Connect with us

Wow, this is where the US is

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Members Lounge' started by Jotto, Feb 20, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,497
    2,838
    Jan 21, 2010
    Do you seriously think this is a problem?

    Both the US and ex-soviet Russia have enough nukes to turn the planet into a cinder even after a successful first strike.

    If either one of them want to destroy life on a large part of this planet thay could do it any time they wanted to, high-tech defence systems or not.
     
  2. Jotto

    Jotto

    120
    0
    Aug 24, 2012
    Russia at one time could destroy the world 10x's and the U.S. one time, only takes one time.

    Yes, I do consider this a problem. Guam is part of Triad. Guam doesn't have fighters, they would have to come from Japan. I don't believe Russia wants to destroy, or China If they make it into our airspace without any difficulty, yes I would say that is a problem. .
     
  3. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,497
    2,838
    Jan 21, 2010
    Really?

    Destroy the world then. Even after their first strike you still can. There is no meaningful difference.

    Did they drop any bombs?

    Did they land?

    Did they invade airspace?

    I seriously doubt it.

    Do you think that this sort of thing is out of the ordinary? Do you think that nations don't fly/sail/drive/march their military close to borders all the time?

    If you're out to gather intelligence, perhaps by provoking the other side into launching interception forces (I don't mean missiles, but possibly aircraft and targetting radar) then do you think you've had a win if they decide not to react?

    What I think you're reacting to is a deliberate "up-yours" to the Russians by the US deciding not to show its hand.

    It's not like Russia is a particularly current threat.

    You Americans are more at threat by your growing debt and deficit. You might look at history and investigate the factors leading to the Soviet collapse. (just sayn')

    "Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1] Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold reserves to increase availability of consumer goods."(http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm)

    "Problems: Economic Stagnation: by the 1980s, there was zero economic growth, development of the black market for consumer goods, could not produce enough grain, rationing of food, consumer goods were inferior, poor use of resources (Pipeline)
    Military Spending: 15-25% of GNP, Americans spent only 5-7%, too much on guns, not enough on butter." (http://www3.telus.net/EKaminski/collapse.htm)

    "The Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan badly overstretched their military and demoralized their military." (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_causes_of_the_collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union)

    "By the end, the ruble collapsed as Soviet consumers turned to imports to satisfy their needs. They could not buy a good pair of leather boots or a good television set or a computer made in the Soviet Union, because all the boots and the electronics were swallowed up by military procurement. And, needless to say, there were no quality goods to export in order to balance imports." (http://sfr-21.org/collapse.html)

    Of course, one should not try to suggest that these were the sole factors, or that the US is in exactly the same scenario.

    "I know I’m glossing over very interesting details, and I probably left a few factors out of the list. This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list of factors that caused the USSR’s collapse, but rather it is meant to show that you cannot point the blame to any one factor. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a complicated affair, the result of many otherwise recoverable malaises hitting the country all at once, along with some fundamental societal weaknesses no one on the outside could really see—not some petty squabble over oil prices and a few billion dollars." (http://registan.net/2007/06/14/why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse/)

    But the US has a lot of pressures on it at the moment. Two "Vietnam's", debt, trade imbalance... Perhaps a few old bombers flying over an insignificant outpost is not the most important thing that should be on their minds.
     
  4. CocaCola

    CocaCola

    3,635
    5
    Apr 7, 2012
    You do realize we (the US) have a fleet of ships and subs spread out over the entire world armed with first response nukes at any given moment? And although we don't have nuke armed aircraft sitting on runways or in the air we do have the ability to hang nukes on them within minutes... We can do a first strike as well, to think Russia has some extraordinary advantage is really silly...
     
  5. Jotto

    Jotto

    120
    0
    Aug 24, 2012
    There was much more to the article then nukes, but you seem to have stuck to this point.

    It was more about our aging fleet and their upgraded fleet in comparison. But if that is what you took from the article ok.

    I responded to yours as what you said, but maybe if you reading the article as a whole and not zeroed in on nukes?
     
