The US will lose WW3

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

Justin Tyme: Feb 22, 2011

cat botherer posted:

What does TEL stand for?

As mentioned, transporter erector launcher. Those bigass ICBM trucks that can toot out to a random launch site, erect the big donger, fire, then drive off. Except instead of nukes these would launch orbital satellites specifically to replace those lost due to warfare, and rapid emergency replacement of stuff like GPS/spy satellites isn't a capability the US has

# ? Nov 15, 2023 05:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 00:28

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

https://twitter.com/IranDefense/status/1723849084165837022

Iranian air defense be wild.

# ? Nov 15, 2023 06:23

ianmacdo: Oct 30, 2012

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/IranDefense/status/1723849084165837022

Iranian air defense be wild.

what do you think the cost of that SAM vs the USA UAV is?

# ? Nov 15, 2023 06:57

GlassEye-Boy: Jul 12, 2001

ianmacdo posted:

what do you think the cost of that SAM vs the USA UAV is?

hundreds of thousands vs tens of millions.

# ? Nov 15, 2023 07:09

The Voice of Labor: Apr 8, 2020

a sam can only destroy one uav before it itself is destroyed. a uav can hellfire an indefinite amount of weddings and schools and hospitals before it's shot down. it's not really a fair comparison

# ? Nov 15, 2023 07:12

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

yemen is a peer adversary now :911:

# ? Nov 15, 2023 07:36

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/IranDefense/status/1723849084165837022

Iranian air defense be wild.

The USA losing the tech edge while also being over stretched must be causing some wonderful closed door meetings.

Slamming my laptop on the conference table. "What the hell do you call this Mack?" As I adjust my 1940's trousers with suspenders.

# ? Nov 15, 2023 07:57

The Voice of Labor: Apr 8, 2020

there is nothing about suspenders which is contrary to holding the technical edge

# ? Nov 15, 2023 08:01

Votskomit: Jun 26, 2013

Some braai posting.

https://twitter.com/probablyaisha/status/1723789408111915165?s=20

https://twitter.com/FathiMeer/status/1723807098083876928?s=20

https://twitter.com/Rushtush/status/1723965886631932331?s=20

https://twitter.com/Sage_Of_Absurd/status/1723936991631306828?s=20

https://twitter.com/Aashiek/status/1724078261267751315?s=20

https://twitter.com/muhammad_c/status/1723979170827387244?s=20

# ? Nov 15, 2023 08:49

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

The Voice of Labor posted:

there is nothing about suspenders which is contrary to holding the technical edge

They are the most effective pants retaining system

# ? Nov 15, 2023 09:07

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

I like bracers.

# ? Nov 15, 2023 12:40

Jon Pod Van Damm: Apr 6, 2009; THE POSSESSION OF WEALTH IS IN AND OF ITSELF A SIGN OF POOR VIRTUE. AS SUCH:
1 NEVER TRUST ANY RICH PERSON.
2 NEVER HIRE ANY RICH PERSON.
BY RULE 1, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PRESUME THAT ALL DEGREES AND CREDENTIALS HELD BY A WEALTHY PERSON ARE FRAUDULENT. THIS JUSTIFIES RULE 2--RULE 1 NEEDS NO JUSTIFIC

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

# ? Nov 15, 2023 13:02

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

dieselfruit posted:

https://twitter.com/jonnysocialism/status/1724522869001175368

Trying to make a good first impression for Xi's visit.

# ? Nov 15, 2023 19:40

skooma512: Feb 8, 2012; You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

Orange Devil posted:

Here's the thing though: I think an escalation spiral exactly like that already happened with the strategic bombing of cities in WW2.

Firstly the US issued an appeal to all combatants to confine their bombing to military targets. France, the UK and also Germany agreed to abide by it, but the latter also said bombing Warsaw counted as a military target because it was a fortified city. Then during the Sitzkrieg both sides limited bombing to primarily naval targets and some airports. Civilians died, but weren't the target. Then comes Fall Gelb, where German paratrooper actions in Rotterdam and around The Hague fail to achieve their operational objectives, which in turn threatens to slow the German advance enough to lead to a repeat of WW1. The German response is to threaten bombing Rotterdam, twice, to no effect. Then the Germans actually bomb Rotterdam. However, there was fighting around Rotterdam at the time, had been fighting in Rotterdam, and the city contained strategic bridges, so there was still some fig leaf as to it being within the laws of warfare at the time. On the other hand the Germans issued new threats to do the same to Utrecht, which led to Dutch surrender.

