Youtube comments of (@RedXlV).
-
6900
-
3200
-
2700
-
548
-
522
-
474
-
414
-
306
-
286
-
273
-
264
-
258
-
255
-
231
-
228
-
221
-
207
-
203
-
196
-
182
-
177
-
172
-
160
-
156
-
151
-
145
-
144
-
141
-
140
-
128
-
125
-
123
-
120
-
110
-
106
-
104
-
103
-
99
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
93
-
92
-
88
-
85
-
84
-
80
-
78
-
78
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
Another suggestion I've seen is that the "Saints" would've been the names assigned to the N3 battleships, and that the G3 battlecruisers would've been named Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable, and Indefatigable.
At any rate, if the Washington Naval Treaty had never happened, I strongly suspect that the G3 and N3 designs would've been been revised before construction to place the third turret forward of the bridge, as was actually done with the Nelson-class. That all-forward layout was universal to the different designs considered for the Nelsons, both the O3 design that was actually adopted and the F2 and F3 treaty-compliant battlecruisers (with 3x2 or 3x3 15" guns) that were considered.
Incidentally, I consider the F3 to be something of a masterpiece of capital ship design. On a displacement of only 35000 tons it would've had armor close to that of the much later 45000 ton Iowa-class battleships, and a design speed of 29 knots. And given the broad similarities to the Nelsons, I'm fairly confident it would've exceeded that design speed. Even with engines in need of an overhaul, Rodney was able to make 25 knots (design speed was only 23) in the rush to intercept Bismarck.
74
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Regarding Tiger vs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the reason for Admiral Lütjens refusing to engage Convoy HX 106 because it was escorted by Ramilles wasn't that he doubted his ships' ability to take Ramilles. It was that he was under very strict orders from Hitler not to engage capital ships at all. The same would've applied to Tiger.
Had Lütjens defied those orders and tried to fight Ramilles, even given the inferior guns on his ships I suspect that he would've won that engagement. He did after all outnumber Ramilles 2 to 1, and his ships were 11 knots faster and also better armored.
Thus, I disagree with the assessment that Tiger would've had less utility than an R-class early in the war. Even if she had a very limited refit, her speed would've allowed her to be used in duties other than just convoy escort. And Revenge herself did little of any importance during WW2, so discarding her to keep Tiger (or keeping her as the training ship instead of Iron Duke) would've been no big loss.
And in terms of the logistics of keeping the BL 13.5-inch Mk V gun in service for a single ship? That would be somewhat of an issue, but remember that those guns were still in use as land-based artillery in railway mounts as well. Three of them were brought to Dover as part of the battery of cross-channel guns. So it's not as if Britain discarded their stores of shells and charges for guns of that caliber. And if Tiger's refit came in the late 1930s, it's possible that she could've had her 13.5-inch guns replaced with the same BL 14-inch Mk VII used on King George V. IIRC, those guns were designed so that they could work with the turrets, cradles, and shell hoists of the 13.5-inch Mk V, because initially there was consideration of using Iron Duke's remaining turrets to test-fire the new gun design.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Russia's biggest export customers by far were China and India. China no longer needs to import fighters from anybody else, and India is working very hard to get into that same position.
Not to mention, India has always bought from anybody who's selling, rather than locking themselves into eastern or western hardware. Meaning that any time they look for a new fighter that, India has solicited bids from the US, Britain, France, Russia, and Sweden, and picked whichever jet they thought was the best deal. And in their most recent big contract, the Dassault Rafale beat out the MiG-35. If the MRCA competition had gone differently (and faced just as many delays and legal challenges afterward), Russia would've been exporting dozens (at least) of MiG-35s to India this decade.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Many of the British destroyer classes were so closely related that it's a matter of interpretation how many classes they actually had. For example, are the J/K/Ns three classes of 8 ships each or just one class of 24 ships, given that they were for all practical purposes identical?
At any rate, Britain's desperate need for more destroyers resulted in the 112 ships of the War Emergency Programme, which were smaller and less capable than the Tribals, J/K/Ns, and L/Ms. They could be considered anywhere from one to 14 classes depending on how you define it, since they all used the same basic hull design but were constantly improved during construction. It wasn't until the Battle-class (only one of which was completed in time to actually fight in WW2; an additional 25 were built and 18 were cancelled and scrapped partially built) that Britain went back to full-sized fleet destroyers.
The US, on the other hand, had the industrial capacity to meet its needs by just spamming out Fletchers, followed by Sumners and Gearings rather than reverting smaller designs. The British "emergency" scaled-down destroyers, like I said, added up to 112 ships. The Fletcher-class? 175 ships.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@manuelbst8579 That's Argentina's assertion regarding the Falkland Islands. The historical accuracy of that claim is questionable, since it leaves out that the British were the first to discover and claim the islands (in 1690), when they were completely uninhabited. (Since as far as anybody knows, there was never an indigenous population.) Britain first settled the islands in 1765, and temporarily left in 1771 due to economic reasons while continuing to assert their ownership. The islands were illegally occupied by Spain from 1767 to 1811, and then uninhabited until 1829. As such, Argentina's claim is derived from the previous illegal claim by Spain to already-claimed territory which Britain had never relinquished ownership of.
The Argentine claim to South Georgia, on the other hand, was first asserted in 1927, and it was on the basis of...absolutely nothing. There had never been any Argentine presence on South Georgia, nor had South Georgia ever been under the administration of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Argentina seems to have claimed it solely because it's British, and Argentina didn't want Britain to have any territory in the South Atlantic.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Regarding a triple turret version of the QEs? Your notion of a rebuild that removes the aft superfiring turret so that they can end up with useful speed in their 1930s refit has another implication going forward. You now have something a lot more interesting than the Courageous-class's twin turrets to put on HMS Vanguard. If we assume that as in reality, only Warspite, Valiant, and Queen Elizabeth went through full rebuilds since the outbreak of WW2 interrupted the schedule, that leaves three triple turrets to work with. Which means that Vanguard wouldn't need nearly so much redesign work relative to the Lion-class as she went through IRL, because she doesn't need to be lengthened to make room for a 4th turret. This would likely mean she would be given the same thickness of belt armor as the KGVs rather than having it thinned to 14 inches to make up for the longer hull. The simpler process of simply redesigning the Lions to use smaller turrets rather than having to accommodate an AB-XY layout also likely would've sped up the entire process, potentially allowing Vanguard to be laid down in 1940 instead of 1941.
The question then is, would that result in Vanguard being completed before the war ended? At one point her construction was prioritized out of hopes that she could be completed in 1944 by diverting resources from other ships, but labor shortages made that impossible and she dropped back down the priority list. But even given said labor shortages, if her construction had begun a year sooner that might actually have been an achievable goal. Not that it really would've mattered much, since there weren't a lot of surface ships left to fight at that point.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
There's also the fact that in this scenario, Hood would likely be in much better material condition than Warspite was. Warspite was in terrible shape after taking that Fritz X hit, and would've required extensive repairs to be preserved as a museum ship. A Hood that emerged victorious from the Denmark Strait would've already been repaired and unlikely to have encountered anything that could inflict that level of damage (her speed and range would've certainly brought her to the Pacific as a carrier escort, and kamikazes don't have the armor piercing power of a Fritz X).
Given that a refitted Hood would have very similar capabilities to Vanguard, it's also possible that at the end of the war Vanguard would've simply been cancelled to save money. When Vanguard was retired, there was little interest in preserving her even though by that point the British economy had recovered. But then, Vanguard had never really done anything. If Hood had built up a distinguished war record at Denmark Strait, North Cape, and in the Pacific, along with her status as the symbol of the Royal Navy, there probably would've been more interest in her preservation.
Maybe some wealthy Briton with an interest in naval history offers the funds. Or maybe the surviving Admiral Holland has enough clout to organize private fundraising efforts to save his old flagship.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
If the High Seas Fleet were completely wiped out, even if they badly mauled the Grand Fleet in the process, that would've resulted in the war ending sooner because it would've meant that there was little to stop the rest of the Royal Navy from sailing all the way to the German coast.
The only German dreadnought that didn't make it to Jutland was König Albert. Combine that with Bayern being completed a 45 days later, that gives Germany only 2 dreadnoughts. Baden wouldn't be completed until March 1917 and Hindenburg until May 1917. No matter how badly the Grand Fleet had been mauled, you have Royal Sovereign that was fitting out at time of Jutland, with Queen Elizabeth, Emperor of India (Iron Duke-class), Dreadnought, and HMAS Australia under maintenance. And Renown and Repulse would both be ready before October 1916. Even if Jutland had been the mutual annihilation of both fleets, Germany would be doomed. Just the handful of capital ships that Britain had under maintenance or near completion would've been enough to steamroll the few major German warships that weren't at Jutland, let alone if Britain decided to ask France and/or Japan if they could spare a few ships. Once the Grand Fleet was reassembled, there'd be basically nothing between them and Wilhelmshaven.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@josephshields2922 There's no such thing as "the Zelensky dictatorship", and annexation by Russia was never "the will of the people" in eastern Ukraine.
In the 2019 presidential election, Zelensky was more popular in the east than in the west, getting 89% of the vote in Luhansk, 87% in Donetsk, 86% in Zaporizhzhia, and 82% in Kherson, compared to 73% nationwide, 60% in Kyiv, 54% in Ivano-Frankivsk, 50% in Ternopil, and 34% in Lviv (the only oblast where he lost). This narrative that everyone in eastern Ukraine in general or everyone in Donbas in particular are Russian or want to be annexed by Russia is complete BS. The east has more ethnic Russians than the west, but they're still not the majority. And even among ethnic Russians, there are still plenty who prefer to remain part of Ukraine.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Going first gave Britain a huge head start on dreadnoughts. By the time anybody else got their first dreadnought (when Germany completed Nassau on October 1, 1909), Britain had 4 of them (Dreadnought, Bellerophon, Temeraire, and Superb).
And the third nation after Britain and Germany to bring a dreadnought into service actually wasn't any of the other naval powers like the US, Japan, France, Italy, or Russia. It was Brazil, with a dreadnought built for them in Britain. That's right, Britain was out-building everybody else even while some of their shipyards were building export dreadnoughts rather than building them for the Royal Navy.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
For starters, I imagine the Renowns (laid down a month and a half after the Falklands) would've immediately had their construction delayed long enough to do away with the bizarre design decision of a 6" armor belt. At an absolute minimum, they'd revert to a 9" belt like the Lions and Tiger already used. ie what they historically were given in 1920s refits. Or possibly even the Design Y battlecruiser (the "Super Tiger", with 11" belt and 4x2 15" guns) would've been built instead.
