The US will lose WW3

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

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

Crazycryodude posted:

We already got the popular president wielding executive power to unfuck the structures of the empire by overruling the personal desires of the previous ruling class for their own long-term good. The tiny test dose of central planning they applied to the US rocketed it into the stratosphere and secured global dominance for decades. The bourgeoisie never forgave him for this and made it illegal to ever try that again.

yes and also there is no abstract �popular president.� there is only biden, trump, haley, etc. no american caeser coming to save the republic. the problem is systemic

# ? Dec 24, 2023 21:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 21:36

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

dead gay comedy forums posted:

mila kunis is right though. Issues are fixable.

Historical-dialectical materialism shows that every social structure is malleable and one of the major philosophical innovations (so to speak) was the idea of the historical subject, the subject that makes history; in its modern sense, the revolutionary idea of directing history comes from there. That notion was partially appropriated and perverted by some (perhaps the most notable of them was Mussolini, former member of the Communist Party of Italy), but it is firmly revolutionary at its core.

I am rambling a bit because it's critical to emphasize that those structures can be changed, transformed and rebuilt, especially to make people see that there are alternatives: "A World to Win" and all that.

And those who have that awareness of history do know that poo poo tends to happen when rubber hits the road. There's always the possibility of some Belisarios to emerge or a Komnenos to sort out the mess when historical pressure gets high enough against an empire. This didn't ultimately save Byzantium, but it bought time to last much longer than it would otherwise. Of course that the political conditions are very different and much less favorable to the USA (lol liberal democracy), but a sufficiently popular president might be able to afford to Caesar it up a bit, but how such a president would happen when the political structures are completely captured by a vastly rich overclass that has been directly contributing to its own downfall by pursuing the maintenance of wealth?

thk u, and thanks to the end of your post im now convinced biden is the harm reduction candidate

# ? Dec 24, 2023 21:20

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

dead gay comedy forums posted:

Another recent hit from the Marxism thread. A way to summarize the problems of heavily financialized economies is that they make too much fictitious capital, too fast; and it gets worse depending on how much concentrated wealth there is in the society.

For that money to become material (i.e. to bring something like market valuation into realization), real value has to come out from somewhere. That's where the further squeezing of the working class comes in - it loses purchasing power, it pays higher rents, etc.

real value always comes from labor sure would be a problem if something happened to the supply of labor

oh no that's covid coming in with the steel chair

# ? Dec 24, 2023 21:28

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Crazycryodude posted:

We already got the popular president wielding executive power to unfuck the structures of the empire by overruling the personal desires of the previous ruling class for their own long-term good. The tiny test dose of central planning they applied to the US rocketed it into the stratosphere and secured global dominance for decades. The bourgeoisie never forgave him for this and made it illegal to ever try that again.

It just goes to show how even a relative modicum of centralized authority can go. But yeah, it is just I have a hard time in the US of 2023 to see how such a figure could come to power. If anything the current US political system has been expertly crafted to make sure nothing of the sort could ever happen.

Admittedly, the US does have a ton of resources and manpower, but could you ever see SCOTUS giving a pass on actual New Deal-style programs or a highly regulated arms industry?

# ? Dec 24, 2023 21:29

poisonpill: Nov 8, 2009; The only way to get huge fast is to insult a passing witch and hope she curses you with Beast-strength.

hell, imagine a single congressman or president trying to do it and winning their next reelection bid before everything reverts to normal

# ? Dec 24, 2023 22:31

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

Crazycryodude posted:

We already got the popular president wielding executive power to unfuck the structures of the empire by overruling the personal desires of the previous ruling class for their own long-term good. The tiny test dose of central planning they applied to the US rocketed it into the stratosphere and secured global dominance for decades. The bourgeoisie never forgave him for this and made it illegal to ever try that again.

Yeah, I get what you mean there. I like this take because personally, looking from the outside, the FDR presidency is still empire-building, a reform that gives it the power to helm the western hemisphere. It's the mutant political animal that is able to save the class from itself.

Seeing the FDR presidency as a moment of reform against decline is interesting to consider from that point of view of imperial power. The reason why I think the above is that it is after FDR that the United States truly starts messing around with almost everybody in the world, reaching its apex in terms of foreign power. Does that make sense? I do understand that there's huge labor agitation at the time and a whole lot of instability, but I wasn't considering that at first in the definition of imperial power

Like, for me, it seems that the moment of structural decline - where there is a continuous trend downhill in material historical terms - for the American state began with either Ford or Carter, and maybe this can be said only now tbqf, since there's enough distance (and ofc this is just a guess)

# ? Dec 24, 2023 23:05

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

poisonpill posted:

hell, imagine a single congressman or president trying to do it and winning their next reelection bid before everything reverts to normal

choose your favorite democracy representative captured by a ruling MIC by choice or by force

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:18

stephenthinkpad: Jan 2, 2020

Did Mitt Ronnie purpose building up the Navy in 2012? It made sense to compete with China in that area at that time. China's ship building dominance only emerged in the last 10-15 years. China's ship building order was neck and neck with S Korea around 2010 and blew pass SK in late 2010s. And China's competitive modern frigates and destroyers started appear in the late 2010s. Also I don't know in 2012, Americans were ready to face the fact that LCS and Zumwalt are complete lemons.

So by the time Biden got into the office, the ship number had changed so much he probably didn't want to compete in an area the Chinese are very good at: building poo poo. Instead he chose to "crash" China in a different theater: high end semiconductors. Personally, I am not sure whether funnelling the money to intel CEO via CHIPS act is better or worse than funnelling the money to the traditional MIC capitalists and generals. However, the Washington elites probably didn't realize how much of the fabbing industry is essentially manufacturing. They are just manufacturing with an extremely high capital investment. Capital investment is also something China's economic system has an advantage over.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:47

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

stephenthinkpad posted:

Did Mitt Ronnie purpose building up the Navy in 2012?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV1VUS3Q2W0

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:48

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

Romney was also right about Russia

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:57

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

stephenthinkpad posted:

Did Mitt Ronnie purpose building up the Navy in 2012? It made sense to compete with China in that area at that time. China's ship building dominance only emerged in the last 10-15 years. China's ship building order was neck and neck with S Korea around 2010 and blew pass SK in late 2010s. And China's competitive modern frigates and destroyers started appear in the late 2010s. Also I don't know in 2012, Americans were ready to face the fact that LCS and Zumwalt are complete lemons.

So by the time Biden got into the office, the ship number had changed so much he probably didn't want to compete in an area the Chinese are very good at: building poo poo. Instead he chose to "crash" China in a different theater: high end semiconductors. Personally, I am not sure whether funnelling the money to intel CEO via CHIPS act is better or worse than funnelling the money to the traditional MIC capitalists and generals. However, the Washington elites probably didn't realize how much of the fabbing industry is essentially manufacturing. They are just manufacturing with an extremely high capital investment. Capital investment is also something China's economic system has an advantage over.

The Great American Plan to kill South Korea will never stop be funny

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:58

yellowcar: Feb 14, 2010

https://www.unz.com/article/the-u-s-navy-is-unprepared-for-a-prolonged-war-with-yemen/

quote:

The U.S. Navy Is Unprepared for a Prolonged War with Yemen

Larry Johnson � December 19, 2023

It looks like the United States, along with 9 allies � Great Britain, Italy, Bahrain, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain � are on the verge of entangling itself in a new Middle East quagmire as an international armada assembles in the international waters around Yemen. The mission? Stop Yemen from threatening cargo and oil tankers headed to Israel.

Tiny Yemen has surprised the West with its tenacity and ferocity in attacking ships trying to ferry containers and fuel to Israel. Yes, this is a violation of international law and the West is fully justified in trying to thwart Yemen. On paper it would appear that Yemen is outnumbered and seriously outgunned. A sure loser? Not so fast. The U.S. Navy, which constitutes the majority of the fleet sailing against Yemen, has some real vulnerabilities that will limit its actions.

Before explaining the risks, you must understand that the U.S. Navy is configured currently as a �Forward-Based Navy� and is not an �Expeditionary Navy.� Anthony Cowden, writing for the Center for International Maritime Security in September, examined this issue in his article, REBALANCE THE FLEET TOWARD BEING A TRULY EXPEDITIONARY NAVY.

Today we have a forward-based navy, not an expeditionary navy. This distinction is important for remaining competitive against modern threats and guiding force design.

Due to the unique geographical position of the U.S., the Navy has the luxury of defending the nation�s interests �over there.� Since World War II, it developed and maintained a navy that was able to project power overseas; to reconstitute its combat power while still at sea or at least far from national shores; and continuously maintain proximity to competitors. This expeditionary character minimized the dependence of the fleet on shore-based and homeland-based infrastructure to sustain operations, allowing the fleet to be more logistically self-sufficient at sea.

However, late in the Cold War, the U.S. Navy started to diminish its expeditionary capability, and became more reliant on allied and friendly bases. A key development was subtle but consequential � the vertical launch system (VLS) for the surface fleet�s primary anti-air, anti-submarine, and land-attack weapons. While a very capable system, reloading VLS at sea was problematic and soon abandoned. While an aircraft carrier can be rearmed at sea, surface warships cannot, which constrains the ability of carrier strike groups to sustain forward operations without taking frequent trips back to fixed infrastructure. The Navy is revisiting the issue of reloading VLS at sea, and those efforts should be reinforced.

The next step the Navy took away from an expeditionary capability was in the 1990s, when it decommissioned most of the submarine tenders (AS), all of the repair ships (AR), and destroyer tenders (AD), and moved away from Sailor-manned Shore Intermediate Maintenance Centers (SIMA). Not only did this eliminate the ability to conduct intermediate maintenance �over there,� but it destroyed the progression of apprentice-to-journeyman-to-master technician that made the U.S. Navy Sailor one of the premier maintenance resources in the military world. Combat search and rescue, salvage, and battle damage repair are other areas in which the U.S. Navy no longer has sufficient capability for sustaining expeditionary operations.

So what? Each U.S. destroyer carries an estimated 90 missiles (perhaps a few more). Their primary mission is to protect the U.S. aircraft carrier they are shielding. What happens when Yemen fires 100 drones/rockets/missiles at a U.S. carrier? The U.S. destroyer, or multiple destroyers will fire their missiles to defeat the threat. Great. Mission accomplished! Only one little problem, as described in the preceding quote � the U.S. Navy got rid of the ship tenders, i.e. those vessels capable of resupplying destroyers with new missiles to replace the expended rounds. In order to reload, that destroyer must sail to the nearest friendly port where the U.S. has stockpiled missiles for resupply.

Got the picture? If the destroyer must sail away then the U.S. carrier must follow. It cannot just sit out in the ocean without its defensive screen of ships. The staying power of a U.S. fleet in a combat zone, like Yemen, is a function of how many missiles the Yemenis fire at the U.S. ships.

But the problems do not stop there. Each of the Aegis missiles, as I noted in my previous post, cost at least $500,000 dollars. A retired U.S. DOD official told me today that the actual cost is $2 million dollars. If Yemen opts to use drone swarms to saturate the battle space around a carrier, then the United States will firing very expensive missiles to destroy relatively inexpensive drones. This brings up another critical vulnerability � the U.S. only has a limited supply of these air defense missiles and does not have the industrial capability in place and operating to produce new ones rapidly to make up the deficit.

Getting the picture now? The U.S. Navy may find itself having to sail away without finishing the job of eliminating the drone/missile threat from Yemen. How do you think that will play in the rest of the world? The mighty Super Power having to retreat to rearm because it could not sustain intense combat operations. This is not classified information. It is published all over the internet. If I can figure this out then I am certain that U.S. adversaries, not just Yemen, realize they have a way to give the U.S. a very bloody nose in terms of damaged prestige.

What happens if Yemen is able to sink one or two U.S. Navy ships? Then the poo poo really hits the fan. The United States does not have a magical supply of missiles squirreled away to deal with this contingency. The U.S. ships would have to sail away to rearm after picking up the survivors from a sundered ship.

Then there is the problem of finding the mobile missile platforms in Yemen. Remember the problems the United States had in Iraq in 1991 trying to find and destroy SCUD missile launch systems? While ISR systems are better today, there is still no guarantee of being able to locate and destroy in a timely manner. The Yemenis have more than 8 years experience dealing with U.S. ISR and U.S. drone attacks. On November 9th the Yemenis shot down a MQ-9 Reaper drone. That baby costs a little more than $30 million dollars.

Here is the bottomline. The United States flotilla, along with its allies, can do some damage to Yemen but are unlikely to achieve a decisive victory. Yemen, for its part, can inflict some serious damage to some of the ships � maybe even sink one or two � and by doing so, score a moral victory that will fuel doubts about America�s naval capabilities and staying power. Perhaps this explains why the U.S. has been so slow to respond to the attacks launched by Yemen.

lollin at the bolded parts

# ? Dec 25, 2023 04:18

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

yellowcar posted:

lollin at the bolded parts

ansarallah laying the pride baits the americans can never resist

# ? Dec 25, 2023 04:47

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

yellowcar posted:

https://www.unz.com/article/the-u-s-navy-is-unprepared-for-a-prolonged-war-with-yemen/

lollin at the bolded parts

Didn't know Yemen bagged a reaper, nice

# ? Dec 25, 2023 04:51

Complications: Jun 19, 2014

yellowcar posted:

https://www.unz.com/article/the-u-s-navy-is-unprepared-for-a-prolonged-war-with-yemen/

quote:
So what? Each U.S. destroyer carries an estimated 90 missiles (perhaps a few more). Their primary mission is to protect the U.S. aircraft carrier they are shielding. What happens when Yemen fires 100 drones/rockets/missiles at a U.S. carrier? The U.S. destroyer, or multiple destroyers will fire their missiles to defeat the threat. Great. Mission accomplished! Only one little problem, as described in the preceding quote � the U.S. Navy got rid of the ship tenders, i.e. those vessels capable of resupplying destroyers with new missiles to replace the expended rounds. In order to reload, that destroyer must sail to the nearest friendly port where the U.S. has stockpiled missiles for resupply.
lollin at the bolded parts

remember a couple days ago when the Yemenis were astounded at the USN firing multiple missiles to shoot down their cheap recon drone

if they fire 100 of anything at a carrier group there won't be a missile left in it

# ? Dec 25, 2023 04:52

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

Slavvy posted:

Didn't know Yemen bagged a reaper, nice

that cost more than the entire yemeni drone fleet

Complications posted:

remember a couple days ago when the Yemenis were astounded at the USN firing multiple missiles to shoot down their cheap recon drone

if they fire 100 of anything at a carrier group there won't be a missile left in it

USN also won't stop throwing good money at bad because their pride won't allow it

Palladium has issued a correction as of 04:56 on Dec 25, 2023

# ? Dec 25, 2023 04:52

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Complications posted:

remember a couple days ago when the Yemenis were astounded at the USN firing multiple missiles to shoot down their cheap recon drone

if they fire 100 of anything at a carrier group there won't be a missile left in it

Looking forward to the entire carrier group panic firing and dumping every VLS cell on a dozen flying lawnmowers that don't even have warheads, they're just there to run the VLS completely dry.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 05:21

a_gelatinous_cube: Feb 13, 2005

DancingShade posted:

Looking forward to the entire carrier group panic firing and dumping every VLS cell on a dozen flying lawnmowers that don't even have warheads, they're just there to run the VLS completely dry.

Does any major military invest in large scale cheap dummy rockets to deplete modern expensive AA systems? It seems like a major weakness to them, but completely antithetical to a privatized military-industrial complex that likes selling 2-million dollar missiles.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 05:37

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

a_gelatinous_cube posted:

Does any major military invest in large scale cheap dummy rockets to deplete modern expensive AA systems? It seems like a major weakness to them, but completely antithetical to a privatized military-industrial complex that likes selling 2-million dollar missiles.

Yeah they're called drones though. Alternatively you can use inert concrete warheads on your old surplus cruise missiles due to be scrapped.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 05:41

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

a_gelatinous_cube posted:

Does any major military invest in large scale cheap dummy rockets to deplete modern expensive AA systems? It seems like a major weakness to them, but completely antithetical to a privatized military-industrial complex that likes selling 2-million dollar missiles.

if you are exhausting your enemies aa with dummy missiles, they are probably going to begin using real missiles on your positions, degrading your ability to shoot real missiles at them later. better to shoot a lot of cheap real missiles i would imagine

# ? Dec 25, 2023 05:56

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

What hamas is doing to iron dome would likely be repeated, but much better, with a shitload of truck launched MLRS systems

Don't google which countries have lots of those

# ? Dec 25, 2023 05:59

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

How many years is it going to take to merely reload Iron Dome? I bet they burned through all their interceptor stockpiles.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:05

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

(allegedly) most powerful navy in the world unprepared for a prolonged conflict against country whose navy consists of like a dozen upgunned motorboats

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:12

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

a_gelatinous_cube posted:

Does any major military invest in large scale cheap dummy rockets to deplete modern expensive AA systems? It seems like a major weakness to them, but completely antithetical to a privatized military-industrial complex that likes selling 2-million dollar missiles.

Check out the analysis paper �red storm rising� for more info

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:19

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

a_gelatinous_cube posted:

Does any major military invest in large scale cheap dummy rockets to deplete modern expensive AA systems? It seems like a major weakness to them, but completely antithetical to a privatized military-industrial complex that likes selling 2-million dollar missiles.

the part of a missile that explodes is the cheapest part of the missile, you might as well just put the explosives on your dummy anyway after you're spending the resources on the parts to make it have similar flight and guidance characteristics

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:26

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

If you�re a USN captain of course you�re shooting down any quadcopter that strays too close to you, supply replenishment capacity be damned. If you don�t and your ship gets bombed you�re absolutely hosed. Your career is over.

It�s going to take a sunken ship or two before the incentive structure re-aligns to make saving your missiles for when you need them worthwhile to those in command.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:26

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Slavvy posted:

What hamas is doing to iron dome would likely be repeated, but much better, with a shitload of truck launched MLRS systems

Don't google which countries have lots of those

Remembering the barrages you'd see videos of early in the Ukraine thread or its previous incarnation really showed that Iron Dome wouldn't be worth a drat against anyone who isn't a concentration camp inmate

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:30

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

If it's just flying lawnmowers, there's always the 5-inch cannon on the destroyers.

Of course, if someone decides to mix missiles with flying lawnmowers the missiles are going to have to be fired.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:31

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

KomradeX posted:

Remembering the barrages you'd see videos of early in the Ukraine thread or its previous incarnation really showed that Iron Dome wouldn't be worth a drat against anyone who isn't a concentration camp inmate

Every "modern" Western missile interception system is designed to deal with nothing more advanced than a scud that uses 1970s technology. Maybe a single exocet, launched by itself without a volley.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:31

Owlbear Camus: Jan 3, 2013; Maybe this guy that flies is just sort of passing through, you know?

you mean the "shoot two missiles at the javelin-equipped tank" tactic scales up indefinitely?