  6. CocaCola

    CocaCola

    3,635
    5
    Apr 7, 2012
    Please elaborate on this "much more" stuff as I found a VAST majority of it to be about nukes, in fact almost every paragraph was about nukes followed by a bunch of questions... Yes Russia buzzed some friendly airspace, so what? You don't think we do the same?

    Again please elaborate, the focus of the article was their old tech and nukes, maybe you have not watched the news over the last few decades but we have plenty of ability to deliver ordinances by other means, I'm ignoring the what if, nonsense... The 1950 flying fortresses are just that 1950s flying fortresses... The rest of the article was a bunch of what ifs and I really don't care about what ifs as they are simply hypothetical nonsense... For example, What if we disabled all their nukes in the 70s and they still don't know?

    What am I supposed to zero in on? The fact that we have migrated away from 50 year old tech and Russia hasn't?

    It's a different world today, and I don't believe for one second that Russia the US or China is dumb enough to go nuclear against each other, it's a no win for either side regardless of the what if nonsense... Can't say the same for a few other whack a noodle countries going at it, but we can't be the world's police...
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  7. GreenGiant

    GreenGiant

    842
    6
    Feb 9, 2012
    While the fleet may be aging look at the rest of the world, china just launched its very first aircraft carrier and it is similar in size and technology to ours of the 1960's. And even though the ships and aircraft themselves may overall be getting old, there are many new ships (within 5 years old), and the old hips get retrofits every 3-5 years anyways so the are all quite modern. Also every single one of the US's nuclear submarines have enough warheads to take out every major city across the planet (every single one has this many, not the combined force) and the capability of launching said warheads from up to half the planet away.

    Also with the detection systems that are in place, and anti-missile systems, it would be hard... ney extremely hard, for anyone to even get close to us with anything dangerous like that.
     
  8. Jotto

    Jotto

    120
    0
    Aug 24, 2012
    Thanks to Congress, the United States subsidized upgrades to Russian nuclear storage sites, transportation systems and even early warning systems to ensure stability. Of course, any legislator will tell you that we did this because nuclear security is important. But if the United States were to experience a major financial crash, would the Russians repay the favor and spend the money of their taxpayers to modernize and secure our nuclear forces? Or would the Russians and Chinese, in a position of strength, use their renewed military and diplomatic advantage to pressure the United States … or worse?

    Serious Questions Demand Answers

    The Russians have not been fighting a war against elusive bandits that hide in caves or plant roadside bombs for the last decade, nor have the Chinese. During this time, America has disarmed while her strongest competitors have rearmed. These are intolerable circumstances we are living in and though the better angels say idealistic things like “a world of zero nuclear weapons is achievable” reality dictates differently.

    I didn't find the article just about nukes. I didn't say anything about any person or country. Like the comment about "you Americans", like all individuals have a serious impact on the government. I know you meant the United States government, but in todays society it could be taken as a offensive statement. Being politically correct is one the main problems with this world today.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  9. Jotto

    Jotto

    120
    0
    Aug 24, 2012
    These are my thoughts and feelings I am entitled them. I will not allow anyone to take them from me. I will also allow you to express yours or ignore the fact that you have this right also.

    God did not make us all the same for a reason, no two birds are alike even from the same species, just like man.
     
  10. CocaCola

    CocaCola

    3,635
    5
    Apr 7, 2012
    Generic 'What If' scare scenario... It's just as easy to say what if they were more than willing to bankroll us?

    Hypothetical questions and assumptions based on 'fear' or 'emotion' demand a large grain of salt to be taken...

    American HAS NOT DISARMED, we have smart armed... Instead of depending upon 1950s bomber and haphazardly dropping bombs, we have guys shooting guided missiles down airshafts and ventilation shafts with pin point accuracy and little to no collateral damage nor risk to the operator... We have cutting edge stealth technology, as well top of the line decades newer tech in our arsenal... We still have PLENTY of nukes in our arsenal, to for all practical purposes end human kind, the end game of nuclear war is a no win for either side at this point... To even suggest the US could not return an substantial world changing nuclear volley is really absurd...

