|
nope theyll win did you not see the plan
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 22:52 |
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:To my knowledge there is an inherent physical limitation to how much you can encrypt drone communications with the current communication networks and infrastructure the military uses because it's really goddamn limited on bandwith. That how Iran developed the ability to be like "no it's my drone now." That was just gps spoofing if I'm not mistaken
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 07:57 |
|
Best Friends posted:It’s weird because Americans LOVE tenders
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:06 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:but, they’re going to get a lot of submariners killed without accomplishing anything, which is not great for the eternal rule of the US empire. They won't get a lot of submariners killed. That would imply there were a lot.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:10 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:So ugh to those new to the subject, the Strait of Taiwan was known as the grave of US Fleet Boats in WW2 because shallow water makes it easier to detect submarines, and they have nowhere to escape to, so… this will be great. So this is the RAND analysis being quoted: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA1700/PEA1743-1/RAND_PEA1743-1.pdf and if you peep the references, there's no reference for Cote, 2011 lol good job RAND. Luckily, Cote is a pretty unique name, so I found the referenced paper: https://www.usni.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Undersea%20Balance%20WP11-1.pdf quote:In setting up an assessment of these opposing undersea objectives and capabilities it is possible to make some summary judgments at the outset. First, there is little reason to discuss U.S. SSBNs because there is no reason to assume that China will ever be able to develop a strategic ASW capability against them. Second, for reasons that will be discussed more below, current Chinese abilities to deny access to U.S. SSNs and SSGNs are very limited and U.S. submarines can currently operate freely in Chinese coastal waters. Third, current Chinese diesel submarines rarely deploy outside the first island chain and essentially never deploy beyond the second, nor would these submarines be well-suited for extended deployments into the Pacific or Indian Oceans because of range and crew habitability constraints. Fourth, current American ASW capabilities are substantially less in Chinese coastal waters than elsewhere for two relatively intractable reasons: the Chinese can deny or greatly limit the access of opposing surface and air ASW platforms near its coast; and very shallow water greatly limits acoustic propagation and therefore detection ranges for both active and passive sonars, the primary ASW sensors. Fifth, if for no other reason than that neither side will have a robust ASW capability in Chinese coastal waters, those waters will constitute a zone of “contested command” in which neither side can assure its use of the sea surface for either commercial or military purposes and its analysis of submarine warfare in the straights is less "usa will rule" than the RAND paper makes it seem: quote:s discussed above, China has very limited ASW capabilities and U.S. submarines are the most difficult ASW target in the world. Thus, China would have difficulty preventing dont worry dads are going to save us
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:21 |
|
“First, there is little reason to discuss U.S. SSBNs because there is no reason to assume that China will ever be able to develop a strategic ASW capability against them. “ I never want to hear another American say a goddamn word about battlecruisers or Jackie Fisher’s arrogance ever again lmao. Remember friend as you walk by As you are now so once was I As I am now you will surely be Prepare thyself to follow me. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zise8H2_rpA&pp=ygUVd2FnbmVyIHJ1bGUgYnJpdGFubmlh
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:26 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:“First, there is little reason to discuss U.S. SSBNs because there is no reason to assume that China will ever be able to develop a strategic ASW capability against them. “ Reminder that antique and quite poo poo Australian collins-class diesel subs can reliably kill a US carrier in exercises. Not wanting to even talk about the primary threat to any surface fleet. gently caress me. loving... ah. I can't express myself properly in text.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:31 |
|
Getting this as an ad on Twitter https://twitter.com/mindefsg/status/1762806177208082710?t=hMbh1ivzwU4wI18DI2tz8A&s=19 q
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 10:19 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Getting this as an ad on Twitter really gonna help in a war where the enemies can just fire a shell at my general direction and kill like at least 100 people here
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 10:28 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:we're still doing this huh Whose law, bald bitch? BULBASAUR posted:"theories of victory" Capitalist victory only works in theory. Edit: has anybody ever gamed out what if China just blockades Taiwan until they surrender or starve? Like what is even the plan then? Orange Devil has issued a correction as of 10:36 on Feb 29, 2024 |
# ? Feb 29, 2024 10:30 |
|
Why would China blockade Taiwan from trading with China? If you meant "count China blockade a US invasion force seeking to take Taiwan" the answer is ocean floor. It's a moot point. China already wins Taiwan by default, the US already missed its window and the gap grows ever wider as time passes. DancingShade has issued a correction as of 11:06 on Feb 29, 2024 |
# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:03 |
|
DancingShade posted:Why would China blockade Taiwan from trading with China? Hey if we're asking that question we can also ask "why would China invade Taiwan?". We're in RAND lala-land here, I'm just wondering what scenario's these idiots are actually gaming out. They always seem to suppose a Chinese invasion when that's not at all necessary?