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:48

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Owlbear Camus posted:

you mean the "shoot two missiles at the javelin-equipped tank" tactic scales up indefinitely?

Trophy system but yeah. Yes it does.

At some point we're going to see mirv style warheads become popular again. Might have to call them something else. Multiple-missiles? Things that split up mid flight and scatter randomly before all zeroing in, just to confound the defence system. Like in those 80's animes with jet robots and stuff.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:49

Owlbear Camus: Jan 3, 2013; Maybe this guy that flies is just sort of passing through, you know?

DancingShade posted:

Trophy system but yeah. Yes it does.

Whoops, yeah trophy. I just was in a pious holiday spirit and was thinking about how "st javelin" delivered the nice Ukrainians from the rapacious rus.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:51

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Owlbear Camus posted:

Whoops, yeah trophy. I just was in a pious holiday spirit and was thinking about how "st javelin" delivered the nice Ukrainians from the rapacious rus.

It's all good, we've all been victims of buzzwords at one point or another.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:52

Owlbear Camus: Jan 3, 2013; Maybe this guy that flies is just sort of passing through, you know?

e quote is not edit.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 07:53

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

DancingShade posted:

Trophy system but yeah. Yes it does.

At some point we're going to see mirv style warheads become popular again. Might have to call them something else. Multiple-missiles? Things that split up mid flight and scatter randomly before all zeroing in, just to confound the defence system. Like in those 80's animes with jet robots and stuff.

before i die i wanna see a real-life itano circus

# ? Dec 25, 2023 08:06

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Cerebral Bore posted:

before i die i wanna see a real-life itano circus

Me too. Seems like a good way to go.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 08:08

FuzzySlippers: Feb 6, 2009

DancingShade posted:

Trophy system but yeah. Yes it does.

At some point we're going to see mirv style warheads become popular again. Might have to call them something else. Multiple-missiles? Things that split up mid flight and scatter randomly before all zeroing in, just to confound the defence system. Like in those 80's animes with jet robots and stuff.

I've always wondered if there was some reason that old anime space stuff always has those crazy giant mirv clouds of missiles. Probably just a popular cartoon randomly did it and the rest copied but I thought they also could be responding to something specific.

Reminds me that I never finished the long rear end Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 08:19

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

FuzzySlippers posted:

I've always wondered if there was some reason that old anime space stuff always has those crazy giant mirv clouds of missiles. Probably just a popular cartoon randomly did it and the rest copied but I thought they also could be responding to something specific.

Reminds me that I never finished the long rear end Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

aerodynamics are irrelevant in space so you can have multiple projectiles break off and spread out along different vectors (this is also how MIRVs work; they break apart outside the atmosphere on a suborbital trajectory) without running into the issue of air resistance at high velocities fighting you the whole way

attempting to do so with a conventional missile in atmosphere means the faster (and thus more effective) your missile, the smaller the angle individual submunitions would be able to disperse and at the speeds you want to defeat interceptors they probably can't disperse enough to avoid all being destroyed by a single interceptor (and the entire package will be heavier and slower than a single warhead package built with the same industrial and technological capacity)

atelier morgan has issued a correction as of 08:34 on Dec 25, 2023

# ? Dec 25, 2023 08:29

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

Fancy multiple warhead missiles also suffer from "isn't a winged lawnmower engine with a gps unit and a bomb on it" syndrome. Cost has re-entered the server.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 08:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 21:36

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

The Oldest Man posted:

Fancy multiple warhead missiles also suffer from "isn't a winged lawnmower engine with a gps unit and a bomb on it" syndrome. Cost has re-entered the server.

p much, the 'effective multiple warhead missile' already exists, it's whatever drone or plane you fired your missile from

# ? Dec 25, 2023 08:38

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

«‹›607 »