The British response was to change policy to now also bomb civilian infrastructure vital to the war effort, such as oil plants and other civilian industrial targets. The Germans are still focusing on the battle of France at this point, and don't start bombing similar British targets until June 1940. They are explicitly prohibited from bombing London, hoping the UK will come to terms. In August the Blitz against the RAF and supporting infrastructure properly gets under way. As part of this more and more raids take place at night, and targets in suburban London are hit. The next night the RAF hits an airfield and a Siemens factory in Berlin for the first time. They were perceived as deliberately targetting civilians due to their inaccuracy. This is then responded to by a mass bombing raid against the London docks, technically a military target, but also clearly with the intention to terrorize the civilian population into submission.

From there, strategic bombing against cities becomes accepted practice on both sides for the remainder of the war and beyond, leading to "de-housing" campaigns and ultimately the destruction of drat near every building in North Korea.

I feel this is a pretty good case study of how using a low-yield nuke or a tactical nuke would go in practice.

Good read and a valid point.

I still don't think nuclear will be normalized to quite that degree though. They don't have the fig leaf of inaccurate targeting, or the farcical push and pull of "no that wasn't what we meant to hit" and "this civilian target is actually military because -" [see: Gaza], and nukes are still fundamentally different than regular munitions that everyone is already using. There are satellites specifically designed to detect nuclear detonations. There's also the issue of fallout and EMP, which might piss off someone with actual power. Also the issue of nobody having used nukes for actual warfare since 1945, anyone who breaks that taboo is going to have some consequences. Or they won't, consequences from the international community are always pretty lmao for those who have the economy/military to create nukes in the first place.

BearsBearsBears posted:

This is a plot point in Top Gun: Maverick. They couldn't use the F-35 because the enemy had jamming. I was surprised that line made it past the censors.

Had to have an excuse to use a two-seater so Maverick can have Goose Deuce with him. As bad the -35 is, I doubt jamming is a no fly condition.

# ? Nov 16, 2023 00:30

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

I think it's worth remembering that the US has wanted to use nukes in every major confrontation they have been involved in.

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea.

Nixon wanted to use nukes in Vietnam.

Cheney wanted to use nukes in Afghanistan.

Trump wanted to use nukes in Syria.

And the most deranged example of all, one I keep coming back to as a rosetta stone to American thought: The Berlin Crisis.

An American general, travelling to a theatre in East Berlin, wearing civilian clothes and travelling in an unmarked civilian car, was stopped. Things were resolved and he continued on his way. However, the Soviets said that if an American general wants to be afforded the privileges of his station and have full uninterrupted travel in East Berlin, please carry an id to show to people.

In response, US rolled out tanks and rushed deploying 50 infantry nuke launchers to Berlin. 50. Nukes. In Berlin.

Because the general wanted to be treated as a general, but without Soviets having any way of knowing that he is an American general.

# ? Nov 16, 2023 01:42

stephenthinkpad: Jan 2, 2020

Nah I am pretty sure the Navy didn't like the F35 and would not feature the fat amy in their propaganda movie.

Also you don't need a 2-seater in the plot, because they only need the Iranian Tomcat to be the 2-seater.

# ? Nov 16, 2023 01:52

mycomancy: Oct 16, 2016

Zeppelin Insanity posted:

I think it's worth remembering that the US has wanted to use nukes in every major confrontation they have been involved in.

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea.

Nixon wanted to use nukes in Vietnam.

Cheney wanted to use nukes in Afghanistan.

Trump wanted to use nukes in Syria.

And the most deranged example of all, one I keep coming back to as a rosetta stone to American thought: The Berlin Crisis.

