|
LimburgLimbo posted:True that, we’re both correct but talking past each other, a tale as old as 1999 when the somethingawful forums were created I'm more correct than you motherfucker!!!1
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
The best thing about Chengdu mornings were the ones where the air was so polluted you could stare directly at the sun and it wasn't even bright.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Suggesting that the great red sun of revolution rises at different "time zones" is reactionary, please meet my heavily armed student friends
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
东方红，太阳升， 现在只有三点钟。
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I lived on the other side of the country from Seoul. I dunno what the precise technical dawn time was, but there were many occasions I stumbled out of the bar at 4 AM and the sky was already lighting up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I lived on the other side of the country from Seoul. I dunno what the precise technical dawn time was, but there were many occasions I stumbled out of the bar at 4 AM and the sky was already lighting up. honestly that's pretty normal imo, dusk in june is also quite late in japan. even if the sun rises at 4 in the morning, it's as bright as high noon at 4pm and the sky won't even dim til like 7 or 8. hell if we're talking about hosed up clock times we can't forget colorado, where you can still see the sun's glow on the horizon at nearly 9pm. thanks dst! Fur20 fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Mar 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Japan is pretty far south, approximately around the west coast of the US in latitude. It shouldn't be daylight any earlier or later in Tokyo than it is in Los Angeles. If you want long daylight hours in the northern hemisphere you need to really far north. Whitehorse in the Yukon gets like 19 hours of daylight in the summer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Mozi posted:东方红，太阳升， 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:tbh July dawn in London is obscenely early and they zeroed the whole system there. well, noon is "supposed" be when the sun is at its zenith. that means there should be as much sunlight before noon as after noon. but that's dumb and lame unless you're a farmer and/or going to bed at like 7pm in the summer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
timezones aside, china does one thing right with time and thats not having any loving stupid daylight savings poo poo. hard agree on Japan being weird as gently caress where sunrise is at like 4am, tho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
just visit Moscow in summer. best of both worlds. the sun is at its peak at noon, but also rises at like 3am
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
SerCypher posted:
I could see this maybe like 20 years ago but these days? Half of the countries I visit these days don't give stamps anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 05:05
|
|
|
https://www.watoday.com.au/world/asia/china-to-put-detained-canadians-on-trial-this-week-20210318-p57c1s.html So it looks like the two Canadian "spies" that are definitely NOT hostages to be traded for Meng Wanzhou, (daughter of Huawei founder), will be getting their time in court soon. In a truly real court of law that will examine evidence and definitely NOT be influenced by political motives of petty revenge. The article mentions a possible prisoner swap, with Ms Meng being worth the two spies, as well as a couple of disharmonious Hong Kongers. But would Canada be up for it? Could Canada legally do anything like that? Also, it tickles me that China is threatening Canada as part of its hissyfit spat with the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:08
|
|
|
The Canadians helped arrest her, didn't they? Also way less risky to gently caress with Canada than the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:34
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Well instead of having multiple timezones it has one, glad I could help lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
in june, dawn in poland is at 3:13 and dusk lasts until 22:20. Kicks rear end
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
I’m starting to see more “abandon Taiwan” articles recently, not a great sign. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-war-with-china-over-taiwan-would-be-foolish-costly-2021-3 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-14/max-hastings-china-might-defeat-america-in-war-over-taiwan
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Only a 99.2% guilty rate, what happened to the other 0.8%
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Lord, that first one. "America could lose a war against China!!1!" Good to see CCP money well spent, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
would have been a hard one due to geological reasons, thats for sure. losing to China????? what drugs are they taking can I have some?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:I’m starting to see more “abandon Taiwan” articles recently, not a great sign. The underlying justification seems to be "please give the DoD more money".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:The underlying justification seems to be "please give the DoD more money". That's what they always are. Lots of fearmongering articles like "China now has a larger navy than the US!" and then you look at it and 90% of the vessels are coastal patrol craft. The latest article I read with that headline had buried in there that the US has 10x the number of vertical launch cells (missile launchers) afloat that the PLAN does. So no risk of getting outgunned any time soon. But defence contractors gotta get paid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
How much of a match would the Japanese navy be to China's at this point? Japan hasn't yet abandoned their anti-military policy, but as I'm given to understnad they are supposed to have a deceptively powerful military despite all that, and seem to be near the top in military spending in absolute (though not relative) terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
With the armchair general caveat, the Japanese navy is large, modern, and well trained. Everything I've read thinks Japan's navy could take on China still, but China does have a lot of submarines so I bet an actual fight between them would depend on how well those perform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
Just because it sinks doesn't mean it's a sub. It has to resurface first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:How much of a match would the Japanese navy be to China's at this point? Japan hasn't yet abandoned their anti-military policy, but as I'm given to understnad they are supposed to have a deceptively powerful military despite all that, and seem to be near the top in military spending in absolute (though not relative) terms. Same armchair general caveat but Japan's navy is by all reports pretty good and though small and a lot of their budget goes to actually paying their soldiers somewhat competitive wages, they're nonetheless very well equipped and apparently well trained, and if it came down to actual defensive ops moral would be reasonably high et al. Navy and air force are one of those things where you gently caress up once and oops literally half you modern effective forces might get wiped out in a day so there's always wildcard aspects to it but all indications are that Japan could likely take on a whole lot of the Chinese military solo. In some Tom Clancy poo poo where they were hitting China from the flanks while they were trying to take over Taiwan? (which, jokes aside, might be the actual trigger for WW3 and is if anything perhaps one of the more possible scenarios) they would probably be highly effective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
