| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
 The important thing that really matters the absolute most is that the US defends its airspace with the most technologically advanced military hardware on the globe, ahead by decades of research and development and by magnitudes of order higher financial expenditure compared to combined nations around the planet. Especially those not traditionally allied with the US. Russia and China may fly their air planes across the pond for Pearl Harbor 2. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
how many nations could the US beat with our civilians? That is, the US civilians, with all the US civilian guns and other materiel, vs nation X, which can use its army. I guess it'd really be a question of logistics, which is less interesting, so let's skip that part. I bet we could take an awful lot of nations. Heck, our criminal gangs are probably stronger than a lot of nations. Certainly America has no need of an army to defend itself; we've all seen how hard it is to fight partisans in a small place like aghanistan and Iraq; can you imagine trying to deal with US partisans? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 27 2013 16:28 FallDownMarigold wrote: Not that it really matters, but I thought it was amusing to notice that whether Austria does or does not need to defend its airspace isn't entirely relevant to mega discussions in US politics threads The important thing that really matters the absolute most is that the US defends its airspace with the most technologically advanced military hardware on the globe, ahead by decades of research and development and by magnitudes of order higher financial expenditure compared to combined nations around the planet. Especially those not traditionally allied with the US. Russia and China may fly their air planes across the pond for Pearl Harbor 2. The question came up, I obliged. This way even Americans may learn a thing or two! Well... I kinda agree that you definitely spend the most on your military toys. Though what happened to the F35 disaster a couple of posts ago? Can't be all that ahead by decades if there are so many problems with it...  Yes I get it R&D(& a lot of fail), but why is the US taxpayer cool with it? //edit: That reminds me of a basic question I have: how many nations could the US beat with our civilians? That is, the US civilians, with all the US civilian guns and other materiel, vs nation X, which can use its army. Armed US civilian definitely worth twice or three times as much as a standard earth citizen. And that's not just the weight. ... | ||
KwarK
United States44195 Posts
On October 27 2013 16:38 zlefin wrote: That reminds me of a basic question I have: how many nations could the US beat with our civilians? That is, the US civilians, with all the US civilian guns and other materiel, vs nation X, which can use its army. I guess it'd really be a question of logistics, which is less interesting, so let's skip that part. I bet we could take an awful lot of nations. Heck, our criminal gangs are probably stronger than a lot of nations. Certainly America has no need of an army to defend itself; we've all seen how hard it is to fight partisans in a small place like aghanistan and Iraq; can you imagine trying to deal with US partisans? | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
So I loaded the video and started looking at some other tab I had open, and the intro music had me thinking it was a real news channel. Somewhere along the lines of "accuracy of the machete" made me quickly switch back to see what the hell was playing. Thank you Kwark, for making me crack up early this Sunday morning. | ||
|
SixStrings
Germany2046 Posts
Cheers guys, exactly what we needed. More animosity, more distrust. This could really threaten the transatlantic free trade agreement. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if a business isn't skullfucking le consumers under this context then they are not very good at business. so i'd say the high prices is indeed market at work. not every market is the wheat market lel | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 27 2013 16:38 zlefin wrote: That reminds me of a basic question I have: how many nations could the US beat with our civilians? That is, the US civilians, with all the US civilian guns and other materiel, vs nation X, which can use its army. I guess it'd really be a question of logistics, which is less interesting, so let's skip that part. I bet we could take an awful lot of nations. Heck, our criminal gangs are probably stronger than a lot of nations. Certainly America has no need of an army to defend itself; we've all seen how hard it is to fight partisans in a small place like aghanistan and Iraq; can you imagine trying to deal with US partisans? What do you mean, civilians? Like we just send untrained people out there with guns and let them fight as a mob? Probably almost nobody with a bona fide military. If you're talking about conscripting citizens into the existing military, giving them 10 weeks of basic training and then pushing them into the military bureaucracy by whatever their aptitudes lie for more training and then to perform their duties, then pretty much anybody in the world. This is just a bizarre question. The United States has fought both ways in history and we have currently settled on a professional military that relies on a relatively small number of elite forces to put foot to ass. Even if conscription were necessary in a large war, I don't think that would change - only the most fit recruits would be trained for line duty and everyone else would be more involved with making sure they were well supplied. We fought with amateur militias in the first phases of the Civil War and it was a disaster. Later on Grant used them largely as cannon fodder and the human toll was considered atrocious. We don't do that shit any more. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