An American general, travelling to a theatre in East Berlin, wearing civilian clothes and travelling in an unmarked civilian car, was stopped. Things were resolved and he continued on his way. However, the Soviets said that if an American general wants to be afforded the privileges of his station and have full uninterrupted travel in East Berlin, please carry an id to show to people.

In response, US rolled out tanks and rushed deploying 50 infantry nuke launchers to Berlin. 50. Nukes. In Berlin.

Because the general wanted to be treated as a general, but without Soviets having any way of knowing that he is an American general.

Never heard that story, but 1) not surprised and 2) lmao

# ? Nov 16, 2023 03:02

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Me a USA general admiral person, getting angry about being carded at a wharf side nightclub so I speed 2 a carrier into the dock and bomb the entire beach flat.

# ? Nov 16, 2023 06:16

BearsBearsBears: Aug 4, 2022

skooma512 posted:

Had to have an excuse to use a two-seater so Maverick can have Goose Deuce with him. As bad the -35 is, I doubt jamming is a no fly condition.

Yes but they could have used a different excuse. They could have used a different excuse, like the politicians not being willing to risk their newest planes or something.

stephenthinkpad posted:

Also you don't need a 2-seater in the plot, because they only need the Iranian Tomcat to be the 2-seater.

You need a two-seater because the cowards in the Navy wouldn't let Tom Cruise fly a jet fighter for real. They had a real pilot in the other seat flying the actual plane during the filming.

# ? Nov 16, 2023 07:44

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

Many years ago Lockheed Martin announced that the F-35 would be the main plane in Top Gun 2 and their stocks got a nice boost. It was very funny to me when that turned out not to be the case.

Also, the opening carrier scene actually features an F-35 taking off. It's just that in the middle of taking off it becomes an F-18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr2R7dc8Ifk&t=64s

# ? Nov 16, 2023 10:17

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

mycomancy posted:

Never heard that story, but 1) not surprised and 2) lmao

In modern retelling it's almost always "The Soviets just got their tanks out for no reason because they're crazy evil Soviets"

The Americans, of course, brought out the tanks first. And, well, 50 loving nukes.

# ? Nov 16, 2023 10:22

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

I was listening to a podcast about Olof Palme and they offhandedly mentioned an incident where Soviet submarines reportedly sailed into Swedish waters and it turned into this huge scandal because Palme was soft on the Russkies and this was proof that the Soviets were planning to attack etc etc

and then it turned out later that they could have been NATO submarines after all

is anyone familiar with this? would anyone be willing to post about it or to point towards some references? with or without that last bit about it not actually being Soviet submarines is fine

# ? Nov 16, 2023 10:27

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

gradenko_2000 posted:

I was listening to a podcast about Olof Palme and they offhandedly mentioned an incident where Soviet submarines reportedly sailed into Swedish waters and it turned into this huge scandal because Palme was soft on the Russkies and this was proof that the Soviets were planning to attack etc etc

and then it turned out later that they could have been NATO submarines after all

is anyone familiar with this? would anyone be willing to post about it or to point towards some references? with or without that last bit about it not actually being Soviet submarines is fine

FF (of course) posted a link to a book about it in the ukraine thread ages ago

Frosted Flake posted:

Has anyone heard of this?

The Secret War Against Sweden: US and British Submarine Deception in the 1980s

Following the stranding of a Soviet Whiskey-class submarine in 1981 on the Swedish archipelago, a series of massive submarine intrusions took place within Swedish waters.

However, the evidence for these appears to have been manipulated or simply invented. Classified documents and interviews point to covert Western, rather than Soviet activity. This is backed up by former US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who stated that Western "testing" operations were carried out regularly in Swedish waters. Royal Navy submarine captains have also admitted to top-secret operations.