The JMSDF is very well equipped with guided missile destroyers, frigates, and helo carriers. They train anti-submarine warfare all the time with US partners. They only rank behind a few navies in the world for overall tonnage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Doesn’t the PLAN only have capacity to land something along the lines of tens of thousands of troops? I remember their landing ship capacity is laughably tiny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:Doesn’t the PLAN only have capacity to land something along the lines of tens of thousands of troops? I remember their landing ship capacity is laughably tiny. Amphibious troop landing capacity is something that basically nobody maintains in a significant way because it's not meaningful in modern conflicts. If you want to land troops you do it via plane with complete control of airspace, or you don't at all, at the moment. If China wants to invade Taiwan though they'd have to build it up and there's no realistic way to do that in a hidden way. This is one of the big sticking points in the whole Taiwan defense thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:Doesn’t the PLAN only have capacity to land something along the lines of tens of thousands of troops? I remember their landing ship capacity is laughably tiny. They have a decent number of landing ships. Quite a few of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_071_amphibious_transport_dock And larger ones coming out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_075_landing_helicopter_dock No nation has the ability to land more than small numbers of troops anymore. Opposed amphibious landings are relatively unrealistic against any peer power since the threat from land based anti shipping missiles is so high. The use case for these would be grabbing contested islands, and for that use 10,000 troops would be plenty. As others have said though the JMSDF is pretty tough. Combined with the Taiwanese and South Korean Navies China is outgunned in its own backyard, not to mention the US. One fun note about the Taiwanese Navy though is they still have some WW2 era us submarines in use. They occasionally have to ask for help from US computer museums when the analogue computers break. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cutlass_(SS-478) They're going to use them until at least 2026!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Neat, I had no idea there was poo poo from WW2 still in active service. I thought the Iowa class battleships in the Gulf War were the last ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Neat, I had no idea there was poo poo from WW2 still in active service. I thought the Iowa class battleships in the Gulf War were the last ones. You'd be surprised what old poo poo is still kicking around. Paraguay still has some WW2 era M3 Stuart light tanks and M9 Half-tracks in active service and they only retired their Shermans in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Neat, I had no idea there was poo poo from WW2 still in active service. I thought the Iowa class battleships in the Gulf War were the last ones. Yah, you can read the trip the US computer historians took to help them fix it. https://maritime.org/taiwan/index.htm There was some stuff they had never seen actually working before. quote:The ROC Navy includes some effective and modern destroyers. Some they have built themselves in their own shipyard, while others are from the US and France. Tuesday afternoon this Guppy II prepared to go to sea and play cat and mouse. We had been talking with the crew about the upcoming mission, and they assured us that they are always able to hold their own. In training with the destroyer crews this 60 year old Guppy II boat always gets the "drop" on the much newer destroyers. They are good at what they do. Pictures: https://maritime.org/taiwan/photo_2.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:You'd be surprised what old poo poo is still kicking around. I guess I'm less surprised about WW2 equipment surviving in countries that aren't dropping the kind of cash Taiwan does on its military. I am not a Paraguayist but I imagine they're not dealing with the same kind of active threat Taiwan does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
If you're a third world dictatorship whose primary military interest is being able to roll tanks around to intimidate civilians then WW2 stuff still gets the job done tbh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
There's one of those things where a weapon can have a functional life beyond what you'd expect because it's inherent mission and capabilities hasn't really changed despite the development of technology. A sniper with a bolt action rifle reallllly hasn't changed their basic direct offensive weaponry much in the last 100 years, and against the right targets (undefended or high-value targets, and more broadly speaking to be a thread and impediment to mobility by simply existing) they're largely as potent as they ever were, and subs are in some ways the snipers of the sea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
This is without even getting in to stuff like the B-52 (ended production in '62, slated to run until 2050) and M2HB .50 cal (which will probably literally be popping up in conflicts 2100 and beyond).
LimburgLimbo fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I guess I'm less surprised about WW2 equipment surviving in countries that aren't dropping the kind of cash Taiwan does on its military. I am not a Paraguayist but I imagine they're not dealing with the same kind of active threat Taiwan does. The problem is most countries can't sell stuff to Taiwan without China getting mad. It's not really about money, it's about access. China absolutely lost its poo poo several times over the past few years when we started selling them M1 tanks, newer F16s, new torpedos, etc. The US just basically sells them whatever they want now. Up until recently, huge parts of their arsenals were forever upgraded versions of stuff from the pre-normalization period. Although even prior to that, they wouldn't sell them anything 'offensive' because they were worried Chiang Kai Shek would use it to attack the mainland. Edit: It's a big sticking point with China. A possible cross channel invasion was foiled because we gave the ROC airforce the first prototype heat sinking missiles and they gave the PLAAF a bloody nose. Part of China's attempts at isolating taiwan is aimed at cutting off their access to modern arms. SerCypher fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:There's one of those things where a weapon can have a functional life beyond what you'd expect because it's inherent mission and capabilities hasn't really changed despite the development of technology. Yeah, guns are an obvious one. A modern pistol isn't vastly different than a M1911. Wonder if there's still anybody flying WW2 era aircraft (to fight, not as trainers). E: Looks like the oldest operating fighter is the Shenyang J-5, which is a 1956 copy of the MiG-17. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Wait until anti-missile tech becomes viable and we start selling them that, too. Beijing will be livid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 22:12
|
|
