Sign in to follow this  
nuckin_futz

U.S. air strike kills top Iranian military general and Iraqi commander at Baghdad’s international airport

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

I figured I was right, but I also knew someone would have a better, more detailed, response.

Like I said though, he may have been referring to the dinky soviet style carriers that are still in use by a few countries.  China bought and refurbished an old rusty one from a frmr. Soviet Republic a while back and last I read had plans to do the same with a second one.

 

Eventually China will hack into a computer in the US and get the plans for the GRF super-carriers and build their own less advanced copies just like they did with the F-35 in order to make their J-31's.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

I don't disagree but here is something to think about my uncle always said. The US would never allow Canada to have the military it had at the end of ww2. 700,000 troops, 400,000 reserves, 3rd largest airforce and navy. I kind agree they don't want a neighbour like that. Infact it's likely true given the US has made promises to Canada for us to scrap the avro arrow as it was far more advanced than US aircraft and would have made their resonance planes obsolete and make them look weak to the Soviets. 

The Americans didn't have to worry about Canada maintaining a military the size it was post WW II. The country simply could not afford it. Many myths about the Avro. Tech superior. USA national security concerns would never have had that plane produced for their consumption. Top that with concerns over how much of the Canadian military had been infiltrated by the Russians. 

 

I liken Canada to a banana republic as far as how Canadian national security is handled. Ignoring social concerns and simply dealing with border integrity. The Russians, Chinese and the USA are encroaching on Canadian territory in the North with impunity. On a early thread you suggested that the Euros would honor Nato treaty commitments to Canada in the event of aggression in Canada's north. I question that and in fact highly doubt they would, other than talking. 

 

Canada shorts military spending by $13 - 15 billion per year. IMHO Canada should leave Nato and focus the military in Canada, particularly the North. Any engagement outside of Canada should be on a case by case basis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Good points. Tbh I never think of Turkey as Europe..really must be embarrassing to Berlin, Paris and London that Turkey is the most powerful over there. The jews have done a lot of bad stuff themselves but have had smart military planners. I was surprised a number of years back when they struggled with Hezbollah I think? In Lebanon, remember?

Israel has some of the most advanced military tech in the world. Top that with a MAD capability that even the Iranians don't want to mess with. I am amazed at how effective their ABM shield has been out of Gaza. 

  • Burr 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The Americans didn't have to worry about Canada maintaining a military the size it was post WW II. The country simply could not afford it. Many myths about the Avro. Tech superior. USA national security concerns would never have had that plane produced for their consumption. Top that with concerns over how much of the Canadian military had been infiltrated by the Russians. 

 

I liken Canada to a banana republic as far as how Canadian national security is handled. Ignoring social concerns and simply dealing with border integrity. The Russians, Chinese and the USA are encroaching on Canadian territory in the North with impunity. On a early thread you suggested that the Euros would honor Nato treaty commitments to Canada in the event of aggression in Canada's north. I question that and in fact highly doubt they would, other than talking. 

 

Canada shorts military spending by $13 - 15 billion per year. IMHO Canada should leave Nato and focus the military in Canada, particularly the North. Any engagement outside of Canada should be on a case by case basis.  

I disagree and believe Canada can afford that military, however like @SabreFan1 pointed out it was easier for politicians here to promise all these freebies to Canadians at the expense of our military. Canada had next to no debt and very low unemployment. Even in 1965 Canada was spending 3.5% of gdp on its military.  We don't short military spending by 13-15 billion annually it's at least 20 billion annually short, it's why Canada always makes it up in lives, ie Kandahar. 

 

As for right now no one is encroaching on our artic sovereignty, the Russians are in their claimed territory however they're decades ahead of Canada and the US up there.

 

As for leaving NATO, Canada is a founding member and has focused its foreign policy around NATO. Leaving isn't the worst idea but we best seriously invest in our military if we do or sign a mutual defense pact with the US but that would then see Canadian troops involved in all US conflicts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kragar said:

And the hours it would take to fly those fighters to the combat zone doesn't matter?  If you can't borrow or establish airfields asap, you need to bring them with you.

 

I can't imagine it is possible for the Russians to invade Africa, South America or Australia very easily, and North America would he tough going, too.

 

I wouldn't doubt they have what it takes to fight in Europe or Asia.  Maybe Africa would be ok... with access to bases in Syria.

 

Sure, it takes time to get a carrier in place, but it makes a big difference having them there.

My point is in the event of full scale war Russia or the US will just capture whatever air base they need.

6 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

Not even remotely true unless you're talking about the dinky carriers that Russia and China have. 

 

A Gerald R. Ford class super-carrier can carry up to 90 aircraft, including drones, and stay at sea without needing to visit a port for months.  Not to mention that they will eventually be upgraded with electron laser energy weapons and dynamic (electrically charged) armor. 

 

All that doesn't even take into consideration that US super-carriers always travel in a pack with cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and usually even submarines if it's in contested waters.

 

True, but depending on where the jet is going it has a greater chance of being shot down by both ground weapons and enemy aircraft the longer that it's in the air.  If you are launching multiple strike stealth fighters off of a super-carrier that's parked relatively close to the enemy country, you can continue to harass and bomb that country 24/7 if you choose to.

 

In your scenario though, that's one of the things that are attractive with the F-35, it has long range radar and can fire missiles while it's still outside it's target's effective range.   That is as long as it isn't malfunctioning for one reason or another. :lol:

Actually it is. Russia would sink US Carriers in the event of full scale conflict. Certainly they're important in setting up shop outside a country but their advantage they use to have isn't as relevant today. If the US and Russia knew they were engaging each other in war those carriers would be sunk before reaching eastern Europe. But I will agree the US keeps an advantage because their carrier groups are greater then most countries navies around the world but they aren't as important as they once were in a full scale war. Their importance is more on setting up shop on Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc not a nation with the ability to easily sink them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And certainly Russian jets could be shot down however sunk US carriers would lose far more jets. Also Russia has shown they have the capability of completing shutting down US naval ships which all but make the carriers obsolete. Both the US and Canada were sitting ducks and the Russians even flew fighter jets over head to show their ability to destroy those sitting ducks. I understand as Americans you guys don't want to give Russia credit but you're only fooling yourselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the "imminent attack" narrative is falling apart....

 

When pressed for details, Pompeo continued with his "need to know" routine, but Bone Spurs (as usual) decided to undercut him by freelancing and claiming that Soleimani was planning on bombing four US embassies.

 

The Iraqi embassy is a gimme, but now Pompeo and his staff have to scramble to come up with three more possible targets, in a feeble attempt to make this look like less of a fabrication....

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-news-mike-pompeo-attack-qassem-soleimani-imminent-dont-know-when-where-today-2020-01-11/

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/questions-pile-up-about-trumps-claim-that-soleimani-was-going-to-blow-up-a-us-embassy/ar-BBYQIDT?li=AAggNb9

 

It's just too stupid for words and a totally self-inflicted wound....:picard:

 

All they had to do was tell us that they saw an opportunity to take out a really bad guy and they took....a "damn the torpedoes" sort of action....There still would have been people questioning the advisability, but at least they wouldn't be mired in this terrible attempt to cover up their lying.

 

I'm actually a bit stunned that top ranking administration members haven't figured this out yet: It's impossible to coordinate lies with Donald Trump. He does it so often and so cavalierly, he can't keep his own story straight, let alone one that is supposed to represent the "official story".

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Looks like the "imminent attack" narrative is falling apart....

 

When pressed for details, Pompeo continued with his "need to know" routine, but Bone Spurs (as usual) decided to undercut him by freelancing and claiming that Soleimani was planning on bombing four US embassies.

 

The Iraqi embassy is a gimme, but now Pompeo and his staff have to scramble to come up with three more possible targets, in a feeble attempt to make this look like less of a fabrication....

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-news-mike-pompeo-attack-qassem-soleimani-imminent-dont-know-when-where-today-2020-01-11/

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/questions-pile-up-about-trumps-claim-that-soleimani-was-going-to-blow-up-a-us-embassy/ar-BBYQIDT?li=AAggNb9

 

It's just too stupid for words and a totally self-inflicted wound....:picard:

 

All they had to do was tell us that they saw an opportunity to take out a really bad guy and they took....a "damn the torpedoes" sort of action....There still would have been people questioning the advisability, but at least they wouldn't be mired in this terrible attempt to cover up their lying.

 

I'm actually a bit stunned that top ranking administration members haven't figured this out yet: It's impossible to coordinate lies with Donald Trump. He does it so often and so cavalierly, he can't keep his own story straight, let alone one that is supposed to represent the "official story".

