|
HEY GAL posted:blows from a Cold Steel sword omg relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdfx7l4z5cQ
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
JcDent posted:I'm 26k posts behind the cold war thread, I wonder how many times I'll run into the F-35 and Marine corps arguments. For every marine instance, about 5 with F-35s. The thing I find slightly humbling is that the US Marine Corps is, by itself, one of the largest, best equipped armed forces on earth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Also, how effective would an MEU be at some of those operations anyways? I get the use for one-off evac of potential hostages or whatever, but anything more drawn out is going to run hard into the realities of logistics. How effective are a handful of F35s with very limited bomb stores going to be at stopping the next Dafur? If the situation is serious enough to need to be dropping bombs it seems it would be serious enough to need to drop more than a handful. And seriously, if we're involved in a conflict so big that we've committed all our available CVBGs, I can't come up with a "human rights" concern that we'd give a poo poo about, or that would warrant diversion of resources away from that conflict. Post-war, our supposedly targeted capability was being able to simultaneously handle two major regional conflicts plus a small brushfire somewhere else. We never really had that capability except on paper, and now we don't even *pretend* to be able to do that. We don't expect to be able to be everywhere at once, and we don't procure for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The thing I find slightly humbling is that the US Marine Corps is, by itself, one of the largest, best equipped armed forces on earth. Yeah, but so is the California National Guard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Bewbies, what's your guess on when the F-35s can be used in operations?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And seriously, if we're involved in a conflict so big that we've committed all our available CVBGs, I can't come up with a "human rights" concern that we'd give a poo poo about, or that would warrant diversion of resources away from that conflict. Post-war, our supposedly targeted capability was being able to simultaneously handle two major regional conflicts plus a small brushfire somewhere else. We never really had that capability except on paper, and now we don't even *pretend* to be able to do that. We don't expect to be able to be everywhere at once, and we don't procure for that. Yeah, a far more realistic answer to that is getting the rest of the world on-board with helping out. Realistically the US military absent foreign support isn't going to stop a genocide in progress. A big part of what we need to do is look ourselves in the mirror and admit we don't have the capacity to shut down every rear end in a top hat in every third would country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Fine, I'll cede that the USMC needs integrated air. My henderson field comment was more aimed at the notion that they need jump jets a few miles inland. If marines are going to be landing to force a beachhead I think it's a safe assumption that it's near the water, which means that you can put a carrier group nearby. Let them fly fixed wing aircraft. gently caress, I would argue that it would actually make more sense to give the USMC its own loving carriers if they don't want to share hanger space with the Navy than to keep flapping about with SVTOLs. Not to mention if the US had done this the UK would not now be operating crippled carriers with ski jumps because of a deeply-flawed attempt by the UK government to save a few bucks and would instead be launching proper USN-style F-35s from catapults. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You don't. You sit a full-size carrier group at stand-off distance and use conventional non-V/STOL aircraft and long-range missiles to destroy the enemy's capability to do that, and *then* you send in your amphibious assault. Sending an LHA into the littoral against someone who can shoot back gets you a dead LHA and a bunch of dead Marines. Well, you do, and you deal with protection requirements, if the CINC tells you to. For reference the MAGTF conducts a forced-entry operations with LHAs at the centerpiece in all but two of the DoD approved future scenarios, and that amphibious action is the main effort in three of these five. In other words, the joint chiefs seem quite convinced that forced entry capabilities are still very important, and you're never going to have sufficient munitions or airframes or pilots or fuel to "destroy the enemy's capability" in its entirety. quote:There is no reason for the USMC to have V/STOL aircraft. There's no situation in which we'd task a Marine-only force to mount an amphibious invasion by itself; either we're at war against a bush-league military in which case we have the luxury of giving them more support than that (Like in Iraq, where the entire Constellation carrier group was supporting the Al-Faw landing), or we're at war against a peer where an opposed landing by an MEU or MEF *without* the support of a full carrier group is a guarantee of thousands of casualties and a bunch of destroyed ships. And Camp Bastion is as good an illustration of what's going to happen if you actually try to forward-stage your V/STOL aircraft from improvised fields near enemy-held territory. We are *not* going to stick modern front-line 100-million-dollar-plus aircraft in a place where a dozen guys with AKs can destroy a bunch of them, and the logistical tail required for modern aircraft means that Henderson Field isn't going to happen again. I'm really not sure where the internet got this "Henderson Field" thing from...that isn't how the MAGTF operates now, nor has it ever, nor will it in the future. The ACEs are not equipped to conduct fixed wing operations in austere, contested environments: their fixed