Possibly the funding that went to 2 Renowns and 3 Courageouses historically would've gone to 4 Super Tigers. Or just 4 up-armored Renowns. Aside from Indefatigable being in immediate need of replacement, there'd be a perception that her sister ships are inadequately armored, while Germany's own battlecruiser fleet would still need to be countered. Adding 4 instead of 2 15" armed battlecruisers would allow Australia and New Zealand can be sent to safer duties than directly confronting their German counterparts, while still directly upgrading the fleet's strength. Though of course Jutland would happen before any of the new ships would be complete, so this plan wouldn't have a chance to be put into practice.
When it comes time for Jutland, the 2nd and 3rd Battlecruiser Squadrons would probably have been rearranged to account for Indefatigable's loss. Most likely it would be the now under-strength 3rd (consisting only of Australia and New Zealand) that gets detached to the Home Fleet, leaving the 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron (the 3 Invincibles) at the tail of Beatty's battle line. No way to know whether the collision between Australia and New Zealand would still happen when they're up at Scapa Flow, but it's possible that New Zealand will be the only battlecruiser attached to the Grand Fleet at Jutland. This would actually be an upgrade to Beatty's force, though whether he'd gain any advantage out of this is questionable, since it's Beatty.
4
-
4
-
No, they were founded independently. And initially weren't called Star and Astra. The original companies ere Bonifacio Echeverría (founded in 1905) and Esperanza y Unceta (founded in 1908), both simply using the names of their founders. Both were originally located in Eibar (which was always the heart of Spanish weapons making), but Esperanza y Unceta moved to Guernica in 1913 and during World War I started using the "Astra" trade name while making the Ruby pistols for export to France. (There were about 500 Spanish companies of varying sizes making such pistols, because France was desperately short on all types of firearms in WW1.) Bonifacio Echeverría was one of the other companies making Ruby pistols at the time, and at least some of them were marked with the trade name "Star", and the company started going by Star for all its products in 1919. It's quite possibly that they were copying Astra by switching to a similar name. That sort of thing was common among Spanish gunmakers.
At any rate, Star and Astra remained competitors until Star went bankrupt in 1993 and Astra in 1997. And Llama, the other major Spanish gunmaker, went bankrupt in 2000. There's still a few small companies left in the Eibar region making expensive high-end shotguns and double-barrel rifles, but for the most part the gun industry is gone in Spain.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You're probably right that the attack on Port Stanley was because Spee figured he was doomed and wanted to just get it over with. But beyond that, I suspect his thinking was that attacking right away would give him the best chance to inflict some damage before he's taken out. Without any ability to do maintenance and refuel, his ships' performance was only going to decline more over time even if he escaped detection.
That said, I think once he made the decision to attack Port Stanley, he made two core mistakes. First was bringing the light cruisers with him instead of having them disperse and go commerce raiding or try to run the blockade back to Germany as their captains saw fit. They weren't going to make any difference one way or the other. If Sturdee hadn't arrived yet, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau alone could easily destroy the wireless station. And either way he'd be drawing all the attention onto himself and giving the smaller, faster cruisers time to get out of the area.
Second was that he was insufficiently aggressive once he realized there were battlecruisers docked at Port Stanley. It took some time for Sturdee's ships to raise steam. With the battlecruisers' superior speed, this didn't give Spee enough of a head start to matter when trying to flee. It would however have given him time to press the attack while Invincible and Inflexible were still at anchor. Two of Sturdee's cruisers were already under steam as guardships, but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were more powerful ships and could likely have forced their way to the harbor entrance. And that point, seeing as the entrance of Stanley Harbour is only about 900 feet wide, he could have maneuvered his cruisers so that they're blocking Invincible and Inflexible from leaving. Even after they sink his ships, the wrecks will still have them bottled up for probably several months. And at such close range he might even be able to inflict some real damage on the battlecruisers.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheKingofbrooklin Had the Germans continued building of Salamis for their own use, there were three potential options. Use the 35cm SK L/45 intended for the Mackensen-class battlecruisers. Buy the similar Škoda 35cm K14 guns intended for the Ersatz Monarch-class battleships from their Austro-Hungarian allies. Or much less likely, go against typical German practice and try to create a 28cm or 30.5cm triple turret that would fit into the barbettes intended for American 14"/45s. But in all cases, the work required to adapt a turret would've been more trouble than it was worth, because Salamis simply wouldn't have been that great a battleship. Her armor was quite thin, especially by German standards, but at only 23 knots she wouldn't have anywhere near the speed needed to operate as a battlecruiser. Had the American turrets and guns been delivered before the outbreak of war, no doubt the High Seas Fleet would've made use of her anyway, because a mediocre dreadnought is better than no dreadnought at all. But Germany had much better ships also under construction, like the above-mentioned Mackensen-class battlecruisers (which would've had the same armament as a completed Salamis adapted to German guns, yet would be 5 knots faster and have 50mm thicker belt armor). Had some extra effort been put into naval construction during WW1, they'd have been much better off trying to get SMS Graf Spee (the closest to completion of the Mackensens) into service.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Regarding Mutsu and the Colorados, I think you're a bit mixed up on the timeline. If Japan had agreed to scrap Mutsu, there would only be one Colorado completed, USS Maryland. The other two (Colorado and West Virginia) were completed a full 2 years after Mutsu. And in that case, it's unlikely that Britain would be able to get a provision for any early Treaty battleships, so they get no Nelsons at all, be they O3 or F3 designs. So it could come out to Britain gets to keep Hood grandfathered in, the US gets Maryland, and Japan gets Nagato, and that's it. Which based on the 5:5:3 ratio would be a bit unbalanced in Japan's favor.
That said, the US was being incredibly dishonest by putting Mutsu on the list of ships to be scrapped in the first place. The premise was that all capital ships still under construction at the start of the Washington Naval Conference were to be scrapped (with an option of each nation to pick two such ships for conversion into aircraft carriers). But Mutsu was already complete by that time, having been commissioned on October 24, 1921. Three weeks before the conference began on November 12, 1921.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In 1940 there were design studies for post-treaty heavy cruisers with 3x3 8-inch guns, comparable to the US Navy's Baltimore-class. And even super-heavy cruisers with 3x3 or even 3x4 9.2-inch guns (it's unclear whether this would've been a new gun design, or the the old 9.2"/47 from WW1 armoured cruisers and coastal artillery batteries). During his time as First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill was the driving force behind the latter concept.
But even without treaty limitations, Britain's shipbuilding capacity was finite and there was a large demand for both cruisers and destroyers to patrol their vast empire. The (nominally 8,500 ton) Crown Colony-class cruisers and the follow-up 8,800 ton Minotaur/Swiftsure-class could be built cheaper and in greater numbers than any post-treaty heavy cruiser, so that's what Britain went with.
Toward the end of the war, the Royal Navy was looking to build 15,000 ton cruisers, but these would've still been "light" cruisers because they'd successfully developed a dual-purpose 6-inch gun, the QF 6 inch Mark N5. World of Warships players know those designs as Neptune and Minotaur, which were in fact the names the Royal Navy planned to use for them. But then the war ended and the Royal Navy no longer had the budget to afford them. Several of the turrets had already been built, though, so three incomplete Swiftsure-class cruisers were fitted with 2 turrets each as the Tiger-class.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Regarding Yamato's 5-inch secondary guns...bear in mind that the Japanese used a completely different gun on their battleships and cruisers than they did on destroyers. Destroyers carried the 12.7cm/50 3rd Year Type, which from the Ayanami-class onward were given high enough elevation to be nominally dual-purpose, but were really bad at it.
Battleships and cruisers, on the other hand, used the 12.7cm/40 Type 89, which was designed as a pure AA gun. "Dual-purpose" capability for it was purely incidental, simply a result of 1.9kg of Shimose powder being adequate to damage unarmored surface targets too. Six twin turrets per side (incidentally, what the real Yamato ended up after her final refit, so very much doable if the 15.5cm triple turrets had never been part of the design) is therefore a pretty decent heavy AA battery. Not as good as the US battleships achieve with five twin turrets per side, because the 5"/38 is just plain better than the 12.7cm/40 (higher rate of fire, better velocity, better fire control system), but above average for the 1930s.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ozone-xv7hk If the shell that took out Hood had simply missed, or if the fuse had failed like the one that penetrated Prince of Wales below the waterline, there's a very good chance that they would've stopped Bismarck. The firepower being brought to bear by Hood and PoW wasn't that much less than what Rodney and King George V delivered three days later.
Thanks to poor design decisions for the Nelson-class's guns, the 16-inch AP Mk IB shell didn't actually hit harder Hood's 15-inch AP Mk XIIIa. The 16-inch shell had a bursting charge of 23.2kg of TNT, while the 15-inch had 22kg of Shellite. In addition to this being a mere 1.2kg difference in explosive mass, Shellite is a slightly more powerful explosive than TNT. As such, the only advantages of the British 16-inch guns over the older 15-inch were flatter trajectory and better penetration. But at the range that Hood and Bismarck were fighting, that was pretty much a non-issue. The ships were less than 14km apart, and Hood's guns were entirely capable of penetrating Bismarck's 320mm belt at that range. The only significant different in firepower for Hood compared to Rodney was that Hood had 8 guns to Rodney's 9.
There was certainly enough firepower on hand to cripple Bismarck. And there's no doubt that Lutjens would've tried to flee if the battle was going poorly for him. Hood and PoW being to his south, this would've mean turning around and trying to get back to Norway. Bismarck was faster than both Hood and PoW, so the big question would be whether the damage taken in the opening stages would slow her down enough to negate that advantage. Especially since Hood and PoW weren't going to come out unscathed either and might also be slowed by flooding. But turning north also would've left Bismarck heading in the direction of Norfolk and Suffolk, allowing the cruisers to get involved in the battle.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Now if it was the Renown and Courageous classes that got cancelled while all 4 Admirals were built, that would indeed give 4 very large and powerful capital ships with tonnage well beyond the treaty limits to get grandfathered in. At the same time, the raw number of capital ships in British service would have to be less because the limit was a combined 525,000 tons for all British capital ships. Hood's full 42,670 ton standard displacement counted toward Britain's limit, and the same would be true of her 3 sister ships. Which probably would've been slightly heavier due to improvements made to their design before they were cancelled. While this would have some obvious disadvantages (fewer hulls to spread around, while the Empire hasn't gotten any smaller), it was really only in terms of cruisers that Britain was looking to build relatively smaller ships than other nations in order to achieve greater numbers. When it comes to sending capital ships around the Empire, 4 Admiral class would actually be ideal due to their greater speed allowing them to get across the empire in less time.
However, one issue is that the British might not get the concession to build the Nelson class. That concession of being able to build 2 battleships during the "building holiday" was to compensate for Japan keeping Mutsu and the US keeping Colorado and West Virginia. The Royal Navy didn't have any of their own partially completed capital ships at the time that could similarly be allowed to finish, and also lacked any 16-inch gun vessels. But if they've got 4 43,000 ton behemoths with 15" guns instead of just 1 like in reality, I doubt Japan and America would be so willing to let the Royal Navy also build 2 new BBs while nobody else is allowed to.
Another thing this scenario brings up is, what would be the impact on British aircraft carrier development? Furious in particular was fairly important to the Royal Navy's early development in that field. On the other hand, even with resources freed up by not building the Renowns I'm not sure if it would actually have been possible, given when construction on the class started, to have all 4 Admirals already complete by the time the treaty negotiations began. In which case a likely scenario is that in addition to Hood, only Rodney gets completed as a battlecruiser while Anson and Howe potentially get converted into aircraft carriers. In which case this is actually very beneficial to to Royal Navy aircraft carrier development, since they get their own counterpart to the American Lexington class. In reality the Royal Navy was unable to take advantage of the treaty provision that allowed conversion of incomplete capital ships into 33,000 ton carriers (the limit on carrier size otherwise being 27,000 tons) the way America and Japan did, because they lacked any suitable hulls under construction to convert (the G3 class had only been ordered, never laid down, and it might not have been possible to reduce such a large ship's displacement all the way down to 33,000 tons anyway). But if a pair of half-built Admiral class are sitting there on the slipways, that becomes an incredibly obvious choice.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If Wargaming still had any interest in low-tier ships, it'd be quite easy to add Desaix (of the Dupleix-class small armored cruisers, armed with 4x2 164.7mm guns ) at Tier 2 and Edgar Quinet at Tier 4. Since they have uniform main batteries and thus wouldn't need any special mechanics to be viable.
Similarly, Scharnhorst '06 and Blücher strike me as workable Tier 4 and Tier 5 cruisers. Preferably as part of a tech tree "large cruiser" line for the German tech tree that would include Deutschland at Tier 6, D-class at Tier 7, the late 3-turret D-class (immediately before their full redesign into the Scharnhorst-class battleships) at Tier 8, and an O-class variant at Tier 9. At Tier 10, there's a fairly obscure paper ship called KW45 that would work. (The Russian-language version of Wargaming's wiki used to have a lot of pages hidden on it with all sorts of information about both real and paper ships. They were all deleted last year, presumably a result of WG cutting its ties with the Russian studio, but most of it's still archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20210714163133/https://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Navy:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BC%D1%8B_Kriegsmarinewerft_1939_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0 )
And honestly I think the British 9.2-inch gun is strong enough that ships like Georgios Averof and Minotaur '06 could work as Tier 5 cruisers even with only 4 guns, so long as the secondary batteries got gimmicked out with good range and accuracy and SAP shells. Or better yet if WG was willing to make the 190mm guns also player controlled, so you could just switch to the secondaries during the main gun reload. But that's more effort than they're likely to be willing to put forth for something that would only be applicable for low-tier ships.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As I recall, the Kongos were actually first redesignated as battleships not after their major refits in the 1930s, but after their late 1920s refits. Because in those much smaller refits, deck armor was added but nothing was done with their machinery. This cut their top speed to 25.9 knots, which made them too slow to be battlecruisers. After all, Nagato was capable of 26.5 knots. Having battlecruisers that are slower than your battleships would just be silly. So at that point, they're considered to just be poorly-armored battleships. This also explains why, around 1930 whenJapan was looking to replace the Kongos with treaty-compliant new construction instead of rebuilding them, almost all of Hiraga's "Kongo replacement" designs were for 25 to 26.5 knot battleships and not 30+ knot battlecruisers.
And when the 1930s rebuilds happened, the Kongos were designated as "fast battleships" rather than battlecruisers, because Japan had simply stopped using the latter designation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The caller is completley and utterly worng about everything, and so are you. There was no coup in 2014. Yanukovych was not "neutral", he was an autocrat who sought to become the Lukashenko of Ukraine and fully aligned himself with Russia in pursuit of that goal. Despite the fact that seeking EU membership was overwhelmingly popular in Ukraine and Yanukovych had made a campaign promise to seek EU intergation, he instead refused to sign the assoociation agreement and instead pivoted to Russia.
The elected government of Ukraine never was overthrown. What actually happened was that Yanukovych was was impeached by the elected parliament. No "puppet leader" was ever installed. An acting president took office, as Ukraine's constitution requires, pending an election 3 months later in which a new president was elected.
Russia doesn't get to have "red lines" in other countries. It's quite literally none of their business whether Ukraine joins NATO or not. And the "promise to Gorbachev" you refer to never existed. The notion that a promise was made not to accept Eastern European nations into NATO is a lie that Russia has been telling with increasing frequency for the last 20 years, but repetition of that lie doesn't transform it into truth. The only actual "existential threat to survival here" is that Russian aggression is an existential threat to Ukraine's survival.
As for your disingenuous lament that "the West will use this to justify the existence of NATO in the first place"? Russia's aggression does prove that the continued existence of NATO is justified, and even necessary. Dissolving NATO when the Warsaw Pact dissolved would've been hopelessly naive. NATO is not like the Warsaw Pact. NATO is a willing alliance of democracies. The Warsaw Pact was an "alliance" imposed at gunpoint by a conqueror. And your phony analogy about a completely imaginary "Chinese NATO equivalent being placed in Mexico or Canada" is just nonsense. Nobody was putting missiles in Ukraine pointed at Russia.
It's you who's not just wrong but arrogant about being wrong. Jeffrey Sachs is not a scholar of any kind. He's a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. And Mearsheimer's "analysis" is simply a declaration that might makes right, and thus Europe is supposed to bow down to Russia.
Nobody "sabotaged the Istanbul talks", not Boris Johnson and not anyone else. The talks failed because the "peace deal" Putin offered to Ukraine was that Ukraine would have to agree to almost complete demilitarization, with an army of less than 100,000 and not be allowed to have any tanks or missiles. In other words, he was demanding that Ukraine must render itself completely defenseless in the fact of the next Russian invasion. Given that Russia had just invaded Ukraine three times in the previous eight years it was obvious that Ukraine would never agree to such a "deal".
Declaring that it's impossible for Ukraine to defeat Russia is quite a lot like insisting that it was impossible for North Vietnam to defeat America. An invaded nation doesn't just roll over and die without a fight just because the invader is a larger nation.
BTW, Donbas is not an ethnically Russian area. Ethnic Russians are just under 1/3 of the population in Donbas. And the claim that the people of Donbas wanted to join Russia is completely baseless. Nor were the people of Donbas being bombed by Ukraine. The Russian invaders in Donbas were being bombed by Ukraine. And a deal in which Ukraine agrees to "stay out of NATO", again, is a deal under which Russia gets to invade them again with complete impunity.
Putin is an imperialist warmonger who's made it very clear that he does want to conquer Ukraine. He's given (completely unhinged) speeches in which he openly stated that he considers it an aberration for an independent Ukraine to exist outside of Russia. This isn't about "US benevolence", it's about Russian imperialism. If the US government's motivations for opposing Russian imperialism are not actually benevolent, frankly who cares. Actions matter more than intentions, and it's Russia that's making the imperialist actions here.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Primarily, it was that the light AA consisted entirely of the 25mm Type 96. Which which was too heavy and not fast-firing enough to be a counterpart to guns like the 20mm Oerlikon or Flak 38. Not only was the cyclic rate of fire lower, the 15-round magazine (compared to 40 for the Flak 38 and 60 for the Oerlikon) was way too small and left it with an effective rate of fire similar to the 40mm Bofors (which had much better range and more explosive filler in the shells). While the Bofors used 4-round clips, the fact that loaders could constantly drop more clips in while the gun was firing made up for that. There was no mid-range AA weapon comparable to the 40mm Bofors, 2-pdr pom-pom, 37mm Breda, 37mm 70-K, etc.
For larger AA guns, the 10cm/65 Type 98 (used on the Akizuki-class destroyers and the aircraft carriers Taiho and Shinano) was quite good. The 12.7cm/40 Type 89 on most battleships, carriers, and cruisers was pretty decent. Neither was a truly dual-purpose weapon; they were dedicated AA guns with limited utility against surface targets. And since destroyers (with the exception of the Akizukis) had surface combat as their primary role, most of them had the 12.7 cm/50 3rd Year Type, which had only nominal AA capability.
Meaning that while American destroyers with their 5"/38 main guns and 40mm Bofors were legitimate AA escorts, the vast majority of Japanese destroyers could only protect the capital ships from air attack by offering an alternate target to soak up some of the bombs and torpedoes. And even the Akizukis (the only Japanese DDs with proper AA guns) were limited by having only timed fuses instead of a proximity fuse for their 10cm guns.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You got that reversed, santim2341. Spanish flu wasn't a result of soldiers returning from the war, it was a result of soldiers being sent to war. The very first identified cases happened at Fort Riley, Kansas. It was American soldiers who deployed in 1918 who spread the Spanish flu to Europe, and from there it spread to the rest of the world. The name "Spanish flu" comes because Spain was neutral and thus didn't have wartime censorship in place, and thus was the first nation to allow reporting of the flu pandemic. This gave the popular impression that Spain was where the pandemic had started, when it actually started in America. BTW, the Spanish flu pandemic was also made worse in America by the widespread refusal to wear masks. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As for RFK Jr's bonkers claim that the Spanish flu was created through vaccine research? Nobody was researching a flu vaccine in 1918. In fact, nobody even knew yet that flu was caused by a virus. In 1918, flu was thought to be caused by bacterial infection. It wasn't until 1933 that the influenza virus was discovered. The first flu vaccine wasn't available until 1945. So I'd love to know what kind of vaccine research RFK Jr thinks could've created the Spanish flu.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're actually mistaken about that. The US defense budget in 2024 was 3.37% of GDP. Also, 11 countries is for 2023 spending. In 2024 it was up to 21 NATO members (Poland, Estonia, USA, Latvia, Greece, Lithuania, Finland, Denmark, UK, Romania, North Macedonia, Norway, Bulgaria, Sweden, Germany, Hungary, Czechia, Turkey, France, Albania, and Montenegro), with a 22nd (Slovakia) falling just short at 1.99%.
Poland is IIRC projected to spend above 5% of GDP on defense in 2025, while no one else is expected to even come close to that level.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@monarch3335 Montana would have the clear advantage over Yamato, being being able to put out about 24 shells per minute while Yamato would fire 15 to 18. Yamato's 46cm shells would have more penetration (though at long range this difference would be relatively minor) and do significantly more damage with a penetrating hit (33.85kg bursting charge, compared 18.55kg for the American 16" shell), but by firing significantly more shells Montana would be more likely to score hits in the first place (and that's even before taking into account superior radar-directed fire control). Montana's also slightly faster, which helps to dictate when and where the battle happens.
As for H-41, both Montana and Yamato would have a huge firepower advantage over that ship. 8x 42cm guns is no match for 12x 406mm or 9x 46cm. And in terms of protection, H-41 fares just as badly. Yamato has a 410mm belt and Montana has 409mm, while H-41 only has 300mm. The deck armor comparison is similarly lopsided. 50 to 80mm upper deck and 100 to 120mm main deck (with 120 to 150mm slopes forming a turtleback, but at long range that's actually a disadvantage since it gives a flatter surface for any plunging shells to hit) for H-41. 57mm weather deck, 179 to 187mm main deck, and 16 to 25mm lower deck for Montana. And a 200mm main deck plus 50 to 80mm lower deck for Yamato. The only recourse for H-41 against either Montana or Yamato would be to run away. And hope they don't score any hits that slow her down. Because she wouldn't be escaping very quickly; the finalized H-41 design was expected to have the exact same 28 knot top speed as Montana, which would be a mere 1 knot faster than Yamato. Meaning that there could be a long time during that escape when she's still within range of their guns. Yamato's 46cm guns had a max range of 42km and she's known to have scored a near miss (as in, near enough that the target was damaged by the underwater explosion) at 34.5km. Montana's 16"/50 guns would've had a max range of 38.7km, just like the Iowa-class. Montana's guns could piece H-41's belt from over 32km away, and Yamato could probabl do so from even further away (though I can't find penetration tables for her at ranges longer than 30km). And from that point all the way out to their max ranges, both could easily penetrate H-41's decks. I don't know how close H-41 would've needed to get to have a chance at penetrating Montana or Yamato's thicker belts, since the 42cm gun never actually existed. But H-39 (with the German 40.6cm gun, 12 barrels of which actually were built) would need to get inside of 25km to do so. Which is suicidal range to be fighting either ship at.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
With regard to the idea of keeping Tiger in service, the London Naval Treaty did require another capital ship to be scrapped, so something else would need to be sacrificed no matter what. Sacrificing Renown or Repulse to keep a slightly older and less powerful battlecruiser was for obvious reasons a stupid idea, and the Royal Navy was quite right to not consider it. But I still think it might've worked out better to scrap Revenge instead.
This is of course with the benefit of hindsight, but Revenge was probably the least useful capital ship in the Royal Navy in WW2. Even compared to her sister ships, which were at least in better material condition. Her speed alone would've given Tiger far more utility, even given the logistical issues of having to keep the 13.5" shell in stock. And again the benefit of hindsight, we also know that Britain would within the next 6 years be adopting a 14"/45 gun that was very close in size to the 13.5"/45 and IIRC was even designed to be able to use the old turrets (since there was consideration of Iron Duke, demilitarized as a gunnery training ship, having at least one of her three remaining turrets fitted with the new guns for testing). Meaning that the logistical headache could potentially be a temporary one, depending on whether Tiger would've been able to complete a major refit before WW2 broke out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Germany wasn't subject to the Washington and London Naval Treaties. Those treaties applied only to the British Empire, United States, Japan, France, and Italy. And anybody who was having their ships built by one of those five; one of the stipulations was that ships built for export were still subject to the limits.
So the only rule Germany was actually breaking was lying about the tonnage and claiming they met the 10,000 ton Versailles limit. It was only in 1935 with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement that Germany was subjected to the London limits (and proceeded to still cheat).
In theory, any other nation was still allowed to build cruisers bigger than 10,000 tons, and to use guns of any caliber they felt like on them. In practice, very few other nations had the shipbuilding capacity to make their own warships at all, let alone super-heavy cruisers. As far as I'm aware, the only other nations that built cruisers at all in their own shipyards were the USSR, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Sweden never built any warships larger than around 7,500 tons, but the Netherlands and Spain both each built a pair of10,000 cruisers. In their cases it wasn't a question of whether they could build a super-heavy cruiser, but whether they could afford it.
In the Dutch case, they opted to put their money instead into full-on battlecruisers (Design 1047, which would've been essentially a lighter and faster Scharnhorst with thinner armor), but a German invasion rudely interrupted those plans. Some of earlier concepts considered during the design process had been for 16,000 ton super-heavy cruisers with either 3x2 or 3x3 240mm guns.
Spain designed a 19,000 ton cruiser in 1939 that would've been armed with 3x2 305mm guns (using the coastal battery guns previously salvaged from the battleships España and Jaime I) or 2x3 283mm (of the same type as Scharnhorst, which would've been imported from Germany), but nothing came of it. Likewise with the 17,500 version of the design that was simply a big heavy cruiser with 4x3 203mm. Probably because Spain in the aftermath of the civil war didn't have the money. Franco had big naval ambitions, up to and including buying Littorio-class battleships from Italy (and I vaguely recall that he offered to buy Gneisenau from Germany when Hitler had given up on his surface fleet), but not enough money to actually do it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And with regards to SMS Blücher, her size wouldn't have been an issue in the Treaty era had she survive the war. Existing ships that exceeded size limits were grandfathered in. For example, the US Navy was able to keep the Tennessee-class armored cruisers, which were 1000 tons lighter than Blücher but still almost 50% above the Treaty limit. And they also had 10" guns, far larger than new cruisers were allowed to have. For precisely those reasons, the US Navy gave serious consideration in the mid-1920s to modernizing the three surviving ships of the class, though they decided against it on the basis of cost, difficullty improving on their slow speed, and the fact that modernizing them would give Congress an excuse to stop authorizing new cruisers. Likewise, France and Italy kept a few of their larger armored cruisers around in the Treaty era.
All of this presumes an alternate history where Germany is a signatory of the Washington Naval Treaty, of course. I'm not sure whether Germany would've been allowed to keep her under the Treaty of Versailles. Blücher was after all bigger than the Braunschweig- and Deutschland-class pre-dreadnoughts that Germany was allowed to keep. On the other hand she had smaller guns and thinner armor and she was thoroughly obsolete by that point, so it's possible this would've been allowed in exchange for postwar Germany only getting 4-5 pre-dreadnoughts instead of 6. If that were the case, Versailles certainly would've placed a limit on how soon she could be replaced by a new-construction ship, which could've given Germany an impetus for a significant rebuild. Depending on when such a rebuild happened, they'd have to worry about whether the Inter-Allied Commission would approve the plans. Naturally Germany could (and almost certainly would) make efforts to cheat their way around Versailles restrictions, but having to make sure it wasn't obvious would mean they probably couldn't go to the extent of rearranging the turrets to a more efficient superfiring layout. The post-refit Blücher would need to look like she'd had only minor changes made.
The other potential scenario for a Treaty-era refitted Blücher would be if she was handed over to France or Italy as war reparations. Neither nation had that many cruisers operational at the end of WW1, both kept some of their armored cruisers in service for quite some time (Italy even still had San Giorgio in active service in WW2) and Blücher was a superior design to those cruisers. As such she might've been seen as more worthwhile to rebuild to modern standards than the likes of San Giorgio or Waldeck-Rousseau.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
N3 was chosen because compared to L3 she's 9 meters shorter and nearly 3000 tons lighter, while having the same armament and armor. Even when you don't have any treaty-imposed size limits, if you can reduce weight without any change to combat ability, that's worth doing because the smaller ship will cost less and take less time to build.
As for if an L3 had been built (either there's no treaty, or Britain somehow managed to pull a Dreadnought by laying her down immediately in 1920 and having her already in service by the time the Washington Naval Conference began in November 1921), she'd probably have been refitted along similar lines to Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, and Renown, with new boilers and turbines, a line of QF 4.5" BD Mk II twin turrets down each side of the superstructure, etc. Given that she probably wouldn't need to add large torpedo bulges, what with her postwar design already having better torpedo protection than the QEs, I imagine that L3 might gain some speed in that refit. Probably not quite able to keep pace with the KGVs when they're steaming at full speed, but 27 knots wouldn't be out of the question.
This would definitely be a ship that Bismarck doesn't want to run into.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertjenkins6132 Increasing the size of the House is also something that absolutely needs to be done, though. If you compare it to the other democracies in the world, our legislature is shockingly small relative to our population. The House has been at 435 seats since 1913, when the US population was 97 million. The population as of last year was 327 million. That leaves us with one Representative per 752,000 people. To bring the ratio of House seats to population back to the level that it was in 1913, we'd need nearly 1,500 Representatives.
And that would still be a very small size relative to the total US population. By comparison, for example, Germany has 709 members of its Bundestag to represent a total population of 83 million. And the UK's House of Commons has 650 members to represent 66 million people. For the House of Representatives to have a similar ratio would require around 3,000 seats.
While the electoral college is still an idiotic system, an enlarged House would largely nullify the biggest problem with it, the fact that somebody can easily lose the popular vote but still win the election. Those extra two electoral votes per state for the Senate seats would no longer skew things so much in favor of the small states, if even tiny Wyoming and Vermont would each get 5 House seats.
Currently Wyoming has 3 electoral votes, or one per 192,500 people. With a 3,000 seat House, they'd have 7, or one per 82,500 people. Currently California has 55 electoral votes, or one per 719,200 people. With a 3,000 seat House, they'd have 365 electoral votes, or one per 108,400 people. That's still not actual "one person, one vote" for for a presidential election, but it's a hell of a lot closer than what we have now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not if you build a giant cruiser with part of your capital ship tonnage.
Which is something that France actually considered doing. One of the early design studies that eventually led to the Dunkerque-class was for a 17,500 ton "battleship" with 305mm guns in two forward quad turrets, a top speed of 35 knots, and armored to protect against 203mm guns (it doesn't seem to have been listed exactly how thick this armor would be, but a belt of around 180mm seems likely). They ended up deciding that while this would do quite well in chasing down and destroying Italian heavy cruisers, the armor was insufficient to guarantee stopping the Deutschland-class's 283mm guns. As such, Dunkerque ended up designed at 26,500 tons (still far below the 35,000 limit), with two quad 330mm guns, 29.5 knot top speed, and 225mm belt. (In practice, Dunkerque actually achieved 31 knots.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gaeron1305 I figure that because I can do basic math. No candidate can get a majority of the popular vote by only paying attention to 10-15 states. While it's true that the 10 largest state contain a majority of the US population, electoral college apologists (deliberately) ignore the fact that no candidate is ever going to get all of the votes in those states. Even in deep-blue California and New York, about 40% of the vote went to Trump (the most hated candidate by Democrats ever). Despite him losing that state in a landslide, California still had more Trump voters than any other state. 6 million Californians voted for him, compared to 5.9 million Texans. And again, that's just about the worst outcome a Republican can get in California. Even if you assume that in a nationwide popular vote election, the Democrat would pay a lot more attention to California and thus pick up more votes there...your argument ignores the fact that the highest-population states are very different from each other. There's not going to be a candidate who can pull of landslide, super-majority wins in California and also have great appeal in Texas and Florida. If you look at the top 10-15 states that you think would be all anybody pays attention to in a popular vote election, you'll see that some of them are deep blue states, some are deep red states, and some are purple states. While the top 15 states are nearly 2/3 of the US population, it's not possible for any candidate to have broad enough appeal to get a majority of the vote out of just those states.
The reality is that if the presidential election were decided by popular vote, candidates would spreading their attention to every state, because they'd need to rack up as many votes as possible. Every vote would be equally valuable, whereas under the electoral college most votes can be taken for granted because we already know which way most states will vote. We have 24 states that always vote Republican and 17+DC that always vote Democratic. So the remaining 9 states are the only ones candidates have to pay attention to. The only reason for them to visit any of the other states are to raise money.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@basembenyamin2965 If not for that lucky hit, there's a good chance that Hood and Prince of Wales would've won the battle. Each of them was individually inferior to Bismarck (Hood in terms of armor, though aside from the deck not by as much as most people think, and PoW in terms of armament), but the two of them together should've had the advantage.
Though the best chance of victory would have been if Vice-Admiral Holland hadn't been in such a rush to engage, and instead had continued shadowing Bismarck until more capital ships could arrive from the south. Or even just waited until the cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk could catch up and weather could improve enough for his destroyer screen (Electra, Acates, Antelope, Anthony, Echo, and Icarus) to get involved. Sadly, Holland pulled a Beatty and screwed it all up by rushing into battle and putting his best-armored ship at the back instead of the front.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nathanbrown8680 Goeben is also the most historically significant ship that most people have never heard of. WW1 would've probably been much shorter had she not managed to reach an Ottoman port (since while an alliance already existed on paper between the Ottoman and German empires, the Ottoman government was pretty much split down the middle on whether to actually join the way). Without Ottoman forces freeing up more German troops for the Western Front, Germany's defeat would likely have been rather more decisive, perhaps forestalling the "stab in the back" mythology that helped the Nazis come to power.
Staying out of WW1 also would've extended the life of the Ottoman Empire, and whenever the inevitable collapse came it wouldn't have left the Ottoman territories under British and French occupation. Meaning that the disastrously drawn borders that gave us the modern Middle East wouldn't have happened.
The war also would've ended before the US would've entered, and before the Russian Revolution would've happened. Thus, the US would've had less influence on the world stage going into the 20s, and it's possible that Communism never would have become a major factor in the world. (There's a strong possibility that the February Revolution would still happen, but without the Provisional Government having a war to pledge they'd keep fighting and without Germany sending Lenin back to Russia to cause trouble, the October Revolution
becomes unlikely.)
In short, if Goeben had been sunk in 1914, the world today would be almost unrecognizable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Zee Risek "Like the fact that Bernie won every state that allows for independent voters"? That's just it, he didn't win every state that allows for independent voters. He's only won 4 open primaries. Clinton has won 11. I'm not sure where this meme that Sanders wins all the open primaries came from, but it has no basis in reality. And if you include open caucuses, well there's only been 5 of those (Clinton won 1, Sanders won 4), so that brings his record in states where independents get to vote to 8 wins and 12 losses.
In states where independents don't get to vote, Sanders won 3 closed primaries while Clinton won 11. He also won 7 closed caucuses while Clinton won 1. So that's 10 wins and 12 losses in those states. As you can see, it really has made very little difference to the outcomes whether independents are allowed to vote in the primaries and caucuses. The difference has been between primaries and caucuses themselves. In caucus states, Sanders has 11 wins and only 2 losses. In primary states, he has 7 wins and a whopping 22 losses.
Note: All of those win-loss totals include only the primaries and caucuses in actual states, since territories have tiny delegate totals and don't get to vote in the general election anyway. But for the record that would add 2 closed caucus wins for Clinton (only American Samoa and Northern Marianas have voted yet).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nabeela Khan As a matter of fact the popular vote total does include the caucuses in American Samoa, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Northern Marianas, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Only Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington, Wyoming, and North Dakota do not record popular vote totals for their caucuses.
As far as Clinton supposedly doing "terrible" with independents, why did she win 11 out of 16 open primaries? She also won 5 out 9 semi-closed primaries (Democrats and independents could vote) and the only semi-open primary (Democrats, independents, and minor party members could vote). So in primaries where independents could vote, Clinton won 17 out of 26.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming is seven states, not eight. More importantly, they're small states that have done almost nothing to close the delegate gap. You can't win a nomination without by just winning small states. The only large state win that Sanders has is Michigan, and that's nowhere near enough. New York is a must-win for him, as is Pennsylvania the next week.
In fact, Sanders just about has to win all of the remaining states to catch up with Clinton in pledged delegates, and even that might not be enough. You don't seem to understand how far behind he is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mkmason2002
Which orifice did you pull that list out of? The 10 metropolitan areas with the highest poverty rates are:
10. Mobile, Alabama
9. Corpus Christi, Texas
8. Flint, Michigan
7. Bakersfield, California
6. El Paso, Texas
5. Visalia-Porterville, California
4, Tallahassee, Florida
3. Fresno, California
2. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas
1. Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mark 11 and 12 were used on surface ships.
The Mark 13 was the air-dropped torpedo used in WW2.
The Mark 15 was the surface ship version of the Mark 14. Since they were generally bigger than submarines and mounted their torpedo tubes externally on the deck, destroyers could carry somewhat larger torpedoes. The Mark 15 had the same 21 inch diameter, but was 3.5 feet longer and 800 pounds heavier than the Mark 14. While the Mark 14's range and speed settings were 4,500 yards at 46 knots and 9,000 yards at 31 knots, the Mark 15 had settings of 6,000 yards at 45 knots, 10,000 yards at 33.5 knots, and 15,000 yards at 26.5 knots.
And yes, the Mark 15 had all of the same problems as the Mark 14. But destroyer crews were much slower to realize the problems, because surface engagements tended to be a lot more chaotic, and ambushing Japanese ships was less common than it was for the submarines. There was rarely any chance to observe the paths of each individual torpedo fired. Plus the longer range of destroyer torpedoes meant that it was harder to see whether a torpedo was a dud or if it simply missed. A large majority of torpedoes fired by surface ships missed, whereas submarines (since they were firing from ambush positions underwater) had much higher hit rates. This was true for every navy, not just the US Navy. So it was a matter of once the problems were solved in the Mark 14, the same fixes could then be applied to the Mark 15 since it used the same detonators.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toddwebb7521 Britain got to hold onto both Tiger and all of the Iron Dukes during the Washington Naval Treaty era. It was under the London Naval Treaty that all 5 of those ships had to be disposed of.
Had they sacrificed Hood in order to get a 3rd Nelson, it's possible that Britain would've chosen to keep Tiger and instead scrap HMS Revenge in 1931, since with the big scare over the Deustchland-class cruisers it probably would've been seen as necessary to have 1 battlecruiser for each of Germany's panzerschiff. Though this would produce the logistical issue of keeping the 13.5-inch gun in service for only a single ship, so who knows.
Another possibility is that if Britain agreed to dispose of Hood in order to get 3 new post-Treaty ships instead of 2, they might have opted to build at least 1 of the F3 battlecruiser (35k tons, 3x3 15-inch/50 guns in a similar layout to the O3 design that would become Nelson, 12 to 13 inches of belt armor and 3.5 to 7 inches of deck armor, top speed of 29 knots), since that would result in a design with capability similar or better than Hood on a smaller hull. IMO their best choice would actually be to build 3 of the F3 battlecruisers. They'd be an overall much more useful design than the Nelsons because of their speed, and the firepower would be nearly equivalent given that it would use the same shells as the existing 15-inch/42 guns on the Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, and Renown classes (also thus simplifying logistics) and not the flawed design of the BL 16-inch Mk I which had shells too light to take proper advantage of the larger caliber.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karthiks209 Trump just committed the worst crime any President could ever commit. He staged an insurrection in an attempt to stay in office beyond his term.
Also, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment already should be enough to prohibit Trump from running again in 2024. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
" Trump as President swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and on January 6 he "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same". Thus, unless there's a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate to restore his right to do so, he should already be disqualified from holding any government office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem, Cenk, is that you're LYING about what Holder actually said. The reality is that Ayn Rand Paul was just peddling tinfoil hat, "black helicopters" conspiracy nonsense.
BTW, there IS, in fact, a circumstance in which a US citizen can, per the Constitution, be killed on US soil without trial. It's the Article 1, Section 8 power to "suppress insurrections".
You're also lying with your claim that Obama is doing warrantless wiretapping. He's just doing regular wiretapping, with a warrant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnfisher9692 The problem is that would've resulted in another 1-2 years of work. France was presuming that obsolete battleships would still be better than no battleships at all.
In practice, this was a poor decision, as the Courbet-class dreadnoughts couldn't be laid down until after the Danton-class were launched, resulting in an even greater delay.
France also foolishly refused the suggestion to alter the Dantons during construction by replacing the twin 240m guns with single 305m turrets. This would've resulted in a subpar dreadnought, but still a dreadnought. There was an insistence that the Dantons must displace no more than 18,000 tons, and this would've put them over that limit. In practice, they weighed in at almost 19,000 tons anyway at normal displacement. There had also been proposals to use steam turbines in the Dantons, but France didn't yet have any factories capable of making them and importing the turbines from Britain was deemed too expensive.
Probably their best option would've been to cancel at least half of the Dantons, building only 2-3 of them in order to get a couple of BBs quickly while also leaving multiple slipways available to lay down the first dreadnoughts as soon as their designs were finalized.
1
-
@stevevalley7835 My thinking, though, is that Britain historically had a single non-compliant ship that they got to grandfather in (Hood), while in this scenario they get at least 3 such monsters (2 Leopards and Hood). And there's a significant chance that if the Leopards and a 10-gun slow version of the Queen Elizabeths already existed, there would've been a requirement that the Admiral-class design be a meaningful step above what Leopard already achieved. As such, we're likely talking about a 10-gun Hood displacing close to 50,000 tons standard. Or perhaps a 9-gun Hood with triple turrets. Which sadly would result in a less attractive ship, but a pretty monstrously powerful one by 1922 standards.
If Britain has 3 Treaty-busters that they get to grandfather in, even if "only" mounting 15" rather than 16" guns, I doubt the US and Japan would be anywhere near as favorably inclined toward letting Britain also get that exemption to the 10-year holiday for the Nelson-class. For the Nelsons to still exist in some form, Japan would probably demand to get some additional concession beyond just getting to keep Mutsu, and America in turn would want more than just keeping Colorado and West Virginia. At a minimum, I figure America would also get to keep Washington and Japan would get to build a single 35,000 ton BB in the 20s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liladoodle If Langley had never existed, most likely Lexington would have been CV-1. The reason USS Washington was cancelled was the Washington Naval Treaty, which allowed for only two capital ships per navy to be converted into 33,000 ton aircraft carriers. Any further conversions would have to comply with the normal 27,000 ton tonnage limit as purpose-built CVs. That substantially greater size allowance was what make Lexington and Saratoga worthwhile, despite the technical challenges involved in the conversion.
Not only would Washington not get that advantage, out of all the US capital ships that were cancelled to comply with the treaty, she was by a wide margin the least suitable for conversion. Look at Japan's experience with Kaga, which proved to be a significantly worse carrier than Akagi due to her shorter hull resulting in both a shorter flight deck and a lower top speed. Kaga was only chosen for conversion by necessity, after Amagi's keel was broken on the slipway by the Great Kanto Earthquake. Now consider that Kaga's hull before the conversion was already 144 feet longer than Washington's. They best you'd be able to get out of a conversion of Washington would be something similar to HMS Eagle. Frankly, even a bad carrier like USS Ranger is better than that, because at least Ranger was decently fast and 145 feet longer than a Colorado-class hull.
The other thing to remember about the treaty limits is that they didn't just limit the individual tonnage of warships, but also the collective tonnage of the entire fleet. The US Navy was allowed a total of 135,000 tons of aircraft carriers. Which means you really want to avoid inefficient designs that waste tonnage if you can help it. And thanks converting Washington into a 27,000 ton carrier would result in a far less efficient than any conceivable purpose-built carrier of the same tonnage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason why I can't see any Anglo-American War happening is the lack of any actual points of contention between the US and UK in the 1920s. Combined with the fact that the British population had no appetite for further war less than a decade after WW1. Plus, the UK had already decided to shift from alliance with Japan to alliance with the US even before WW1 ended. This was why, for example, they literally provided the complete blueprints of HMS Hood (at the time the most powerful and advanced warship in the world) to the US Navy and recommended that they should build similar ships.
Regarding torpedoes on cruisers, given how bad the American torpedoes actually were in the late 1930s, the USN didn't really lose much by ditching them from cruiser designs. While the Japanese "long lance" torpedoes, those were a double-edged sword since they had a tendency to explode catastrophically if hit while still in their tubes. That's how Choukai was lost, for example. At the hands of an escort carrier's 5"/38 AA gun, which is a pretty embarrassing way for a heavy cruiser to be disabled.
Also, you left out USS Wichita from pre-war cruisers. She would have better armor than both Takao and the Towns, and also better guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Karl Dubhe Prinz Eugen was a bit over 2,000 tons heavier than Graf Spee, and they had similar armor. Eugen also had a 32 knot top speed, same as Exeter. Meaning that unlike with Graf Spee, the British cruisers would get to dictate the engagement. The German 20.3cm gun was also longer-ranged than the British 8" (as well it should be, given that it's a longer-barreled gun designed a decade later), and quite a lot longer ranged than the British 6". Now whether Eugen would actually be able to hit anything while firing from outside the British' ships range is questionable. You don't normally score hits from beyond Exeter's 28km max range, let alone at Eugen's 33.5km max range. But just shooting from that range would encourage the British cruisers to maneuver rather than chasing in a straight line, further allowing Eugen to flee with impunity. Her mission is commerce raiding, not duking it out with warships, so running away is clearly the choice Captain Langsdorff (presuming it's still him in command when we swap out Graf Spee for Prinz Eugen) would make.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuckm1961 The original Zionists were completely upfront about the fact that they were colonizers. And why wouldn't they be? It wasn't until the 1950s that anybody in Europe thought of colonialism as a bad thing. In the 19th and early 20th century, colonialism was openly celebrated as being the height of civilization.
Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism and revered in Israel as "the spiritual father of the Jewish State", openly and proudly declared in the 19th century that Jews would colonize Palestine, and that they would do so directly following the British Empire's model of colonizing the Americas and Africa. To support this endeavor, the Zionist movement would establish such companies as the "Jewish Colonisation Association" (1891), "Jewish Colonial Trust" (1899), and "Palestine Jewish Colonization Association" (1924).
Herzl and his World Zionist Organization insisted on using the colonial model because if European Jews asked for permission to immigrate to Palestine, the existing population could say no. By colonizing Palestine, they would take away the existing population's ability to reject their takeover of the land. This was not a secret, it was their openly-declared intention.
It's only now in the 21st century, when the vast majority of the world considers "colonialism" a dirty word, that supporters of Israel started denying that their country was founded by colonization. Israel isn't unique in that regard. Many nations were founded by colonization. Every single nation in the Americas originated out of colonialism, for example. The difference, of course, is that Israeli colonialism is still ongoing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A refit replacing the 6" twin turrets with 5.25" dual-purpose mounts (or 4.5" BD as on Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, and Renown for that matter) would've been fairly unlikely, just like how it was for the real-life Nelsons. Because as the newest capital ships, they'd be near the back of the line for getting a major refit.
That said, even with fairly minimum refits pre-WW2, the F3s would've been extremely useful ships, on account of being easily fast enough to keep pace with the KGVs. Plus, it would've been a great help to logistics, since the 15"/50 would've used the same shells as the existing 15"/42. And given the highly questionable lightweight shells that were chosen for the IRL Nelsons' 16"/45, the reduction in firepower by using the 15"/50 instead is isn't nearly as bad as you'd expect from an inch smaller caliber. The British 16" shell is only 110 lb heavier with 2.7 lb larger bursting charge compared to the new 15" shell that the Royal Navy adopted in the interwar period.
The other potential impact of the Nelsons being built to the F3 design is that with another pair of impressively well-armed fast capital ships to send around the world, Hood's workload should probably have been reduced during the interwar period. Meaning she both would've have gotten as worn down and would've probably gotten an additional refit at some point pre-WW2.
Oh, and also the potential impact on the King George V class. If 15" was already the only caliber used by the Royal Navy's capital ships, I wonder if there would've been significantly harder push to adopt one of the designs with 15" rather than 14" guns. If that did end up happening, that removes the considerable teething problems that the KGVs' quad turrets had. Which might have led to much better performance by Prince of Wales at Denmark Strait, since the new 15" guns and triple turrets would simply need to be refinements of the by then well-proven weapons of the F3s. And if Hood were also replaced in that battle by an F3, with its superior firepower and protection? Bismarck would've probably fared very poorly, having no viable option other than using her 2 knot speed advantage over PoW in an attempt to flee.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@5peciesunkn0wn Agincourt's turrets could've easily been designated A, B, P, Q, X, Y, Z or A, B, P, Q, R, X, Y (depending on what you wanted to call the #5 turret, since it's well to the aft but can't fire to the aft). Presumably the British simply decided that even though this would conform with their normal turret naming scheme, that was just a stupid amount of letters and went with numbers instead.
Though I wonder if perhaps they'd already been designated by number during construction back when Brazil first approved the design, and the British just decided to stick with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did Britain actually have enough large slipways available (ie not already building something else) to build the 3 Canadian QEs at the same time as the 5 historical QEs? It seems as if to get them laid down as soon as possible, we'd see HMCS Acadia, Quebec, and Ontario occupying the slipways that were historically used for the first 3 Revenges. Meaning that they get delayed in their laying down until some time in 1915.
With such a delay I wonder whether those 3 ships would be built at all. By the time slipways would be available again, Jackie Fisher is back in place as First Sea Lord. Isn't it fairly likely that he would've decided that since haven't actually been laid down yet, they should be reordered as battlecruisers in the same way that the final pair of Rs were? In which case the only R-class battleships will be Royal Sovereign and Royal Oak, and there'd be as many as 5 15" armed battlecruisers (Revenge, Ramillies, Resolution, Renown, and Repulse).
Though possibly only 4 such battlecruisers would be built. After all, HMS Resistance was simply cancelled rather than being reordered as a battlecruiser like Renown and Repulse. A battlecruiser is after all generally more expensive than a battleship. So 3 fewer Revenges leading to 2 more Renowns seems somewhat plausible. If that's how it turns out, the Treaty impacts are fairly obvious. When the London Naval Treaty comes around, Britain (plus Canada) has 1 fewer capital ship than they did historically but overall better ones. The ships disposed of would obviously be Tiger as the only 13.5" ship left in the fleet, and Royal Sovereign and Royal Oak as the least useful of the remaining battleships.
On the other hand if all 3 of the delayed Rs get reordered as battlecruisers (meaning 5 Revenge-class battlecruisers), the same number of ships need to be disposed of for London as were done historically. Leaving Britain with a hard choice. The final ship disposed of would have to be either an R-class battlecruiser or one of the QEs. All of these are very useful ships, so it'd very tough to choose which one has to go.
Back to the Canadian QEs, another interesting prospect with them is that since they would've presumably been homeported in Canada, it's possible one or more of them sailed to New York to be refitted by an American shipyard (either before the war, or during it in the same way that Richelieu was after defecting to the Free French). Imagine a QE getting the sort of refit that Nevada, California, Tennessee, and West Virginia did, with a South Dakota style superstructure and 8 twin 5"/38s for the new secondary armament.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest reason we don't have battleships anymore is that they're so manpower-intensive. One Iowa-class battleship required about 1800 men to operate. That's equivalent to the crew of six Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Each of those destroyers packs 96 missiles in their VLS tubes, compared to 32 Tomahawks that an Iowa could carry after their refit. And given modern radar, aircraft, and missiles, it's not likely that warships will come within gun range of each other.
Granted, that's with the WW2-built battleships. There's only so far you can go in refitting an old ship, . A new-built battleship could be much more automated. But the thing is, a 50,000 ton battleship is going to have a much higher per-unit cost than a 10,000 ton destroyer. And those destroyers already cost around $2 billion apiece. Even if the total amount spent would be the same (due to cancelling a few DDGs to built the BBs), that kind of per-unit cost is probably going to be rejected by Congress.
And there's also the factor of a larger ship being a bigger target and being harder to replace if it's sunk. If a Burke-class DDG gets sunk, that's a significant amount of firepower that's lost, but it's only one of 68 ships of the class so far, with more being built every year. If battleships were built, there'd be only a handful of them and any that gets lost would take many years to build a replacement for. Granted, a battleship would be individually harder to sink than a destroyer, but there's no such thing as an unsinkable ship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qwert1168 Have you noticed the GDP lately? The actual GDP, not the fake figures that Trump tweeted out yesterday. Annual GDP growth hasn't surpassed 3% under Trump. The growth for 2018 was 2.9%, same as Obama achieved in 2015. And in 2017, it was 2.2%.
As for GDP having "surpassed 3.5 and even hit 4%"? That was quarterly GDP growth, and has only happened once under Trump (4.2% in 2nd quarter 2018), not "continuously". There's only one other quarter in which Trump has seen above 3% GDP growth (3.4% in Q3 2018). Under Obama, the best quarterly GDP figures were 4.5% in Q4 2009, 4.7% in Q4 2011, 5.1% in Q2 2014, and 4.9% in Q3 2014. Obama had above 3% quarterly GDP growth a total 11 times.
But I suppose you want to compare apples to oranges, because that's the only way you can make GDP growth look better under Trump than it was under Obama. You're also lying when you claim that Obama said we'd "NEVER" have 3% GDP growth.
And as for your absurd question of why Democrats are running on global warming? It's because it'll be catastrophe in 12 years if we continue to do nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bkjeong4302 While the rate of fire would be far faster than an Iowa, the weight of explosives being delivered would be 1,923 lbs per minute for Des Moines compared to 2,765 lbs for Iowa. Bigger, heavier shells contain bigger, heavier bursting charges. An Iowa also had the ability to fire much further inland, 41,622 yards vs 29,800 yards.
That said, there would be times where a larger number of smaller shells would be more useful. It allows for spreading the fire over a larger area, or attacking multiple separate targets at once if needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With regard to 29,000-ish ton battleships...did any of those British design studies consider making what amounts to a larger Dunkerque with a pair of 14" quad turrets? That seems like by far the best option to create a useful battleship on such limited tonnage.
The up-armored Strasbourg was a 30 knot battleship with 11" belt armor and 8x 13" guns on 28,000 tons. The British 14" quad turret is only about 110 tons heavier than the the French 13" quad. While getting a 14-15" belt like the actual KGVs probably isn't happening on 29,000 tons, the fact that Britain considered 28 knots an acceptable speed (thus not needing quite as much length or as much machinery space as the Dunkerques) suggests to me that 12-13" belt would've been doable in the 29,000 ton range. A small battleship with 8x 14" guns, 12-13" belt, and 28 knots seems like it still would've been enough to be useful. You've only got 2 fewer guns than the real-life KGVs, and 2" thinner armor. Such a ship doesn't seem like it would've been insane to send alongside Hood to fight Bismarck. She'd have better armor than Hood, after all. And fitting sufficient secondary battery on the smaller hull could be handled by the expedient of using the lighter 4.5" turrets...which were better AA guns anyway. The biggest downsides to a ship like this are more limited space to put light AA mounts, and the problems with the British 14" quad turret. The latter of which applied equally to the 35,000 ton KGVs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The ships would've been divvied up among the allies as part of the war reparations, just like what was done with the ships that either were prevented from scuttling (like SMS Baden) or simply weren't among the ships interned at Scapa Flow.
Britain wanted the entire High Seas Fleet scrapped. They had no interest in incorporating ships with non-standard equipment and insufficient range for Pacific operations into their fleet, and they weren't keen on the diluting their naval dominance in Europe by letting France and Italy instantly add a bunch of modern battleships into their fleets. But that's exactly what France and Italy were keen on doing. As such, it's unlikely that Britain would've been able to secure an agreement from the rest of the Allies that the ships should be scrapped, and there would've been quite a lot of squabbling over who gets what ships.
In particular, everybody would want to get the two Bayern-class battleships, since those are the most modern and powerful ships in the German fleet. In all respects except speed, they were at least as good as the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, and they were plainly superior to the Revenge-class. With ships like HMS Hood, the Colorado-class, and the Nagato-class not yet in service, they could be argued to be the most powerful ships in the world in 1918. In reality, only Baden survived, and the UK claimed her, using her as a gunnery test target after studying her systems. Beyond that the only surviving German capital ships were the Nassau-class and Helgoland-class battleships, all obsolete first-generation dreadnoughts whose only value was as scrap metal. But if the whole German fleet was available to be distributed, there'd be a lot more difficulty in reaching agreement on what constitutes a "fair" distribution of the ships.
It seems like there's a good chance that France would be able to get one of the Bayern-class. They'd be able to make some very strong arguments that the should get priority ahead of the US. France had been in the war from the very start and suffered the most casualties of all the western Allies, and three of their own battleships had been sunk by the Imperial German Navy (albeit those were pre-dreadnoughts). As such, France could say it's only fair that they get their losses replaced by German ships.
France receiving SMS Bayern would heavily tilt the balance of power in the Mediterranean, and as such Italy would desperately want to receive either SMS Baden. But Britain would obviously have first dibs, so Italy might instead of tried to get their about 3/4 complete sister ship SMS Sachsen. In reality, all of the incomplete capital ships in German shipyards were scrapped after WW1. But if "equal" distribution of the ships to the Allies had become a more pressing concern, that might not have been the case. And Saschen was probably far enough along that she could've been sailed to Italy and completed there.
And then the same arguments would've happened regarding the two surviving Derfflinger-class battlecruisers, the next strongest of the completed German warships. Again, France and Italy would be the main ones competing for the ships. The UK, US, and Japan probably wouldn't care all that much about which particular ships they get, because they'd just be turning around and selling them for scrap or sinking them as targets. Though another interesting factor is that there'd be enough battleships (19 of them, 20 if Sachsen is counted) being passed around that Serbia might be able to claim one of the older Kaiser-class.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markp.thickou6707 Yes, Afghanistan did attack the US. What do you think 9/11 was? And the US never attacked Korea, the US defended Korea from an invasion. And likewise, the US defended Bosnia from a Serbian invasion ("Yugoslavia" had already ceased to exist).
And tell me, when did Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Iran, Yugoslavia, Korea, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, China, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Ukraine attack Russia? Those are all nations that they've invaded in the last 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
00:53:30 The WNT treated the entire British Empire as a single nation, though. Hence HMAS Australia having to be disposed of to meet the treaty limits on capital ship tonnage. Anything built for the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Australian Navy, etc fell under Britain's tonnage limits.
That question seems to have been more about the treaty restricting Britain's building of warships for customers outside the empire. Like the battleships built for Brazil, Chile, Japan before they established the industry to build their own, the Ottoman Empire, etc. Which of course would've been a loophole in its own right that neither the US nor Japan was going to allow (since neither of them had anywhere near as much of an industry in building warships for export). Everybody remembered how when WW1 broke out, the Chilean and Ottoman battleships were promptly taken into the Royal Navy.
So if the treaty limits hadn't included ships for export, that would've allowed Britain the possibility of building G3 battlecruisers, N3 battleships, or other blatantly treaty-busting warships for sale to friendly nations like Greece, Chile, etc (with British banks giving loans since those nations blatantly couldn't actually afford to pay upfront for such large ships)...and then at the last minute abrogating the treaty and "buying them back" from the ostensible customers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If we didn't have such a weak, cowardly Attorney General, a bunch of the Republican members of Congress would be indicted for their roles in January 6.
Granted, their deep-red gerrymandered districts would be able to elect some other right-wingers to fill the seats as soon as special elections could be held. But only if the insurrectionists are willing to actually vacate their seats by resigning. Being arrested does not, after all, automatically result in being kicked out of Congress. Most likely many of them would refuse to resign. Meaning that it would be up to the House to expel them, and who knows if they'd have the votes to do that. In which case the seats would still be held, but since the insurrectionists would be in jail awaiting trial and proxy voting has been abolished, they'd be unable to participate in Congress. Which would mean Democrats would have a majority of the members actually present on the House floor. Hakeem Jeffries could become Speaker, and Democrats could start passing stuff to actually benefit the American people.
And since there would be some Senators also getting arrested for their roles in January 6, Democrats would at least temporarily be able to get stuff done without needing the approval of Manchin or Sinema. If they had the balls, they could quickly hold votes to abolish the filibuster and then reinstate the Voting Rights Act, grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC, ban gerrymandering, add seats to the Supreme Court, etc. (Also, there's the reform that nobody seems to talk about but which would do a lot to make our government more democratic: significantly expand the size of the House. It's been locked at 435 members for over a century, during which time the US population has more than tripled. If the House had grown in size in proportion to that increased population, it would make gerrymandering far more difficult since there'd be physically less room for each district. And even more importantly, it would make it nearly impossible for anybody to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, because the disproportionate power that tiny rural states have in the electoral college would be diluted.)
Unfortunately, this is all a fantasy because Merrick Garland demonstrably does not have the balls to actually do his job and prosecute the insurrection caucus. If he did, all of this could've happened 1-2 years ago, and without the ability to gerrymander (plus DC getting a House seat and PR getting 4), it's unlikely that Republicans would've been able to gain a House majority in the midterms at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I mean in theory, that could certainly be done. It's all a matter of how much time, effort, and money you're willing to put into an old ship. Arkansas was similar in age, size, and armament to the Italian Conte di Cavour and Caio Duilio classes, and only 1 knot slower than them. And in the 1930s, the Italians rebuild those ships to be capable of 27 knots, and upgraded their guns from 305mm to 320mm.
But for the US, such a rebuild would never have been worthwhile. The Cavour and Duilio classes were the only battleships Italy had from 1928 until 1940, so doing a massive refit to increase their capabilities as a stopgap until the Littorio-class battleships could be built made some sense. Whereas in the 1930s US Navy, Arkansas was the oldest and least capable out of 15 operational battleships, so it would've been seen as a waste to do any major refit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cristinabutasimon9159 No, I did not "forget" any of that. It's simply not true.
There were not 14,000 Russians killed in Donbas. That was the total death toll on both sides of the conflict from 2014-2022. You're literally counting the Ukrainian soldiers who died fighting Russian invaders as "Russians killed by Ukraine". Along with claiming that everyone killed in Donbas were Russians, even though only 1/3 of the population there is ethnically Russian.
What you described as a "constant advance eastward" was a matter of nations that had previously been enslaved by Russia begging for membership in NATO, so that they would be protected against future Russian aggression. And contrary to Putin's frequent claims, NATO had never in any way promised not to admit new members from Eastern Europe.
NATO "invited Ukraine" in the sense that all European nations are invited to apply for membership in NATO. Once such an application is made, a new member can only join by unanimous consent of the current members. It turns out that Ukraine's government in 2008 was foolish to not submit an application, because if Ukraine had already been a NATO member, it would've been impossible for Russia to invade them in 2014.
Nobody was ever even contemplating putting missiles in Ukraine to aim at Russia. The Cuban Missile Crisis comparisons are completely nonsensical. Also, you might have forgotten this, but the US didn't invade Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Cuba remained a Soviet ally afterward. And Cuba's Cienfuegos naval base even continued to host nuclear-armed Soviet Navy warships afterward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@winterszhuzhupets2 That's the exact opposite of reality. Swine flu had a vastly lower death rate than COVID-19.
The CDC estimates that America had 60.8 million infections from H1N1 swine flu in 2009, and 12,469 deaths. That's a 0.02% mortality rate, which is not only vastly lower than COVID, it's lower than the regular seasonal flu (which has a mortality rate of around 0.1%). Those are the estimated numbers, which could quite possibly have been a significant overestimate. The confirmed numbers for swine flu are 115,318 Americans infected and 3,433 killed. That gives a similarly low mortality rate of 0.03%.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html
The CDC has for some reason not issued any similar estimates for how many cases and deaths we've had from COVID. (By which I mean, the Trump administration most likely prohibited them from doing so, in order to keep the "numbers" lower.) Unlike with swine flu, we only have the numbers of directly verified cases and deaths (meaning the number of people who actually tested positive, and the number who died after testing positive). As of last night the US has had 3,695,025 cases and 141,118 deaths from COVID. That's a 3.82% mortality rate, which is very comparable to the Spanish flu of 1918.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
tl;dr version: COVID-19 is more than 100 times more lethal than the swine flu of 2009 was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aheroictaxidriver3180 The problem with that idea is that the Constitution absolutely forbids having a different number of Senators per state. That's the one type of amendment that's absolutely forbidden. If we were to have the Senate be population-based, we'd have to scrap the entire Constitution in favor of a new one. And as polarized as America is today, that's impossible. There would be no way to create a new Constitution that would be widely accepted.
