The US will lose WW3

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »

Turtle Watch: Jul 30, 2010; by Games Forum

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Someone has won a war due to superior foot care.

# ? Apr 14, 2023 05:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 05:56

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

https://twitter.com/Morbidful/status/1646189735008784385?s=20

# ? Apr 14, 2023 06:04

Brain Curry: Feb 15, 2007; People think that I'm lazy
People think that I'm this fool because
I give a fuck about the government
I didn't graduate from high school

indigi posted:

https://twitter.com/Morbidful/status/1646189735008784385?s=20

# ? Apr 14, 2023 06:08

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1646270185442267136?t=JKU1pAv1Pj9tBWwPduSdTg&s=19

# ? Apr 14, 2023 07:36

yellowcar: Feb 14, 2010

broke: whispering the atrocities you did into your grandson's ear on your death bed

woke: posting about your war crimes for reddit gold

# ? Apr 14, 2023 09:33

galagazombie: Oct 31, 2011; A silly little mouse!

Between tank schematics, Ukrainian war strength, and war crime guilt, social media is proving to be a better intelligence tool than a thousand spies and taps.

# ? Apr 14, 2023 09:42

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Turns out people wanting to brag works better than all the torture and blackmail in the world, crazy

# ? Apr 14, 2023 10:21

BrotherJayne: Nov 28, 2019

The Atomic Man-Boy posted:

Foot wraps are honestly better in a lot of rugged environments, but you need to know how to wrap properly and a lot of soldiers are dumber than their rifles, that kind of goes with every army.

Footwraps, if you know how to use them, are vastly superior to socks

# ? Apr 14, 2023 13:04

taters: Jun 13, 2005

# ? Apr 14, 2023 20:43

Slim Jim Pickens: Jan 16, 2012

Slavvy posted:

Turns out people wanting to brag works better than all the torture and blackmail in the world, crazy

Yeah the best interrogator for the Nazis was a guy who took POWs out on walks and just chatted about stuff

# ? Apr 14, 2023 21:16

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

if you want real info, the straight dope, i think pyramid of hooded naked men is really the best go-to. are country's tax dollars at work!

# ? Apr 14, 2023 21:19

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Yeah the best interrogator for the Nazis was a guy who took POWs out on walks and just chatted about stuff

Turns out fighter pilots love talking about airplanes and tactics, especially if you debate them (Warthunder forums style), rather than having their fingernails pulled out.

lol thank you for reminding me that they blamed a Military Police private for independently inventing methods of torture, all of which are so linked to US training that one pose was called "The Vietnam".

Lynndie England was not a good person, by any means, but you are out of your goddamn mind if you think a National Guard private was doing that on her own initiative and not following orders. Befehl ist Befehl isn't supposed to fly anymore, understandably, but it's clear there were orders. I feel like people have collective amnesia about that.

Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 21:25 on Apr 14, 2023

# ? Apr 14, 2023 21:21

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

shes in trouble cause shes in the photo riding an iraqi.
thats all that matters. americans do not care about why that happened.

# ? Apr 14, 2023 22:00

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

didn�t she say she did most of it to impress/go along with her boyfriend

# ? Apr 14, 2023 23:23

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Sending my BF some hot torture pix

# ? Apr 14, 2023 23:31

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

when does someone start blowing up LNG tankers in the Atlantic

# ? Apr 15, 2023 00:15

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:

when does america start blowing up american LNG tankers in the Atlantic

# ? Apr 15, 2023 02:32

fabergay egg: Mar 1, 2012; it's not a rhetorical question, for politely saying 'you are an idiot, you don't know what you are talking about'

JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:

when does america start blowing up canadian LNG tankers in the Atlantic

# ? Apr 15, 2023 02:52

Filthy Hans: Jun 27, 2008; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 10 years!)