wing capability generates from the LHAs or from mature land facilities. That being said, you seem to have a problem with the V/STOL requirement, which is a fair criticism. As I noted above, it really is the LHA that drives this requirement, not an overwhelming desire to relive the glory days of WWII. While I think most professionals, marines included, can easily identify the problems with the LHA platform, the capabilities it brings (and more importantly, the way it integrates these capabilities) are simply not replicated anywhere else in the world. I won't go so far as to say they're critical to a successful forced entry, but if they're not, they're pretty close. The reasons for this are not particularly sexy nor interesting, but they're pretty important. The USMC integrates air and ground operations far, far, far better than the other services do amongst themselves, and that is probably the single most critical enabler of forced entry in just about any scenario. They're able to do this because they own their own fixed wing: this gives them advantages in habitual relationships and training, ensures they have all of the capabilities necessary to employ the air (ie, air controllers, which the Army lacks and rather seriously needs), and sequesters their air assets away from the Navy who is already stretched very thin by short legs and long distances. Neither the Army nor the Navy have that suite of capabilities, and even though we're beginning to pursue them these efforts are still very much in their infancy. Marines might be irritating and have bad haircuts, but their ability to integrate and employ air power in support of their maneuver forces is absolutely top notch. If we concede that we need these airframes, then the USMC "deserves" them as much as anyone. So, if we grudgingly assume then that there are some major advantages to the USMC retaining its air component, and that we need to retain the LHA as the centerpiece of the ESG, then a 21st century V/STOL is really the only possible answer. Now, the F-35 is almost certainly not the ideal platform, but that was a JROC (I think) decision, not a USMC one. And now I'm annoyed because you nerds have me defending the USMC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Bewbies, what's your guess on when the F-35s can be used in operations? Radar glitch requires F-35 fighter jet pilots to turn it off and on again quote:And now a glitch with the radar, which appeared late last year, could potentially hinder its performance against less developed fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Bewbies, what's your guess on when the F-35s can be used in operations? If some weird situation came up in which we NEEDED to use them today we probably could, albeit with all sorts of what we have traditionally called "teething problems" (see: the USMC's "IOC" squadron). Since there isn't an acute need but there is an acute shortage of money to support testing and development it'll be....difficult for the USAF to reach the August '16 date. What I mean by that is, they'll reach it, but with "teething problems".
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
i refuse to watch this
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:From the looks of it, that mail has muck larger rings than actual medieval chainmail. Also, the individual rings were not made from drawn wire, but punched out of steel plate. After joining them, they were riveted closed. Furthermore, the steel went through multiple annealings to make it as hard as possible. I wasn't posting it to go "Look at this perfect scientific video of real medieval chain mail being hit by historically accurate swords!" I just thought it would be a cool demonstration of how steel mail (not the aluminum or plastic cosplay stuff) can protect against sword strikes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Well, you do, and you deal with protection requirements, if the CINC tells you to. For reference the MAGTF conducts a forced-entry operations with LHAs at the centerpiece in all but two of the DoD approved future scenarios, and that amphibious action is the main effort in three of these five. In other words, the joint chiefs seem quite convinced that forced entry capabilities are still very important, and you're never going to have sufficient munitions or airframes or pilots or fuel to "destroy the enemy's capability" in its entirety. That's fine so far as military planning goes; that's the planner's job, figure out how to accomplish an objective with available resources. But as a purely political matter, *that is not going to happen*. Any battle plan that's going to stand a very good chance of thousands of coffins coming home is a non-starter in any foreseeable political environment. Not when a single old diesel sub can sink the bulk of your landing troops. Basically, I'm questioning the very premise that a meaningfully opposed landing is something that will ever happen again. quote:I won't go so far as to say they're critical to a successful forced entry, but if they're not, they're pretty close. The reasons for this are not particularly sexy nor interesting, but they're pretty important. The USMC integrates air and ground operations far, far, far better than the other services do amongst themselves, and that is probably the single most critical enabler of forced entry in just about any scenario. I agree with this. But it's necessary, not sufficient. Without the assets the Navy brings, outside the MEF, an opposed landing against a peer force isn't going to happen because your ships are getting blown up. quote:And now I'm annoyed because you nerds have me defending the USMC. I understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I wasn't posting it to go "Look at this perfect scientific video of real medieval chain mail being hit by historically accurate swords!" I just thought it would be a cool demonstration of how steel mail (not the aluminum or plastic cosplay stuff) can protect against sword strikes. like, i think that Mary Rose ship-history chick cast replica cannon and fired them to figure out something about the Mary Rose's armament. and there's some historian/reenactors building a small castle in, like, france or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
