|
Axetrain posted:I'm not knowledgeable enough about modern ship weapons to know if he's full of poo poo or not but The War Nerd wrote about this very thing back into 2009. Father in law who is an incredibly smart military buff has been reading up on this as well. China's been flexing in the region because they've changed doctrine because they realized they can bombard our incredibly expensive carriers from outside retaliatory range with comparatively inexpensive missiles.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Our economies are too interlinked anyway. Barring a Mad Max style resource war we'll always be friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Friend, thank you for the infodumps, but thank you even more for ending them with happiness. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Christ, what an rear end in a top hat!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Despite what anyone says ship countermeasures are not good enough and you just send a ton of missiles + mines and you can sink pretty much any aircraft carrier no problem. That's why they've built so many submarines. Can't sink what you can't find. And once laser anti missile defense weapons are more polished, carriers will be much safer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:There's a theory floating about that China's gender imbalance means that they're going to invade North Korea at some point just to burn off the excess men. War doesn't kill soldiers as much as it used to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:There's a theory floating about that China's gender imbalance means that they're going to invade North Korea at some point just to burn off the excess men. That doesn't make much sense. China doesn't want a goddamn thing to happen to North Korea because they don't want all those people flowing across the border.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:China feels like a country America really wants to be at war with but can't ever quite figure out a good reason why they should be. I feel the exact opposite. There's no way to deal with the insane machinations of Russia's kleptocracy. China on the other hand, while largely despotic, does what it does because it thinks it's for the good of the nation. Putin is and has been just robbing his country blind and killing those that oppose him. I'm not even going to speculate at which one is better, but the one that is easier to have diplomatic relationships with is clearly China. Most of our diplomatic breakdowns have been our own fault. China, by and large, does what it says it's going to do. We need never do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:War doesn't kill soldiers as much as it used to. Does when you send in soldiers not equipped well enough or with enough air support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Our economies are too interlinked anyway. Barring a Mad Max style resource war we'll always be friends. The McDonalds rule of economics and warfare. Only broken once in Bosnia, no countries with McDonalds restaurants have ever gone to war with each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Father in law who is an incredibly smart military buff has been reading up on this as well. China's been flexing in the region because they've changed doctrine because they realized they can bombard our incredibly expensive carriers from outside retaliatory range with comparatively inexpensive missiles. exactly how does that scenario not end in a nuclear exchange that results in China's complete and utter annihilation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
It's all just bullshit posturing, there are a bunch of sociopaths who like money and being alive in charge of most developed nations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Does when you send in soldiers not equipped well enough or with enough air support. You guys are getting a bit out in the field with this. China would roll NK easily. A hermit army can't really keep a logistics chain going against an industrialized state. I mean come on...
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:The McDonalds rule of economics and warfare. Only broken once in Bosnia, no countries with McDonalds restaurants have ever gone to war with each other. Actually broken twice. Two South American nations -- I forget who now -- went to war in the late 90s and both had McDonald's then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Mankind and womenkind are words, mankind can refer to men or women, womankind refers to women, dude and dudette are words, dude can refer to either, dudette is women only. It's the same thing but the other side of there being bikes and women's bikes and tennis and women's tennis. Doctoress is a woman doctor. Oh no I just broke everything!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
BUG JUG posted:Actually broken twice. Two South American nations -- I forget who now -- went to war in the late 90s and both had McDonald's then. Okay. We'll rename it the Hardee's rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Doctoress is a woman doctor. Oh no I just broke everything! Uh women can't be doctors, just look at their brainpan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Oh hey, phrenology..
