better armed, bigger crewed. and slower than the LCS. We even used Air Ships (Blimps) in WW II. We used a LOT of smaller ships in WWII.

                    Pruitt
                    But the sub threat was larger, and the detection systems poorer, in WW2.

                    Russia has 53 ex-Soviet subs, of which 40 were reported operational in 2008. That number has declined due to lack of funds and maintenance, and at least two critical accidents. They have built three new SSBMs since the fall of the Soviet Union.

                    Realistically they could, with massive effort, put at most twenty subs to sea (assuming they have that many trained crews), both nuclear and diesel boats, but with the exception of the new boats, their ability to mount sustained operations is low due to age, a shortage of spare parts and maintenance facilities.

                    China has 4 SSBMs, 11 nukes, and around 40 Diesel subs, the latter coastal boats. The nuclear attack subs are based on 80s designs.

                    Russia has to break out of hostile waters to begin operations, while China is at best a regional navy.

                    WW2 standards don't apply. The technology has changed, and above all the resources have changed; in WW2 we had the full economy and manpower of the USA to work with; today we have fraction of each.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pruitt View Post

                      I am looking for something bigger, better armed, bigger crewed. and slower than the LCS. We even used Air Ships (Blimps) in WW II. We used a LOT of smaller ships in WWII.

                      Pruitt
                      Take a look at a few of the contenders. Although the two LCS variants are entered, so are versions of the French/Italian FREMM, the Spanish de Bazan and an uparmed version of the USCG NSC. They are all good designs. If you want bigger ships than that, it's a Burke. Like AJR said above, there aren't any 2-3 navies in the world who could take on the USN. With our really solid allies, we'd have no problem with all the navies of the rest of the world.
                      https://news.usni.org/2018/02/16/nav...te-ffgxprogram

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        One of the problems with the LCS ships was having only two watches. After being at sea a while these ships wore out the crews with day after day of 12 hour a day crew shifts.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Russian Television News Station RT Russia's propaganda channel had a segment that listed targets that Russia would target in the US if a nuclear war broke out a bunch of the targets listed are bases that have been closed for years.
                          It'd be rich if it was the Russian military that provided those targets to RT to be shown.

                          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1QE1DM

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post
                            Russian Television News Station RT Russia's propaganda channel had a segment that listed targets that Russia would target in the US if a nuclear war broke out a bunch of the targets listed are bases that have been closed for years.
                            It'd be rich if it was the Russian military that provided those targets to RT to be shown.

                            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1QE1DM
                            Maybe we should send Putin a list of all of the current American targets of our missiles, bombers and delivery systems. We don't have to provide any specific system information - just map with huge red circles covering every target area. I'll bet it would look like a catastrophic case of nuclear measles.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X