Ola Tunander's revelations make it clear that the United States and Britain ran a "secret war" in Swedish waters. The number of Swedes perceiving the Soviet Union as a direct threat increased from 5-10 per cent in 1980 to 45 per cent in 1983. This Anglo-American "secret war" was aimed at exerting political influence over Sweden. It was a risky enterprise, but perhaps the most successful covert operation of the entire Cold War.

e: Book is on libgen

# ? Nov 16, 2023 10:42

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

One time a Soviet sub did get stuck on a reef or something in Swedish waters, but some poo poo had gotten hosed up (hence it running aground) which was also the reason it ended up in Swedish waters in the first place. From NATO propaganda perspective that was all obviously Soviet lies and proof that the Soviets routinely intruded in Swedish waters, ofcourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363

# ? Nov 16, 2023 10:53

Comrade Koba: Jul 2, 2007

i�ll have you knop that the swedish navy in 2015 found incontrovertible proof that russian navy submarines operated in swedish waters, in the form of an entire submarine wreck lying on the sea floor.

(it sank in 1916 lmao)

# ? Nov 16, 2023 13:01

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

thank's, lads

# ? Nov 16, 2023 13:42

Jon Pod Van Damm: Apr 6, 2009; THE POSSESSION OF WEALTH IS IN AND OF ITSELF A SIGN OF POOR VIRTUE. AS SUCH:
1 NEVER TRUST ANY RICH PERSON.
2 NEVER HIRE ANY RICH PERSON.
BY RULE 1, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PRESUME THAT ALL DEGREES AND CREDENTIALS HELD BY A WEALTHY PERSON ARE FRAUDULENT. THIS JUSTIFIES RULE 2--RULE 1 NEEDS NO JUSTIFIC

The Swedish Wikipedia article is more extensive than the English one if you use Google translate.

There's a German documentary "Deception: The Reagan Method – Cold War in the Great North" (Täuschung – Die Methode Reagan). It's available on YouTube.

There's also two documentary episodes from 2007 and 2008 by the TV programme Mission Review (Uppdrag Granskning).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gyi8WTHXAM

The book "In dark waters: how the Swedish people were deceived on the submarine issue" (I mörka vatten: hur svenska folket fördes bakom ljuset i ubåtsfrågan) (2009) by former diplomat Mathias Mossberg who was part of the 2001 inquiry.

There's also a couple of articles written about it by scholars in Swedish.

Under the Surface: An Examination of What the Press Wrote During the Alleged Submarine Violations in the 1980s
(Pressat läge: En pressundersökning av de påstådda kränkningarna under ubåtskrisen på 1980-talet)
By Sarah Österberg (2012)

quote:

Abstract [en]

The aim of this essay is, by using tree conductive Swedish newspapers, see how the submarine violations that Sweden suffered during 1980s, was depicted in the Swedish press in terms of threats. Two major submarine violations will be investigated in this paper, U137-incident in Karlskrona archipelago in 1981 and Hårsfjärden-incident in Stockholm archipelago in 1982. To achieve the purpose, I use a qualitative method and a threat perspective to answer my questions. These questions are for instance

- From which nation, according to press reports, comes the threat?

- What is, according to the press, threatened?

The results show that the press saw the submarine violations as a major and serious threat that mainly come from Soviet Union. The relationship between Sweden and Soviet became strained because of the submarine violations. The submarine threat for example the population, neutrality and military areas. Another result that can be seen is that readers of different newspapers have different perceptions of threat because the newspaper in many cases put their own interpretation of the threat. A clear example can be seen in that the reader´s perception will change, depending on how much criticism the press gives to the government and military.

There's also three public inquiries about it by the Swedish government

”Att möta ubåtshotet” Ubåtsskyddskommissionen 1983, SOU 1983:13

”Ubåtsfrågan 1981–1994” Ubåtsskyddskommissionen 1995, SOU 1995:135

”Perspektiv på ubåtsfrågan” SOU 2001:85-6

Jon Pod Van Damm has issued a correction as of 19:32 on Nov 16, 2023

# ? Nov 16, 2023 19:30

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1725209961297310002

the next step after the leopards fall through is for britain to jump wholly on america's latest 80-ton monstrosity

# ? Nov 17, 2023 04:24

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

I would be very curious to know exactly how many shells for the challenger fleet Britain still has in storage.

I'm sure it's a depressing document headed with caveats.

# ? Nov 17, 2023 05:55

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Shell reserve held in pounds.