If you were talking about waging an insurgency, it would be quite easy. The US is huge and sheer manpower issues would prevent anyone other than china from being about to control more than a few cities. Controlling outlying areas would be much harder as they are much better armed and much more spread out. That said, this assumes that any conflict is closer to Iraq than WW2. In Iraq, we tried to just target insurgents and win "hearts and minds" which rules out very effective and brutal tatics. When we got to Germany in WW2, if your column ran into any resistance in a town, you backed up and shelled it to bits and then stormed it. Then the next few towns hear what happened and don't give you any trouble. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 27 2013 16:41 Doublemint wrote: The question came up, I obliged. This way even Americans may learn a thing or two! Well... I kinda agree that you definitely spend the most on your military toys. Though what happened to the F35 disaster a couple of posts ago? Can't be all that ahead by decades if there are so many problems with it... Yes I get it R&D(& a lot of fail), but why is the US taxpayer cool with it? From what I know the F-35 is special because it was made to work for the airforce, navy and marines (so there are carrier and VTOL variants, along with a traditional runway takeoff version) and have stealth. So it really is an ambitious project. Some of the cost overruns have been offset by reduced procurement as well. The other current generation plane is the F-22 which is more expensive, so there isn't a cheaper alternative to the F-35 if we want to stay current gen. Cost overruns are also the norm for the Federal government as a whole, so for the public it's like trying to notice air. It's so common it's barely noteworthy. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On October 27 2013 16:41 Doublemint wrote: The question came up, I obliged. This way even Americans may learn a thing or two! Well... I kinda agree that you definitely spend the most on your military toys. Though what happened to the F35 disaster a couple of posts ago? Can't be all that ahead by decades if there are so many problems with it... Yes I get it R&D(& a lot of fail), but why is the US taxpayer cool with it? I was just being a sarcastic dick with the emboldened part  | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On October 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: From what I know the F-35 is special because it was made to work for the airforce, navy and marines (so there are carrier and VTOL variants, along with a traditional runway takeoff version) and have stealth. So it really is an ambitious project. Some of the cost overruns have been offset by reduced procurement as well. The other current generation plane is the F-22 which is more expensive, so there isn't a cheaper alternative to the F-35 if we want to stay current gen. Cost overruns are also the norm for the Federal government as a whole, so for the public it's like trying to notice air. It's so common it's barely noteworthy. JSF failure is a product of general government spending common enough not to merit worth noting, but the health care exchange initial website failure, much smaller in size, is worth nailing into the ground, disseminating among Fox News and Rush Limbaugh double-thinkers, and trashing day in and day out. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 28 2013 01:53 FallDownMarigold wrote: JSF failure is a product of general government spending common enough not to merit worth noting, but the health care exchange initial website failure, much smaller in size, is worth nailing into the ground, disseminating among Fox News and Rush Limbaugh double-thinkers, and trashing day in and day out. The ACA is controversial with or without the cost overruns. They're trashing the ACA and using the cost overrun as a line of attack. That's different than trashing the cost overrun while being either agnostic toward or in support of the ACA. If you like you can float the "but the cost overruns are typical" line of defense. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On October 28 2013 02:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The ACA is controversial with or without the cost overruns. They're trashing the ACA and using the cost overrun as a line of attack. That's different than trashing the cost overrun while being either agnostic toward or in support of the ACA. If you like you can float the "but the cost overruns are typical" line of defense. The problem is that any criticism of ACA itself -- with regard to the law itself and what it entails down the line -- is rather weak compared to the blisteringly harsh criticism of the website rollout. It's seen by anyone not riding the Fox/Limbaugh train as pathetic travesty | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 28 2013 02:33 FallDownMarigold wrote: The problem is that any criticism of ACA itself -- with regard to the law itself and what it entails down the line -- is rather weak compared to the blisteringly harsh criticism of the website rollout. It's seen by anyone not riding the Fox/Limbaugh train as pathetic travesty That's true though in a way it's nice that something tangible is being criticized, rather than the theoretical impact of a law not yet fully implemented. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024 So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 28 2013 01:53 FallDownMarigold wrote: JSF failure is a product of general government spending common enough not to merit worth noting, but the health care exchange initial website failure, much smaller in size, is worth nailing into the ground, disseminating among Fox News and Rush Limbaugh double-thinkers, and trashing day in and day out. Yeah, that's like partisan bullshit preventing an adult conversation about stuff for you. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 27 2013 16:08 Sub40APM wrote: why do you even need an airforce? chinese tax payers will pay for everything via american defense bugets. By the way, there actually is serious talk about getting rid of the Air Force in America. Most aircraft missions nowadays are carried out by the Navy because they have aircraft carriers. The Air Force is trying to get more into space stuff because of this issue. Here's an interesting article that explains why the Air Force is largely unnecessary. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
ByuN vs Clem
MaxPax vs TBD
Serral vs ByuN
GgMaChine vs Bunny
PiGStarcraft618
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