    As I read this you first condemn someone for not being politically correct, then go on to say being politically correct is one of the problems...

    Fact is we (The US) are a Republic, it is 'We The People" not 'We The Politicians' how easy it is to place our blame instead of looking in the mirror at who 'We The People' put in the positions of authority to rule us...
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  11. Jotto

    Jotto

    120
    0
    Aug 24, 2012
    You have missed my point.

    Who wins a nuclear war? No one, its a non starter for me.

    Its the what else I am speaking of.. Yes technology, its what gives us bad information because of the lack of people on the ground. Having better technology isn't always the best way to collect information as we learned in Iraq.

    Yes we are a republic, but when your told that your vote doesn't matter because your not one of the 7 states to make the determination of the president, is that truly a republic.

    You second to last statement doesn't even deserve a reply.
     
  12. CocaCola

    CocaCola

    3,635
    5
    Apr 7, 2012
    Yeah, but what if it isn't that way?

    What if the next instance proves the opposite? There is also the fact that we were able to invade and take over a country in a mere few days with very low casuallty or loses thanks to that tech... You seem to want to only look at the ugly side of the dice and play it up as the only possible side that ends upright...

    Anyone can play the what if game, it's quite simple to counter any negative what if with a positive one, what ifs are simply an emotional circulatory game of on nonsense...

    You still get representation, the President doesn't have supreme rule he is just one piece in the game...

    You can't play both sides and expect not to be called out...
     
  13. Jotto

    Jotto

    120
    0
    Aug 24, 2012
    Called out for what? Playing both sides, since your so much smarter then me, please explain it. I made a statement about something that I didn't find exceptionally pleasing to me. Why because to lump everyone into one group isn't right. I don't agree with the money we are spending and wasting. I don't like spending my child's future and it seems we are also spending our grand children's future at the same time.

    I am willing to pay more in taxes to allow my child a better future.

    There were two statements that didn't sit well with me on Steve's post, "Destroy the world then" and the "You American's". One I didn't say anything about killing people, to me its one of the worst things you can do. Two I didn't vote for the current president because I didn't believe in his policies or direction or his actions when it comes to his opponents. I am sorry if you take offense to me taking offense.

    I had a great childhood, I would like the same for my child.
     
  14. duke37

    duke37

    5,364
    772
    Jan 9, 2011
    I have just seen a review of "The Future" by Al Gore. I will have to read it, it seems to agree with my sentiments.
     
  15. Jotto

    Jotto

    120
    0
    Aug 24, 2012
    We are closer to "what if" then any other time in our modern history. We can't continue on this path, its time the government got proactive instead of reactive. Things that could have been fixed years ago are what is haunting us today. I am tired of watching them pass the buck, its going to hurt I know that. But let it hurt now for a better future. When you get my age you get to reflect on things that have shaped your life, and your desires for your children. It has changed drastically, some of it good and some if not so good in my opinion. These last years have been the worst I have ever seen.

    You have one side saying no cuts in entitlements, the other saying no new taxes. We are well past the point of using that idea this will solve it by wishing it away. We have to do both and yes the middle class is going to take a hit, I just want it to be used to pay off this debt. How much do we pay in just interest on this money? We should not be in this position. If Social Security wasn't put in the general fund it wouldn't be having the problems its soon to encounter.

    When it comes to technology, never said to do without it, but it has to be augmented with other means also.

    Your insignificant island is home to Submarine Squadron 15 consists of Los Angeles class submarines USS Oklahoma City, USS Chicago, USS Key West. I lived at Anderson from 1970-1975, and the island was very nice, went back for a short trip in the 80's and got to see some old friends. Nothing is insignificant in war, all assets are required.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  16. GonzoEngineer

    GonzoEngineer

    321
    2
    Dec 2, 2011
    We are living in a difficult time here in America.

    It is too late to "work within the system to change things."

    And it is too early to start shooting the Bastards!
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
Loading...
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-