Both Iranian regime and Trump administration are one and the same. They both lie to the public and they both dont own up to their mistakes. The only difference is that the Iranian regime kills their own people.

Edited by DefCon1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DefCon1 said:

Both Iranian regime and Trump administration are one and the same. The both lie to the public and they both dont own up to their mistakes. The difference is that the Iranian regime kills their own people.

I suppose one could say that Dubya's lie about WMDs in Iraq caused the death of a lot of Americans, but that's a topic for another day. Suffice it to say, that there are/were a lot of poor attempts at face saving during this entire mess....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Actually it is. Russia would sink US Carriers in the event of full scale conflict. Certainly they're important in setting up shop outside a country but their advantage they use to have isn't as relevant today. If the US and Russia knew they were engaging each other in war those carriers would be sunk before reaching eastern Europe. But I will agree the US keeps an advantage because their carrier groups are greater then most countries navies around the world but they aren't as important as they once were in a full scale war. Their importance is more on setting up shop on Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc not a nation with the ability to easily sink them.

 

Problem with your reasoning.  Super-carriers have never been meant to fight Russia.  Any conflict inside Russia where Russia starts losing is a declared pre-condition for them to make a first-strike nuclear attack against the attacking nation(s).  That policy was originally announced by the USSR then restated by Russia after the USSR's fall.  Attacking Russia would trigger the end of the world.

 

As for one of your other points, they are absolutely as important as they've always been to fight wars.  Just not a war against the Russians for the reason stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

And certainly Russian jets could be shot down however sunk US carriers would lose far more jets. Also Russia has shown they have the capability of completing shutting down US naval ships which all but make the carriers obsolete. Both the US and Canada were sitting ducks and the Russians even flew fighter jets over head to show their ability to destroy those sitting ducks. I understand as Americans you guys don't want to give Russia credit but you're only fooling yourselves. 

 

Russia can generate EMP's that scramble electronics on naval ships that aren't properly shielded.  Since Russia decided to turn that into a fun sport, the US has put the proper shielding in all of the newest naval ships and retrofitted most of the old ones.

 

Again, as far as the carriers are concerned, they aren't meant for Russia because an attack on Russia would end the world.

 

Giving Russia credit on stuff isn't an issue.  Facts are facts, pro or anti Russia whether anyone likes them or not.  Personally I don't dislike Russia, I'm just not a big Putin fan.

Edited by SabreFan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

 I'm just not a big Putin fan.

Just curious as to the reasoning? Is it that you’ve been programmed to hate him? Or is it because he stands up to America? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Just curious as to the reasoning? Is it that you’ve been programmed to hate him? Or is it because he stands up to America? 

Watching the Canucks vs. Sabres game atm.  I'll flesh out my reasoning for Putin later.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Just curious as to the reasoning? Is it that you’ve been programmed to hate him? Or is it because he stands up to America? 

Crimea is a good enough reason for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Crimea is a good enough reason for me.

Yea, that’s the same reason why I don’t like China or the US. All 3 are global super powers and all 3 control whatever countries/states they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

Russia can generate EMP's that scramble electronics on naval ships that aren't properly shielded.  Since Russia decided to turn that into a fun sport, the US has put the proper shielding in all of the newest naval ships and retrofitted most of the old ones.

 

Again, as far as the carriers are concerned, they aren't meant for Russia because an attack on Russia would end the world.

 

Giving Russia credit on stuff isn't an issue.  Facts are facts, pro or anti Russia whether anyone likes them or not.  Personally I don't dislike Russia, I'm just not a big Putin fan.

I highly doubt all ships are retro fitted...prove it. This just happened like 2 years ago. Carriers are not that important, I stand by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Yea, that’s the same reason why I don’t like China or the US. All 3 are global super powers and all 3 control whatever countries/states they can.

While the US has flexed some muscle, sometimes/often more than they arguably should, there is a strong dividing line between them and the other two countries you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Crimea is a good enough reason for me.

So you dislike him for doing exactly what the US would and has also supported in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kragar said:

While the US has flexed some muscle, sometimes/often more than they arguably should, there is a strong dividing line between them and the other two countries you mention.

I'm sorry only an American would make that claim.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I highly doubt all ships are retro fitted...prove it. This just happened like 2 years ago. Carriers are not that important, I stand by that.

I'd like to continue this discussion, but Deb did her job and chased another person off of the board.  I'm going to take a long (if not permanent) break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.