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:06 |
|
Orange Devil posted:Hey if we're asking that question we can also ask "why would China invade Taiwan?". We're in RAND lala-land here, I'm just wondering what scenario's these idiots are actually gaming out. They always seem to suppose a Chinese invasion when that's not at all necessary? Sorry. Let me put on my Tom Clancy hat with my Matthew Reilly t-shirt. An elite commando team of US special forces who are all 6 foot 6 inches (and then there's their height haw haw haw) will orbital deploy using secret NASA CIA stealth spaceplanes with VTOL, armed with fusion laser railguns synced to the pentagon. Most will die on landing because those PUSSY LIBERALS in DC refused to give Boeing enough money for the D-Luxe version with the safety features. Remember to support are troops! However ARE HERO, Captain Major Butch McGee will pelvic thrust and power squat his way to victory by giving Xi a swirlie and taking his HOT SEXY NUBILE TEENAGE DAUGHTER home with him as she swoons in his arms, overpowered by both his musk and thoughts of his enormous American penis.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:11 |
|
Orange Devil posted:Hey if we're asking that question we can also ask "why would China invade Taiwan?". We're in RAND lala-land here, I'm just wondering what scenario's these idiots are actually gaming out. They always seem to suppose a Chinese invasion when that's not at all necessary? im also sure russia will also be stabbing china at the back in this
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:11 |
|
Also, more recently while the DPP retained the presidency, they got 40% of the vote and lost the legislative Yuan. If anything, it looks like there is just going to be gridlock in Taipei i.e the status quo which suits China. If anything the independence movement seems to be weakening (not even all DPP voters want a hard vote on independence.)
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:36 |
|
Ardennes posted:Also, more recently while the DPP retained the presidency, they got 40% of the vote and lost the legislative Yuan. If anything, it looks like there is just going to be gridlock in Taipei i.e the status quo which suits China. If anything the independence movement seems to be weakening (not even all DPP voters want a hard vote on independence.) Residual Marxist auras from the mainland makes some separatists think "c'mon guys we would be wiped out" to the horror of the rest
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 16:34 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:So this is the RAND analysis being quoted: everything here is extremely funny, but this one line really stood out to me quote:These efforts are a sign that the American submarine force is acting to maintain its traditional tactical dominance over opposing submarines in submarine versus submarine ASW operations. "traditional tactical dominance" in something that i'm p sure hasn't happened since world war 2 lmao
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 16:42 |
|
Came across this, which seems to explain why our good friends the Swedes went all in on NATO, The social construction of Swedish neutrality Since the end of the Cold War and the 'War on Terror', neutrality is considered to be obsolete. This book traces the conceptualisation of neutrality, with a specific focus on Swedish neutrality, examining the link between identity and neutrality. Well, the chapter titles really tell the story, Neutrality as a Social Democratic project: tracing the origins of Swedish neutrality,1814–1945 Sweden’s post-war neutrality doctrine: active internationalism and ‘credible neutrality’ The crisis in Swedish Social Democracy: paving the path for a new identity A new Swedish identity? Bildt, Europe and neutrality in the post-Cold War era Into Europe with the SAP: Sweden as an EU member state The ‘war on terror’ and globalisation: implications for neutrality and sovereignty Swedish ruling class wanted all-in on globalization posted:In a little over a decade, there have been three serious exogenous chal-lenges to neutrality. The end of the Cold War presents the first challenge toneutrality in the 1990s. With nothing to be neutral between, neutral stateswere simply urged to abandon this outdated security posture in exchange forgreater cooperation in security matters. The end of bipolarity opened up new avenues for theorising security1but it was assumed that neutrality would become invalid because the nature of the international system had changed.But with no discernable enemy to fight, neutral states adopted a cautious atti-tude and resisted change to their policy. tl;dr neoliberalism
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 16:44 |
|
Sweden was the most "open covid" country in Europe, it tracks.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 17:24 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:everything here is extremely funny, but this one line really stood out to me There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 19:59 |
|
StashAugustine posted:There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine Pretty sure quite a lot of US subs managed to sink a sub courtesy of their special torpedoes.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:04 |
|
StashAugustine posted:There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine and the U Boat was surfaced, right? British T Class sank it off Norway?
