Jump to content

The_Dude

Community Member
  • Posts

    4,110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The_Dude

  1. 26 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

     

    No, just stupid.  You don't just "pop up" and launch "heavy bombers."  Carriers run continuous operations, of various different types of missions that are either integrated with other service missions according to the Joint Command's ATOs, or integrated into strike packages that take time to arm, spot, and launch - which requires the carrier to fly other operations in defense and support while spotting and launching the strike.

     

    The mission you're describing - pop up, launch a strike, dive deep, pop up somewhere else later - is wasteful.  Because why not launch a strike of autonomous vehicles and skip the recovery in that case?  Which is one of the missions submarines execute - they launch TLAMs.  Your idea is not just boneheaded, but was superseded before you were even born.

     

    Really? Forgive me because I’m talking well out of my expertise, but I said that with China in mind. Sure we got Guam and Japan, but what if you could launch bombers from within miles. They could hit targets that the planes on Guam and japan couldn’t. Further, I realize we have other methods of attacking more distant areas, but with stealth? I’m not sure. Of course, I’ll admit as I am now I’m talking outside of my expertise (perfect set up for an insult there, Tom.)

  2. 22 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

    You forgot the I and k in your screen name, buttwipe, you have as much class as a slug, again, I tried to be respectable here but you can kiss my royal Italian ass, and you claim to be a veteran,  no vet I know is as disrespectful as you, and yes I'm a veteran, US Army, 1970-73

     

    Ive never heard Tom claim to be a vet. 

     

     

  3. 5 hours ago, B-Man said:

    U.S. Border Patrol Chief: "There is an ongoing debate about whether this constitutes a border security crisis or a humanitarian crisis. Let me be clear: it is both."

     

     

     

     

    I know a lesbian when I see one and that is a wallet-toting lesbian. 100% chance she wears wolverine work boots. 

     

    Also, the “lady” behind her to the left looks like Bruce Willis with boobs. 

  4. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-vs-pakistan-which-army-would-win-war-32961

     

    For your reading pleasure. A nice article on the military capabilities of the belligerents. 

    33 minutes ago, Paulus said:

    I suppose China and Russia will support Pakistan, no? US and Euro will support India? 

     

    This isn't even a proxy. Or, does this have any relation to the China/US trade war? 

     

    Where are the "conspiracy" guys when you need em'? I can't see this whole picture. 

     

     

    the-society-that-separates-its-ny-schola

     

    I don’t think either side can bring the big guns into the war. I just don’t think the risk is worth the entry of China, Russia, or us. 

  5. 1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

     

    I'm at the point where, if I see The_Dude was the last one to post in a thread, I don't even look at it, as I figure any pretense of real discussion is ended.

     

    And yet I frequently get notifications of a response from DC Tammy. Puzzling. 

  6. 1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

     

    They've owned the Pakistanis twice since the partition.  And they have both the British heritage of training and organization, and the mythos of Imphal/Kohima.

     

    Interesting side-note: Pakistani M-48 tanks were savaged by Indian Centurions in...73, I think.  Even though the Centurion was notionally the weaker tank, the Indian gunners could lay on target and fire more quickly than the early computerized range-finders on the M-48 could.  

     

    It's CNN...so...

     

    Hey, the M1 don’t got an auto loader for a reason. Sometimes tech holds ya back. 

     

    Where were these battles? I’m curious about the terrain and the angle the guns move. Israel had an advantage over Egypt due to their tanks being able to take advantage of berms better. 

  7. 2 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

     

    Look for yourself and don't believe him: It's being covered. Border skirmishes between India and Pakistan in Kashmir is not new, so they haven't pre-empted all programming everywhere. 

     

    With the exception of your personal scoop that Pope Francis and the Grand Imam are conspiring to create a single world religion, I haven't seen any scoops that put you in line for the Pulitzer, so I won't be putting a lot of stock in the "we" just yet. 

     

    What? 

  8. 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

     

    I know I’m going regret this...

     

    But are there any nations comprised of non-white non-savages?  

     

    Many? No. Since you said nations, there aren't many. Most white people are civilized and there's a reason for that -- the gladius and scutum. With the gladius and scutum most whites were introduced to civilized ways. But, I don't hold Russians in a high regard. They're white. But ask me what I think about the Goths, and the Gauls...I wont speak highly of them, and it is their great fortune and to their benefit that Rome pulled them from the darkness. Again, and I'll be very clear, I do not believe in racial superiority. I believe in cultural superiority. 

    1 minute ago, GG said:

     

    Try reading history and understanding contemporary accounts of the people

     

    That's what I thought....

     

    Thanks for playing.

  9. Just now, GG said:

     

    Tell that to Jonathan Swift.   At the turn of the century, only Italians occupied a lower rung than the Irish on the civilization meter.  But hey, they were white, so that counts for something in your book.

    1. Which century?

    2. Where are you getting that?

    3. From whos perspective?

    4. Not true on the white thing. There are many white savages. 

  10. Just now, GG said:

     

    Is that a fact-based opinion or on the color of heir skin?

     

    If you want to know if the English aristocracy thought they were better -- sure. But not uncivilized. Sure they'd say so, but Darwinism and all. Further, the attitude of the British are just that, and the Irish had good relations with America, Germany, and many other parts of Europe. 

    Just now, DC Tom said:

     

     

    Clarified it for you, GG.

     

    And was Churchill wrong? Yes or no?

     

    While skin color came into play for Churchill's perspective it does not mine. The British were obviously superior though, they just misdiagnosed the reason. 

×
×
  • Create New...