UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
debbie wasseman schulz made tim canova her bitch.
The new and modernized Russian Combined Arms forces are a very credible threat vs NATO, others
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- military hardware russia
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
If she's your hero, your fall from any ethical high ground is complete.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
tim canova was bernie endorsed.
debbie is pada's waking nightmare.
he says "our politicians are much more popular than your politicians".
so i presented what is known as a counterexample.
but yeah, go ahead and yell about how i never made substantive arguments and always just name call.
retard.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I missed it, send me the link?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Please describe for us the time when the politics section had integrity. Would you have called KKKynes out for his upfront racism? Would you have confronted ginwilly for his claim that certain races needed to evolve from the neck up? I did see that you rebuked an antisemite yesterday. It was a mild display of integrity.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Lol You've made your point.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So back to the original topic;
Putin has modernised and upgraded his military to the point where it's a credible threat to NATO signatories like Estonia. Ukraine has recently pledged to take the necessary steps to be eligible for NATO membership.
Clearly, he can use it in low level conflicts like eastern Ukraine, Central Asia and elsewhere.
He has a need to protect his own gas and oil pipelines to Europe.
I wonder where this is heading?
Putin has modernised and upgraded his military to the point where it's a credible threat to NATO signatories like Estonia. Ukraine has recently pledged to take the necessary steps to be eligible for NATO membership.
Clearly, he can use it in low level conflicts like eastern Ukraine, Central Asia and elsewhere.
He has a need to protect his own gas and oil pipelines to Europe.
I wonder where this is heading?
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
This topic is lol.
It's especially lol that the Russian's main carrier doesn't even work and is dragged around by a tug boat.
More fake news from the OP.
It's especially lol that the Russian's main carrier doesn't even work and is dragged around by a tug boat.
More fake news from the OP.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
A single guided missile destroyer could disrupt a small nation...and they're considered small support ships.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Yes, but they can't isolate a nation. They can terrorize it.
With our fleet carrier groups, we can ground your entire nation, stop all movement on land, sea and air.
The U.S. simply dominates the planet right now by Naval Power alone. Not surprisingly, it's always been the nation with the most powerful navy that has ruled the world.
That will change in about 25 years though as China's blue water navy comes online. Then, it will come down to a spending war that will be won by China.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The Navy can't stop land movement by itself, but American combined arms can, so it's a distinction without a difference.
America has been using its imperial power to overthrow democratically elected governments around the world for decades now. Perhaps it's time another power came along to keep us honest; we've been utterly unwilling to live up to our own ideals when we had the chance, or the field to ourselves.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Yes, it can. Cruise missiles can take out rail and highway traffic with ease. Troop movements above the platoon scale could also equally be taken out with guided missiles and smart bombs.
They would be relegated to very, very small movements and even those are subject to drone attacks at will.
The U.S. Navy can do all of that alone. The only reason anybody else is needed is for an actual occupation/ground war invasion.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Or, combined arms. Not a difference worth quibbling about.
None of our technologies are immune to bring copied by our adversaries and we've been rather irresponsible in our stewardship of world affairs in the last 40 years, thus creating plenty of incentive for other nations to develop them.
I'm sure our military planners have been developing scenarios for dealing with this eventuality, but they cannot foresee everything. I believe our navy is vulnerable to a large scale attack comprised of hundreds or thousands of small smart autonomous weapons like smart drones.
Not all would survive, but only a few would need to reach their targets in order to cripple them and eliminate their offensive capability. Stopping EVERY such drone is nearly impossible.
Our navy is highly adept at fighting the last war; this is the common and ancient problem of the dominant extant military power. It's a problem because the next war is always different from the last, precisely because the attacker is foolish to attack into strength but rather seeks to exploit weakness.
The one thing the Navy can't do is take and hold territory inland. Again, a combined arms approach allows the army to do it with naval support, even from a great distance. Yet here too, autonomous smart devices can effectively interdict military personnel; robots fighting people. These robots need not look like or act like the humans they're designed to destroy; they merely need to be quicker.
Autonomous machinery, therefore, is the grunt of the future; humans will be far too slow and vulnerable. Desert Storm was fought and won in days; robots will do it in hours- with much less prep time.
jonsnow399
Well-Known Member
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is. You're obviously clueless on international and maritime law.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Historically it used to be the British with the most powerful Navy.