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Okay. We'll rename it the Hardee's rule. Does this include or exclude Carl's jr.s?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Does this include or exclude Carl's jr.s? Includes. But Red Burritos locations are excluded due to instability in Latin America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:You guys are getting a bit out in the field with this. Well, there has been serious saber rattling with India for several months over their Himalayan border. So if you're looking for a serious Chinese war in the near future, bet on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Our economies are too interlinked anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Reading this story in WaPo about people in West Virginia who desperately want health care was disheartening. There are several people in the story more-or-less begging Washington to fix their total lack of access to healthcare but who also voted for Trump. The worst part is that voting for Donald Trump isn't such a bad play (from the point of view of the desperate people) if he weren't a Republican. From their point of view, I could see Trump becoming actually interested in fixing healthcare for West Virginia if it could some how appeal to his vanity. He clearly knows nothing and cares not one wit about it, but if getting people access to healthcare got him the approval he so desperately needs, it is possible (although not likely in my view) that he could support single payer or some other fix. But he is aligned with the Republican party. Expecting Republicans, a party that does not (on the whole) believe that government should be involved in healthcare, to fix it rather than destroy it is totally divorced from reality. It is more likely that a clone of Andrew Jackson comes back and starts revisiting all his namesake's more horrible crimes against humanity on the people of West Virginia than Trump and the Republican congress actually fixes their healthcare. This has been obvious since Obamacare passed and yet there are still people out there desperate for help who cannot see the way to getting it. That is both sad and frustrating. MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:And once laser anti missile defense weapons are more polished, carriers will be much safer. "Once we figure out how to harden the wood, our ships will be better protected from the enemy's cannons." "Now that the enemy has rifled shells, we'll put armor plating on our hulls." "Now that the enemy has armor-piercing shells, we'll make better armor and put it at an angle." "Because of torpedoes from these new-fangled non-lovely submarines, we're putting torpedo belts on all our ships." "Now that torpedoes detonate *under* our ships instead of needing to contact the hull directly, we're spending countless millions on adding an ASW capability to our fleets." "Now that the enemy has planes that can drop bombs onto our decks, we'll put anti-aircraft guns on our ships." "The enemy built more planes than our anti-aircraft gunners can track manually, so we'll develop radar guidance for them." And on and on and on... It's always cheaper to counteract a new and expensive defensive measure. If a laser point defense system can shoot down 50 missiles, you shoot 100, and you still come out ahead in money spent vs. materiel lost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Father in law who is an incredibly smart military buff has been reading up on this as well. China's been flexing in the region because they've changed doctrine because they realized they can bombard our incredibly expensive carriers from outside retaliatory range with comparatively inexpensive missiles. Other than the fact that this was literally in a Tom Clancy movie.... The thing with this is you can only that trick once. And only in the case that the carrier doesn't have an armed escort up (always does) because next time, there will be aircraft with over the horizon missles leading the way. (And there normally is.) Also; there's no such thing as outside of retaliatory range. bird cooch fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:
Lasers don't even use ammunition. How is spamming lasers not way cheaper than missiles that coat a million dollar each and are one use weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:--July 1914 The Great Illusion, Norman Angell posted:The elaborate financial interdependence of the modern world has grown up in spite of ourselves. Men are fundamentally just as disposed as they were at any time to take wealth that does not belong to them. But their relative interest in the matter has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Other than the fact that this was literally in a Tom Clancy movie.... Aren't we talking about anti-ship ballistic missiles with ranges of over a thousand miles here? The idea is that you can't really kill the things shooting at you, because they're far away and you probably don't know where they are until the missiles are already on their way. If you can't defend against the missile itself then there's really nothing you can do. It doesn't really matter if you blow the launchers up after the carrier is dead, because the launchers are just trucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:exactly how does that scenario not end in a nuclear exchange that results in China's complete and utter annihilation? bird cooch posted:Other than the fact that this was literally in a Tom Clancy movie....
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Aah, but have you considered teh Philippine response?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
I'm not interested in looking for this. But what are the odds that Trump starts going on about the "digital catapults" that he railed against last time? BUT HER EMALS!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
SubG posted:Immediately prior to WWI it was popular to cite The Great Illusion by Norman Angell to explain why there would be no war: Ah yes, as we all know, nobody ever bands together with more dudes to achieve more thorough and successful plundering of larger amounts of wealth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Isn't China developing a ballistic anti-carrier missile that is fooled by smoke screens?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Man, I've been reading the responses to the voter fraud commission stuff. They are fantastic. http://www.jbondy.com does not lead to Lemon Party or Goatse.  Edit: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/888841724759597057 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/888895687865380864
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Lasers don't even use ammunition. How is spamming lasers not way cheaper than missiles that coat a million dollar each and are one use weapons? If you have enough lasers on your billion-dollar boat to engage five missiles before they hit you, and your enemy fires ten missiles costing a million dollars each at the same time, you're pretty much boned on both the "lost your boat" and "lost a lot more money in that exchange" standpoints.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
I'm getting a little tired of people saying Trump would do the right thing if they just appealed to his vanity, and it's only the republicans who are keeping him from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
I know this thread gets a little weird and off topic on the weekends but "hypothetical inevitable China war" has been a real whopper of a dumb derail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:I'm getting a little tired of people saying Trump would do the right thing if they just appealed to his vanity, and it's only the republicans who are keeping him from doing so. I'm going to nip this in the bud and say I'm not arguing that even a little bit. I'm saying desperate people could look at Trump and think it. I'll edit my original post to be more clear so we don't have to go down this rabbit hole of an argument no one is making. MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
china is weaponizing the wild hog texas is doomed
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:exactly how does that scenario not end in a nuclear exchange that results in China's complete and utter annihilation? Simple: if the US launches its nukes at China, Russia would happily use that opportunity to nuke the US and Europe. You see, the thing about worldwide nuclear annihilation is that a single nuke launched by anyone at anyone can trigger it. That's what makes nukes so dangerous in the hands of rogue states such as North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:57
|
|