Ehhh, I don't think I would go that far. It would, however, be a pretty narrow use-case. Basically we would have to be beating down someone analogous to Iraq in GW1: Large, relatively respectable conventional force that actually requires us to flex our military muscle yet not in possession of the sort of strategic assets that would make an invasion a non-starter and also doesn't have an alliance with someone who does.. Off the top of my head I'm guessing Iran as the obvious candidate, but there are other countries that would fit that bill if things got crazy. A lot of those would probably involve a land invasion too, or maybe just holding the naval landings as a ploy to pull troops off the other front a la GW1. On the other hand if we go to war with Indonesia we would probably see some amphib assaults. It's a useful capacity. The part I don't quite buy is that we would ever use it in a case where a normal CV group couldn't support the landing, which gets me back to my original idea of throwing out the SVTOL bullshit and putting Marine air on Navy CVNs. All the close same-service integration, none of the being hamstrung by the engineering compromises SVTOL requires. edit: the idea that you have to have the capability to do whatever the CINC tells you is also a bit odd. The CINC makes his decisions based on the capabilities of the forces at his command. If you assumed that the military had to be capable of doing whatever the boss said no matter the logical constraints, then by that token we need the ability to conduct a trans-polar invasion of Norway via Alaska on snowmobiles. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I think Iran is probably a vanishingly unlikely possibility now, I think we'll see normalised relations soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I think Iran is probably a vanishingly unlikely possibility now, I think we'll see normalised relations soon enough. Well, Trump might still win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I think Iran is probably a vanishingly unlikely possibility now, I think we'll see normalised relations soon enough. Yeah, I was just throwing it out as an example of a non-nuclear nation with a large enough army to need to go to those lengths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit: the idea that you have to have the capability to do whatever the CINC tells you is also a bit odd. The CINC makes his decisions based on the capabilities of the forces at his command. If you assumed that the military had to be capable of doing whatever the boss said no matter the logical constraints, then by that token we need the ability to conduct a trans-polar invasion of Norway via Alaska on snowmobiles. Need it or not, that is a capability we should have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
LLSix posted:Need it or not, that is a capability we should have. I assume you are talking about trans-polar invasion of Norway via Alaska on snowmobiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I assume you are talking about trans-polar invasion of Norway via Alaska on snowmobiles. It would be so awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
LLSix posted:It would be so awesome. Gonna need to convert that force to Jetskis thanks to global warming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:Gonna need to convert that force to Jetskis thanks to global warming. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
To be fair, Norway would never see it coming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The part I don't quite buy is that we would ever use it in a case where a normal CV group couldn't support the landing, which gets me back to my original idea of throwing out the SVTOL bullshit and putting Marine air on Navy CVNs. All the close same-service integration, none of the being hamstrung by the engineering compromises SVTOL requires. Well, that's pretty much my point. If we were in a real shooting war with Iran and decided that this war was worth sending an MEF to do an amphibious assault, but *not* important enough to send a real carrier group to back it up, Iran can hit that MEF with all kinds of weapons that the MEF is effectively defenseless against. If it's within a few hundred kilometers of the coast, Iran has anti-ship missiles that it's going to do what against? Rely on Phalanx and RAM? Iran has a good-sized fleet of subs that an MEF is effectively defenseless against. The reconnaissance capability of an MEF is really poor compared to what you can do with E-2s or P-8s. What does it even have so far as minesweeping capability? Regardless of what the Joint Chiefs have planned, the idea that we'd send an MEF, all on its lonesome, to mount an invasion against an enemy even as capable of Iran is not realistic. It can barely defend itself against ASMs, has negligible capability to defend itself against submarine attack, even Iran has a very good chance of inflicting crippling losses on such a force. Under any scenario where an amphibious invasion of Iran is a good idea, it's going to be supported by all the other capabilities we have: land-based air, full-size carriers, a whole shitload of VLS cells, etc., because while the MEF might be necessary to get the job done it's not sufficient to give you a good enough chance of getting the job done without enormous casualties. And if we're doing that, a few F-35s on a small deck are not really contributing much. I just can't come up with an example of where it's worth sending an MEF/MEB/MEU and not sending carrier assets in support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I'm 26k posts behind the cold war thread, I wonder how many times I'll run into the F-35 and Marine corps arguments. There's a lot of Air Force/Army posters and next to zero Navy/Marine posters, so you get people going HURR HENDERSON FIELD and HURR NAVY'S AIR FORCE and HURR ABOLISH THE CORPS a lot. The F-35B is a total shitshow but the idea that the Marines shouldn't have some sort of integrated fixed-wing air capability is dumb as all gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:There's a lot of Air Force/Army posters and next to zero Navy/Marine posters, so you get people going HURR HENDERSON FIELD and HURR NAVY'S AIR FORCE and HURR ABOLISH THE CORPS a lot. The question is why do they need fixed wing? If they need fixed wing, why not run as part of a Carrier Battle group? If they still need fixed wing after the Carrier Battle group leaves or for "reasons" staying long term, they should have an airport in their possession by that time to run real planes off it after ferrying them to where ever. If you ever have to force entry anywhere you're not going to half rear end it and not use a Carrier Battle group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's fine so far as military planning goes; that's the planner's job, figure out how to accomplish an objective with available resources. But as a purely political matter, *that is not going to happen*. Any battle plan that's going to stand a very good chance of thousands of coffins coming home is a non-starter in any foreseeable political environment. Not when a single old diesel sub can sink the bulk of your landing troops. I think you're correct in the context of GWOT/WMD/democratize the savages type of wars. That isn't really what the capability is being developed against, though. One of the DoD scenarios I mentioned above was a major conflict in the Baltic states, which is of immediate interest for a variety of reasons I'm sure we're all aware of. This has been the focus of DoD experimentation and wargaming for this FY. Most of the plans there require a forced entry operation versus a very powerful and well equipped opponent who enjoys...a lot of strategic advantages. I assumed this scenario and its results were classified but apparently at least some of it isn't, or otherwise it was leaked....whatever. Point being, this is the kind of scenario where there is a much greater political tolerance for risk and casualties associated with high-leverage situations like contested amphibious and airborne ops in a forced entry type scenario. No one is under any illusions about the difficulty of such an operation, but I certainly don't think political will would be lacking. I also think that you're probably overselling threat capabilities, or underselling the US/allies navies somewhat...there are a lot of very capable forces around to be sure, but they are plenty capable in their own right. It'd be...very difficult, to say the least, for a single D/E sub to cruise in and sink a significant portion of a MAGTF while they're embarked. Cyrano4747 posted:The part I don't quite buy is that we would ever use it in a case where a normal CV group couldn't support the landing, which gets me back to my original idea of throwing out the SVTOL bullshit and putting Marine air on Navy CVNs. All the close same-service integration, none of the being hamstrung by the engineering compromises SVTOL requires. The problem with that is we don't have enough space on the carriers to do both ACE and CVW operations. That's...what the amphibious assault ships are for. Now, you can certainly make the argument that the LHDs/LHAs are not optimal uses of money (I would) but we simply don't have the deck space to up and move USMC aviation to the supercarriers. quote:edit: the idea that you have to have the capability to do whatever the CINC tells you is also a bit odd. The CINC makes his decisions based on the capabilities of the forces at his command. If you assumed that the military had to be capable of doing whatever the boss said no matter the logical constraints, then by that token we need the ability to conduct a trans-polar invasion of Norway via Alaska on snowmobiles. In this context what the CINC tells you to do is published in documents like the National Military Strategy and the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations. In other words, the documents that say really broad things like "defeat an adversary" or "overcome A2AD efforts" get translated by the specific services into things like "sea control" or "suppress enemy air defenses" or "conduct amphibious attack operations". While constitutionally speaking he has carte blanche to put whatever the hell he wants in these documents, in practice they are informed by (really, written by) the joint chiefs and the services as a whole. They should talk the president out of putting anything too ridiculous in these types of documents.* *does not apply to future president trump
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There is the argument that the F-35B means that every small carrier the US operates can, in these kinds of situations, fulfill the role of a full carrier, which are often needed elsewhere, which would give the US a serious advantage in power projection. Now, whether that is a good enough reason to spend the billions that are being spent is another question. To tie this to milhist, one thing mentioned in Shattered Sword is that light carriers were essentially a lovely dead end in most regards. They tend to be incapable of keeping a decent-sized CAP in the air while at the same time, they don't have the sort of oomph for strikes and forget about escorting those strikes if you expect to keep a CAP in the air at the same time. And this with WW2 era CVL:s that had 30+ planes, those Wasp and America class amphibious assault ships carry a lot less, between six and twenty. That doesn't add up to much. Sure, if a light carrier is all you can field it's better than nothing, but pound for pound, spending money on those just doesn't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:*does not apply to future president trump Trump's shadow is