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256193457434629
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256420809670656

what a revelation

# ? Apr 16, 2023 02:49

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

its amazing they still think their failson grifting high on drugs agencies are useful assets lmao

# ? Apr 16, 2023 03:03

Shrecknet: Jan 2, 2005

Filthy Hans posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256193457434629

oh word the tiny country a hundred miles offshore of the aggressors mainland airfields is vulnerable? :elon:

# ? Apr 16, 2023 03:09

yellowcar: Feb 14, 2010

Filthy Hans posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256193457434629
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256420809670656

what a revelation

sounds like they should save us all the trouble and reunify now

# ? Apr 16, 2023 03:49

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

yellowcar posted:

sounds like they should save us all the trouble and reunify now

we should punish this leaker aka america government

# ? Apr 16, 2023 03:59

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Filthy Hans posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256193457434629
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256420809670656

what a revelation

Quick, have them order a bunch of f-35s, stat!

# ? Apr 16, 2023 04:23

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

sullat posted:

Quick, have them order a bunch of f-35s, stat!

sorry those invincible planes are too busy blowing up russia to Kamchatka

# ? Apr 16, 2023 04:27

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Did Ukraine.bother asking for F-35s or did they just go stright to F-16s?

# ? Apr 16, 2023 04:28

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

KomradeX posted:

Did Ukraine.bother asking for F-35s or did they just go stright to F-16s?

probably but blaming ukronazis being too incompetent when F-35s inevitably get caught in embarrassing incidents is a bridge too far even for NATO

# ? Apr 16, 2023 04:32

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Palladium posted:

probably but blaming ukronazis being too incompetent when F-35s inevitably get caught in embarrassing incidents is a bridge too far even for NATO

I think they might have gone directly asking for F-16s when talk of replenshing Ukraine's airforce came up last year. Which might be the smartest thing these Nazis have done

# ? Apr 16, 2023 04:44

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

KomradeX posted:

I think they might have gone directly asking for F-16s when talk of replenshing Ukraine's airforce came up last year. Which might be the smartest thing these Nazis have done

that's also probably dead in the water from internal NATO distrust, especially after macron's and germany's recent visit to china

# ? Apr 16, 2023 07:17

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

Filthy Hans posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256193457434629
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1647256420809670656

what a revelation

how can our osint certified wargame fail us so

# ? Apr 16, 2023 07:45

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Crossposting: Here is a portion of the executive analysis of a RUSI report published back on February 22nd:

quote:

- UK armed forces and other European militaries have been sized, equipped and organised around the assumption that air superiority will be quickly achieved and leveraged to defeat state opponents.
� However, almost all European air forces, including the RAF, currently lack many of the critical capabilities required to credibly be able to gain and exploit air superiority against Russian forces, or indeed any state opponent with modern ground-based air defence systems and long-range strike capabilities.
� The first major area of concern is the vulnerability of air forces that have, due to decades of efficiency-saving measures, ended up in a position where their combat aircraft and the maintenance capacity to support them are concentrated in a small number of main operating air bases with limited hardened shelters or ground-based missile defence systems. This makes them highly vulnerable to Russian long-range strike capabilities and so undermines their deterrence credibility and survivability in any potential conflict.
� Remedying this will require a combination of dispersal, hardening and ground-based air defence protection. The optimal combination will vary depending on each air force�s current laydown, equipment and resourcing. Sweden and Finland both provide examples of air forces that currently maintain a much less vulnerable posture than most European NATO air forces. Not all aspects of their equipment or practices can be universally adopted, but there is much that could be learned.
� The second major concern is a lack of currency and proficiency for high-intensity mission sets among aircrew and other key personnel across most air forces in Europe. The tactics and procedures required to be effective against a state adversary like Russia are very different from those required for peacetime air policing or close air support against insurgent groups.
� To regenerate proficiency in high-end warfighting mission sets, air forces must reduce discretionary commitments such as counterterrorism focused deployments. At present, with the scale of ongoing activity, most air forces, including the RAF, lack the necessary maintenance, spares and aircrew capacity to conduct focused warfighting training at scale. Overstretching fast jet fleets by trying to do everything is resulting in increasing problems with aircraft availability, and significant numbers of the most critical experienced instructor pilots and senior engineers are becoming burnt out and resigning.
� The third major area of concern is that no European NATO air forces currently have sufficient expertise or the required munitions stocks to conduct suppression and destruction of enemy air defences (SEAD/DEAD) at scale. The lethality of mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems on both sides in Ukraine is a vivid reminder of the consequences of an inability to conduct SEAD/DEAD at scale. Without such capacity, European NATO air forces cannot credibly achieve and exploit control of the air over a battlefield contested by Russian forces or even by near-peers such as Iran.
� Weapons and aircraft already exist that are well suited to SEAD/DEAD; most notably, in terms of weapons, the GBU-53/B StormBreaker, SPEAR 3 and AARGM-ER, and in terms of aircraft, the F-35. However, these are all expensive capabilities that must be fielded in significant numbers and regularly trained and exercised at scale as part of the joint force if they are to be operationally credible. This means that European air forces that do so will pay a significant opportunity cost in terms of other potential mission sets and capability areas that will need to be disinvested in to generate financial headroom and capacity.
� It is, nonetheless, vital that at least a few of NATO�s larger European air forces do regenerate a SEAD/DEAD capacity at scale against modern, mobile SAM systems. The key warfighting bottleneck standing in the way of generating sustainable European deterrence credibility against Russia (or other regional near-peer threats like Iran) is an inability to credibly establish air superiority due to lack of SEAD/DEAD capacity. Fixing this deficiency should, therefore, be seen as a matter of urgent priority.
� The only alternative � accepting that air superiority is not attainable over future battlefields contested by Russia or another adversary nation � would require a total redesign of NATO�s joint forces towards a force that relies on massed artillery, armour and infantry as the core of its fighting power, rather than air-delivered firepower. That alternative implies demographic, political and financial costs that far outstrip the costs of regenerating warfighting credibility for NATO air forces.

Ardennes has issued a correction as of 18:42 on Apr 16, 2023

# ? Apr 16, 2023 18:38

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

https://twitter.com/MelnykAndrij/status/1620173590388948992?s=20

# ? Apr 16, 2023 18:52

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

Ah the classic Fleet in Being.

Let's see if the Germans can make it work this time.

# ? Apr 16, 2023 18:53

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

pretty wild to hear that NATO doesn't even have the expertise for successful SEAD/DEAD against russia

# ? Apr 16, 2023 18:58

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:

pretty wild to hear that NATO doesn't even have the expertise for successful SEAD/DEAD against russia

It would take some amount of time, but the US is well postured to be able to do that mission, if it had that mission. The catch is this assumes the US accepts risk to what it publicly says is the pacing challenge, which is the PRC and their rapidly expanding capability. Can't really blame European air forces for arguing that they should develop their own abilities in this regard instead of hoping the US does it and does it quickly enough (might not be terribly heartening for a European nation to find out the US can conduct effective SEAD/DEAD, but 3 months into the European nation being deep in a war on their own soil).

The RUSI writer make this case in the Executive Summary (emphasis added):

quote:

Russia will remain an adversary for the foreseeable future and is likely to continue to
rearm and rebuild large-scale conventional forces once the fighting in Ukraine ceases. It
is in China�s geopolitical interests to split US and European resources and attention away
from the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, China is likely to help Russia rearm once there is some
form of ceasefire in Ukraine. This would significantly increase the level of threat Russia
can pose in the medium term.
� The Chinese military threat means fewer US military assets available to reinforce Europe in
a crisis. A notable risk is that Russia will take advantage of a conflict between the US and
China in the Indo-Pacific to renew aggression against European NATO members or Ukraine.
� The likelihood of an enduring military threat from Russia and, increasingly, US
commitment to the Indo-Pacific mean that European NATO air forces must take steps to
urgently regenerate credible warfighting capability against Russian forces. Medium-term
deterrence requires it.
� However, almost all European air forces, including the RAF, currently lack many of the
critical capabilities required to credibly be able to gain and exploit air superiority against
Russian forces, or indeed any state opponent with modern ground-based air defence
systems and long-range strike capabilities.