# ? Nov 17, 2023 11:23

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Fractional reserve lending based on shell stockpiles.

No you can't inspect my armory to verify reserve levels. It's uh, secret. But just trust me bro.

# ? Nov 17, 2023 12:15

frozenphil: Mar 13, 2003; YOU CANNOT MAKE A MISTAKE SO BIG THAT 80 GRIT CAN'T FIX IT!

a lotta yall still dont get it

shell holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single shell

so if you have 1 HE shell and 3 slurp juices you can create 3 new shells

# ? Nov 17, 2023 13:20

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

vyelkin posted:

I did find this old NYT article talking about a one day stop they made in Cambodia shortly before the Khmer Rouge took over, which has some examples of buffoonery, though not from Abzug herself: https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/02/archives/tour-in-cambodia-fails-to-sway-congressmen-us-legislators-visit.html

quote:
The members of Congress did get to hear some battle noises when they visited military bases some distance from the fighting. Troop commanders periodically fired their artillery pieces for show�in an effort to impress the visitors with the drama and immediacy of the war. Each round fired from the 105‐mm. howitzers cost $43.83 and each one fired from a 155‐mm. howitzer cost $102.35.4

how much do these cost now?

# ? Nov 18, 2023 18:44

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

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1725209961297310002

the next step after the leopards fall through is for britain to jump wholly on america's latest 80-ton monstrosity

Are defense consultants supposed to just admit they get told what opinions to have?

# ? Nov 18, 2023 21:28

Complications: Jun 19, 2014

mawarannahr posted:

how much do these cost now?

one to three orders of magnitude more

https://www.technology.org/2023/01/05/how-much-do-155-mm-artillery-rounds-cost-now-and-how-many-are-fired-in-ukraine/

quote:

In total, 10,000 155 mm artillery rounds were ordered and the value of the announced deal was about 33 million euros. This puts the cost of one 155 mm shell at around 3.3 thousand euros.

However, guided 155 mm shells, like the M982 Excalibur, are significantly more expensive. It is estimated that one Excalibur shell costs more than 110 thousand US dollars � around 103 thousand euros.

# ? Nov 18, 2023 21:32

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

I was always taught that the projectile is about 2-3 hundred US and the fuze was either a bit more for point detonating or like 2-3x for timed. lol at just the projectile costing over a grand. I wonder what the fuzes are up to.

edit: technically a �round� is projectile + fuze + powder + primer. if that�s what�s being described there then 1.3k seems about right. but right after that the article switches to about projectiles so that�s unclear what�s being discussed.

# ? Nov 18, 2023 21:38

Nix Panicus: Feb 25, 2007

The question has been put to Frosted Flake a few times, and if I remember right the actual cost of manufacture is something like $500 for a ready to fire modern artillery shell

# ? Nov 18, 2023 23:53

genericnick: Dec 26, 2012

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1725209961297310002

the next step after the leopards fall through is for britain to jump wholly on america's latest 80-ton monstrosity

Can you even still buy Leopards? I thought Rheinmetall turned off the line where they built the chassis?

# ? Nov 19, 2023 00:27

FuzzySlippers: Feb 6, 2009

I can see why the MIC has no enthusiasm for artillery. Why go through all the tedious effort to setup artillery and blast away with $500 artillery shells when you can bury your opponents in money via easy peasy $2 million dollar cruise missiles?

# ? Nov 19, 2023 01:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 00:28

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

genericnick posted:

Can you even still buy Leopards? I thought Rheinmetall turned off the line where they built the chassis?

yeah there's some real weird messaging going on

i'm sure we heard that Rheinmetall were having real trouble keeping the lines up because of the ongoing energy crisis and gradual deindustrialisation of Germany. I think it came out that Poland was really unlikely to get their 400+ Leopards for a long time. Maybe 2A8 are pure refits? In which case maybe they have a specific line to just referb old tanks to 2a8 spec? But that means they gotta source all the spare chassis and get them all to the same spec? I don't know what the gently caress is going on. Has there been evidence that the EU is still capable of making anything?

# ? Nov 19, 2023 01:39

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

«‹›604 »