long, and is cast o'r all the forums I'm sure even pet Island is discussing Trump's plans to seize all Chihuahuas or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:To tie this to milhist, one thing mentioned in Shattered Sword is that light carriers were essentially a lovely dead end in most regards. They tend to be incapable of keeping a decent-sized CAP in the air while at the same time, they don't have the sort of oomph for strikes and forget about escorting those strikes if you expect to keep a CAP in the air at the same time. And this with WW2 era CVL:s that had 30+ planes, those Wasp and America class amphibious assault ships carry a lot less, between six and twenty. That doesn't add up to much. The only argument I can think of would be that an eight plane strike today would hit a lot harder with modern guided weapons? I'm poo poo at navy/plane stuff though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:To tie this to milhist, one thing mentioned in Shattered Sword is that light carriers were essentially a lovely dead end in most regards. They tend to be incapable of keeping a decent-sized CAP in the air while at the same time, they don't have the sort of oomph for strikes and forget about escorting those strikes if you expect to keep a CAP in the air at the same time. And this with WW2 era CVL:s that had 30+ planes, those Wasp and America class amphibious assault ships carry a lot less, between six and twenty. That doesn't add up to much. If grog gaming has taught me anything, it is that CVLs should be run as dedicated fighter carriers to provide CAP over a task force of fleet carriers, so they can use their fighters to escort the strike. Mixed airgroups are a bad idea on light carriers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
It's ridiculous to compare WWII era carrier tactics to today. The strikes at Midway were done with upwards of a hundred planes. You wouldn't see anything like those numbers for a similar mission today, not with long range missiles and vastly improved detection capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:The only argument I can think of would be that an eight plane strike today would hit a lot harder with modern guided weapons? I'm poo poo at navy/plane stuff though. Nah, you're right about modern weapons systems having capabilities far beyond what was available just a few decades before. WWII and Vietnam are a good comparison. Here's a B-17 bomber, state of the art of ca. 1941. It carries ten men and about 2-4 tons of bombs, which are dropped in such a way that the only way they are effective is when a sky full of other bombers do the same thing.  Here's a F-4 Phantom II. It is state of the art ca. 1971. It carries two men and about ten tons of bombs. It drops them all within a few blocks of where they're supposed to go. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:To tie this to milhist, one thing mentioned in Shattered Sword is that light carriers were essentially a lovely dead end in most regards. They tend to be incapable of keeping a decent-sized CAP in the air while at the same time, they don't have the sort of oomph for strikes and forget about escorting those strikes if you expect to keep a CAP in the air at the same time. And this with WW2 era CVL:s that had 30+ planes, those Wasp and America class amphibious assault ships carry a lot less, between six and twenty. That doesn't add up to much. Their usefulness would all depend on the cost ratio to a full Carrier. If 3 CVLs cost as much as one CV, and collectively carry the same aerial compliment, you might actually be far better off building the CVLs, because it makes you less loss-sensitive. But I have no idea what the resource breakdown would actually look like. And yeah, the technological advances over the last 60 years means that comparing a WWII CVL to an Amphibious Assault Vessel makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:On the other hand if we go to war with Indonesia we would probably see some amphib assaults.   Here in Australia there are occasional rumbling about fighting ~not~* Indonesia but what is the scenario where Indonesia becomes a target for the West? The Indonesian are bff with the US and exterminated literally millions of their communists in the sixties to keep the US on side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 The Indonesian are absolutely poo poo scared of China and would be prepared to do almost anything to keep the US in the happy zone. Unless we are talking about some wing nut like Trump taking the reigns but then 'Invades<anywhere>' is in the picture too. *We never name them because it is such an insane notion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Their usefulness would all depend on the cost ratio to a full Carrier. If 3 CVLs cost as much as one CV, and collectively carry the same aerial compliment, you might actually be far better off building the CVLs, because it makes you less loss-sensitive. But I have no idea what the resource breakdown would actually look like. True, but the basic idea is still applicable. If you have to maintain a CAP the already very limited sorties you can run off a marine baby carrier become even more limited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:
It's a hypothetical situation. Crazy stuff can happen in international politics, but it's certainly not going to happen any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's a hypothetical situation. Crazy stuff can happen in international politics, but it's certainly not going to happen any time soon. If aliens invade tomorrow, the President should be able to call up the Pentagon and get 3 or 4 premade contigency plans on his desk within 20 minutes, or someone at the Pentagon hasn't been doing their job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's a hypothetical situation. Crazy stuff can happen in international politics, but it's certainly not going to happen any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:42
|
|