From the intro:

quote:

Reestablishing deterrence credibility with conventional military forces, therefore, will require not
only regaining key warfighting skills such as SEAD/DEAD, but also regenerating the stockpiles
and realistic exercise programmes and training tempo needed to avoid hollow front line forces.
For non-US NATO air forces, these challenges are much more severe than for the US since the
US Air Force (USAF), US Navy and US Marine Corps all still field airpower on a large scale with
a global footprint and large munitions stocks. However, the Pentagon is heavily focused on the
Indo-Pacific and the threat from Chinese forces that increasingly pose a major threat to US
military freedom of action.5 The result is that there will be far fewer US forces available to help
defend Europe in any future war with Russia. This would be especially problematic for European
powers if Russia took the logical step of coordinating any future armed aggression to coincide
with the US being occupied by a war or serious armed standoff with China.6

And restated in conclusion:

quote:

The same Chinese threat means that the US will be able to spare fewer and fewer military assets to
reinforce Europe in a crisis, especially if such a crisis is timed to coincide with a conflict in the
Indo-Pacific. Therefore, European NATO air forces must take steps to urgently regenerate the
credible capability to achieve air superiority over an area contested by Russian forces; mediumterm deterrence requires it.
Doing this will require reducing the vulnerability of air forces on the ground to long-range
precision fires, refocusing aircrew and whole force training on warfighting mission readiness,
and acquiring the specialised weapon stocks and skills sets to prosecute a SEAD/DEAD
campaign at scale. The cost, and opportunity costs in terms of discretionary capability sets and
commitments, will be considerable. But if NATO�s European air forces cannot credibly gain and
exploit control of the air in the event of a conflict with their most likely non-discretionary threat
actor, then they are not fit for purpose.

The focus is really on credible European conventional deterrence and self-sufficiency instead of relying on the US long-term.

Also RUSI's unstated job is to advocate for money and capabilities and priorities, not to say "we're all good; in fact, we should cut military spending!" The writer is a Norwegian Air Force Academy professor.

# ? Apr 16, 2023 19:31

BitcoinRockefeller: May 11, 2003; God gave me my money.; Hair Elf

Ardennes posted:

Crossposting: Here is a portion of the executive analysis of a RUSI report published back on February 22nd:

• To regenerate proficiency in high-end warfighting mission sets, air forces must reduce discretionary commitments such as counterterrorism focused deployments. At present, with the scale of ongoing activity, most air forces, including the RAF, lack the necessary maintenance, spares and aircrew capacity to conduct focused warfighting training at scale.

Stop bombing Africa and the middle east to prepair for real war challenge, difficulty:impossible.

# ? Apr 16, 2023 20:44

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

it's not even a case of being overstretched

the current ultra-super-neoliberal bullshit makes it impossible

actual existential hard war might not be the most profitable venture, therefor it's not important

# ? Apr 16, 2023 21:10

Isentropy: Dec 12, 2010

Frosted Flake posted:

https://twitter.com/MelnykAndrij/status/1620173590388948992?s=20

are the Canadian Melnyks uh� political? Eugene Melnyk sure had some Political views about minorities in the NHL

for the non Canadians Eugene Melnyk was a Donald Sterling level rear end in a top hat who owned a major hockey team here

# ? Apr 17, 2023 03:31

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Thread title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2vTlIRwbKA

Thread title

# ? Apr 20, 2023 06:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 05:56

galagazombie: Oct 31, 2011; A silly little mouse!

mlmp08 posted:

.
Also RUSI's unstated job is to advocate for money and capabilities and priorities, not to say "we're all good; in fact, we should cut military spending!" The writer is a Norwegian Air Force Academy professor.

This is why I always take doomposting about US/Western military capabilities with a big grain of salt. There is a rich history of the MIC saying that the 1991 Soviet Union is poised to overrun Europe if we don�t cancel all social programs and give them lots of money.

# ? Apr 20, 2023 07:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »