Tweet
-
It's easier to shoot down a slow-ass tanker than it is to sink a Carrier.Originally posted by Az
[q]
Yeah, well, that would work, but not for a country with any meaningful airforce. It would be a really really bad idea to get in the range of land based airpower, and that range has a funny tendency to grow with tankers, etc.Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
Hmm -- are you seriously suggesting there is an "unfriendly" airforce out there with a reasonable chance of going at it with the US navy carrier group at a distance where they need to get a tanker assist? My bet would be on the Yanks.Originally posted by Az
Kuci,
he was just being deliberately obtuse. next thing he will question a tank's ability to kill another tank since after all it is the armor piercing shell that actually kills said other tank
Yeah, well, that would work, but not for a country with any meaningful airforce. It would be a really really bad idea to get in the range of land based airpower, and that range has a funny tendency to grow with tankers, etc.You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
I'm sure that statistic is nothing a good bunch of cruise missiles couldn't take care of
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda SmithComment
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
It's easier to shoot down a slow-ass tanker than it is to sink a Carrier.
I was thinking the same thing-- PLUS it would be over the open ocean where US advantages should be at a premium. Those tankers would be a prime target.You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
Just out of curiosity - why do US keep their carriers ? My guess is that they could easilier and cheaper protect themselves without.Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm shocked by the fact that China is supposedly building a carrier ... why the f* would they want to do that? Japan and Taiwan/ROC are well within land attack range ... and we're the only nation they'd ever realistically want to fight that a carrier would help them against- and at the moment the concept of that happening is just too funny. They'd be better off with SSMs given our naval abilities ... and India would probably be too hard to get to and too dangerous of waters to risk, given they can use Tibet (unless India gets frisky and takes it away first) ...With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
Because, in the unlikely event nations won't allow us to base planes out of their country, we can still throw a few hundred planes into the theater without any crazy things like "International law" stopping us.Originally posted by BlackCat
Just out of curiosity - why do US keep their carriers ? My guess is that they could easilier and cheaper protect themselves without.
American carriers are 4 acres of soveriegn American territory.Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
Just out of curiosity - why do US keep their carriers ? My guess is that they could easilier and cheaper protect themselves without.
Projecting power.
They're a lot more impressive and visual then a missille hidden away in some silo.Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - EpicurusComment
-
Power projection.
EDIT:
Comment
-
Woot!!! alva's number #1!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - EpicurusComment
-
This surprises me. I a) didn't know the SK had one, and b) thought that Japan had one.B♭3Comment
-
Don't know wich of you to qoute, so ...
Why should the Chinese doesn't want do to do the same ?With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
and people say liberal social programs are a waste of moneyTo us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
They are.
Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.Comment
-
of course, why spend money educating our youth, giving health care to our people, or god forbid helping the poor when we can build tons of floating useless rust buckets manned by rednecksTo us, it is the BEAST.Comment
Comment