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:05 |
|
maybe China's missiles will ALSO fail to launch and fall in the sea harmlessly next to the sub it could happen
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:05 |
|
StashAugustine posted:There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine Are you telling me the climax of Hunt for Red October was not real?!
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:15 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:everything here is extremely funny, but this one line really stood out to me China has Geo-synchronus imaging and surveillance satellites all around the SCS and Taiwan. I would imagine some of those have interesting capabilities for identifying subs in shallow waters. GlassEye-Boy has issued a correction as of 20:47 on Feb 29, 2024 |
# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:38 |
|
BearsBearsBears posted:Are submarines easier or harder to find in shallow waters? Large parts of the Taiwan Straight are about 50m deep. A US Ohio-class is a bit over 10m tall. Presuming you don't want to drag your hull along the very bottom, and presuming Chinese ships, you know, exist below the waterline, it really does not leave a lot of room. The Taiwan Strait is also, well, not very large. It is only 180km wide.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:38 |
|
StashAugustine posted:There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine there have been a lot more submarines sunk by a submarine however
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 21:23 |
|
StashAugustine posted:There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine it wasn't even an american sub that did it
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 21:30 |
|
cock hero flux posted:it wasn't even an american sub that did it
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 21:35 |
|
The west has regressed into the minds of 14 year old boys arguing over wargaming factions for a long time now. It's just so darkly comical and awesome that this entire class of professionals have been largely reduced to magical thinking because their work is essentially just thumbs-up rubber stamping everything a defense contractor brochure is trying to sell.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:29 |
|
GoLambo posted:The west has regressed into the minds of 14 year old boys arguing over wargaming factions for a long time now. It's just so darkly comical and awesome that this entire class of professionals have been largely reduced to magical thinking because their work is essentially just thumbs-up rubber stamping everything a defense contractor brochure is trying to sell. and getting scammed in the process too
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:41 |
|
The 14 year olds are funnier and more insightful, but you knew that.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:42 |
|
it would be funny to see people discussing geopolitical conflicts like teens shitposting about various anime characters power levels. the united states of FRAUD
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:53 |
|
lol U.S. Department of State Concludes $51 Million Settlement Resolving Export Violations by The Boeing Company - United States Department of State www.state.gov - February 29, 2024 posted:The U.S. Department of State has concluded an administrative settlement with The Boeing Company (Boeing) to resolve 199 violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR parts 120-130. The Department of State and Boeing reached this settlement following an extensive compliance review by the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance in the Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:07 |
|
I can’t even
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:09 |
|
mawarannahr posted:lol Both sides lawyers are just Chinese spies quietly sweeping this under the rug so they can continue their technology theft operation right under the noses of their oblivious superiors forever out of the office on long lunches.
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:24 |
|
more people should give china their technical secrets, i think. it's the cool thing to do
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:33 |
|
profit motive is a bitch
|
# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:58 |
|
Z the IVth posted:Pretty sure quite a lot of US subs managed to sink a sub courtesy of their special torpedoes. edit: thanks, that’s funnier than a dick joke cat botherer has issued a correction as of 00:30 on Mar 1, 2024 |
# ? Mar 1, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 22:52 |
|
cat botherer posted:sorry I’m dumb as poo poo, but I’m assuming this is a double entendre I’m not getting (?) No, early war US torpedoes were so bad they were almost better at sinking their own subs than enemy ships. It's actually a pretty good fit for this thread (they were basically only tested in what amounted to swimming pools and had multiple layers of failures so fixing one just exposed another), though eventually the problem became so obvious that the navy was forced to actually fix them
|
# ? Mar 1, 2024 00:21 |