If you wanted to make the electoral college be entirely population-based, you'd have to pass an amendment so that states only get one electoral vote per House member and not any for their Senators. That would mean that Wyoming would have 1 electoral vote and California would get 52, compared to their current 3 and 54. And the total electoral votes would be 436 instead of 538. The problem with that would be that you'd have a hard time convincing all of the smaller states to accept such a reduction in their electoral power, and you need the approval of 38 states for a constitutional amendment to pass.
Another fix would be to get Congress to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and significantly increase the size of the House of Representatives. It's been 435 seats 1913, and over that time, the US population has more than tripled. If instead of 435 House seats we had 1,305 of them, that would greatly diminish the electoral advantage given to the smallest states. It would have the added advantage of making gerrymandering much more difficult. Since House districts are required to have contiguous borders and to be of approximately equal population, the more House districts a state has, the harder gerrymandering becomes. (As an aside, if all 12 of the proposed Bill of Rights amendments had been ratified by the states instead of just 10 of them, the House would have around 6,000 seats now. 1st US Congress had wanted to set it so that each House district would contain about 50,000 people. The average as of the 2020 Census is 761,179 people per district.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chisangamumba2961 No, he didn't "conveniently leave out" that part. Because that part is a blatant lie. There was no coup, and Russia didn't "secure" Crimea, they stole it.
Russians and pro-Russia commentators love to talk about how Khrushchev "gave" Crimea to Ukraine in 1953 (often falsely claiming that Khrushchev was himself Ukrainian, despite the fact that he was born in Kursk). But you guys always forget about how before that, Lenin stole Crimea from Ukraine in 1922, after the Red Army conquered them and forced them to join the Soviet Union. Kuban was also removed from Ukraine and assigned to Russia in 1922, and until the Holodomor there was a significant Ukrainian majority in Kuban (modern-day Rostov Oblast, Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai, and Republic of Adygea).
And regardless of what you think about the wisdom of returning Crimea to Ukraine in 1953, the fact remains that Russia had no valid claim on the territory in 2014. It doesn't matter if they were worried that NATO would gain access to Crimea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With regard to your Greek cruiser idea, there's a clause of the Washington Naval Treaty you're overlooking: "No vessel of war constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers for a non-Contracting Power shall exceed the limitations as to displacement and armament prescribed by the present Treaty for vessels of a similar type which may be constructed by or for any of the Contracting Powers". So British shipyards would not be allowed to build a cruiser hull that exceeds the Treaty limits, not even for export purposes.
There are two possible ways I can see to get around this. The first would be (since Greece certainly had no shipyards capable of building the hull themselves) to contract the hull out to a non-Treaty nation. The only other options I can think of that were physically capable of building a cruiser hull would be Spain, the Netherlands, and the Soviet Union. And Germany, but I don't think Versailles would allow it and you have good reason for not wanting a Germany in a position to screw up your design.
The other option would be to stick with having the hull built in Britain (you obviously want that high-quality British armor), but make the ship technically a small Treaty-compliant battlecruiser. France had a 1926 study that contemplated using their allocated capital ship tonnage in this manner, known as the "Navire de Ligne de 17500-tonnes", which would've had a top speed of 35 knots and been armed with 2x4 305mm/55 guns. This design evolved in to the significantly larger (but still small by Treaty standards) Dunkerque-class.
So change your cruiser's armament from 4x3 8-inch to 4x2 12-inch (already a caliber in Greek service, on the fairly useless pre-dreadnoughts Kilkis and Lemnos; perhaps even those ships' turrets could be scavenged to arm the new ship, and scrapping them would free up some money), and increase its displacement a bit. It's well over 10,000 tons and carries 12-inch guns, so it's obviously a capital ship and not a cruiser. Thus Britain isn't violating the treaties by building the hull.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kbanghart But for some people, it's pretty easy to tell that they're lying.
And that's the case with Tulsi Gabbard. She went from being the "Democrat" who went on Fox to complain that Obama was "soft on terrorism" (because he "wouldn't say 'radical Islamic terrorism'"), demanding more drone strikes, praising Russia for leveling whole cities in Syria in the name of fighting ISIS, calling for a Muslim ban even before Donald Trump did, and introducing a bill in Congress for the specific personal benefit of Republican medagdonor Sheldon Adelson, to reinventing herself as an anti-war "true progressive". She was an obvious phony, but lots of people didn't want to see it.
Tulsi realized that her conservatism was increasingly out of step with her Oahu district and at the time was looking to continue her career in Congress. And she opportunistically latched onto progressive frustration in the 2016 primary by "resigning in protest" from the DNC and endorsing Bernie Sanders. She figured that most voters in her district wouldn't be politically engaged enough to see past her endorsement of Bernie (particularly since so many of Bernie's supporters had never paid attention to politics before 2016 and wouldn't be familiar with her actual record), and that this would inoculate her against the (truthful) accusations that she was a Republican in Democrat's clothing.
This worked temporarily, but people started to notice that Tulsi's actual voting record still didn't match up with her newly-progressive rhetoric. Especially since she never stopped shilling for right-wing dictators around the world. By 2020, it was clear that the jig was up, which is why she didn't bother running for reelection, and instead ran an blatantly grift-y vanity presidential campaign. This was really a not very thinly-veiled audition to Fox; a lot of us were predicting at the time that she was positioning herself to be a "former Democrat" Fox contributor. Since then, she's taken the mask all the way off, fully supporting every insane MAGA-cult conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With regard to preserving one of the Standard-type battleships, my first inclination would actually be USS Nevada, the original Standard. She was similarly refitted to West Virginia as well.
But realistically, the best chance of getting a Standard preserved would've been choosing a ship named for a coastal state. You'd have a much easier time fundraising for preservation of a ship from people in the state it's named for and if it can actually be brought to that state for permanent mooring. Which is a bit of a problem since most of the Standards were named after inland states. This criteria would narrow it down to just Mississippi (New Mexico-class), California (Tennessee-class), and Maryland (Colorado-class).
Mississippi can be counted out right away because her conversion to a gunnery/missile test ship made her too ugly for a museum ship. California would've probably been the best candidate on account of her namesake being a huge and wealthy state. However, both California and Maryland would have the huge downside of being on the wrong coast when they were decommissioned, greatly increasing the expense of bringing them to their states. California was put in reserve at Philadelphia, while Maryland was in Bremerton, WA. Mississippi was in the most convenient location to tow her to her namesake state (being based in Norfolk), but again she looked like this: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014103.jpg
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaptRR With regard to veto power in the UN Security Council, the solution to Russia's veto is to simply hold that Russia is not actually a UN member state at all. That their claim to be the successor state of the Soviet Union was fraudulent, and that the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the UN Security Council was permanently vacated when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.
There would be ample precedent for such a ruling, in the form of Yugoslavia and Serbia. Serbia tried to claim they were the successor state of Yugoslavia. And really, they had a much stronger case for that status than Russia does for being the successor state of the Soviet Union. For one thing, Russia formally seceded from the USSR, while Serbia never seceded from Yugoslavia. How can Russia be the successor state of a nation they seceded from? In Serbia's case, the entire UN, including Russia, rejected their claim to be the successor of Yugoslavia. (Russia is, after all, nothing if not hypocritical.) Thus, from 1992 until 2000, Serbia was a non-member of the United Nations. It was only after they officially renounced their claim to be the successor state of Yugoslavia and submitted a membership application that they were admitted into the UN.
While this was a matter of simple membership in the UN rather than a permanent seat on the Security Council, that doesn't really matter since quite obviously a non-member state cannot be on the Security Council. If Russia's membership in the UN is ruled to be fraudulent, that means they were never actually a Security Council member at all and their veto power never actually existed.
And as for whether Russia could simply veto this and keep their fraudulent Security Council seat? No. We have another clear precedent in UN history for that, in the case of China and Taiwan.
The Republic of China in 1945 was one of the founding members of the UN and one of the original 5 permanent members of the Security Council. After they lost the Chinese Civil War in 1949, Chiang Kai-shek's government in Taiwan continued to hold their UN Security Council seat despite only controlling Taiwan and a few other small islands. The People's Republic of China claimed to be the successor state of the Republic of China, while Taiwan insisted that the Republic of China still existed even if what they considered "rebels" were in control of the majority of its territory. In 1971, a majority vote of the UN General Assembly held that the Republic of China had ceased to exist in 1949 and the People's Republic of China was its legitimate successor state.
Thus, the ROC was stripped of its Security Council seat and veto power, and there was nothing they could do about it. There is no veto in the General Assembly, only in the Security Council. And UN membership decisions are made by the General Assembly, not the Security Council.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iancarr8682 They were not.
The original KGV designs had either 3x4 14" or 3x3 15" guns. The former layout was adopted for largely political reasons. Parliament pushed hard for it because of the 2nd London Naval Treaty, and revising the caliber upward after the escalator clause kicked in would've resulted in delaying the ships' construction (as happened with the US North Carolina class, which were also originally to have 3x4 14"). The argument was also made that 3x4 14" provides a heavier broadside than 3x3 15", regardless of whether the individual shells are less powerful.
The reason for the final revision from 3x4 to 2x4 + 1x2 14" was that KGV was estimated to be IIRC over a thousand tons above the 35,000 ton limit. The Royal Navy was by far the most scrupulous in obeying treaty limits, so they had to drop some weight. Either by reducing the armor or reducing the armament. Since KGV would have the smallest guns of any modern BB regardless, it was considered essential that the armor not be sacrificed. The armor would be needed to allow safely pushing in to closer range where the reduced penetration of the main guns would become irrelevant. And since weight savings was the entire point of replacing one of the quad turrets with a twin, reducing the diameter of the barbette had to happen. That provides a significant weight reduction, probably more reduction than removing two of the barrels did.
Thus, reverting to 3x4 14" was not a plausible option after the ships were built, even with the expiration of the treaties meaning that weight limits no longer applied.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:45:20 I'm pretty sure you're mistaken here. There is no strictly date-based cutoff that lets the US keep Colorado while Japan has to scrap Mutsu. Mutsu was completed well ahead of Colorado.
In fact, it was kind of complete bullshit that Mutsu was ever on the chopping block at all. The Washington Naval Conference convened on November 12, 1921. This was when the US proposed that all incomplete capital ships be scrapped. But Mutsu was already complete, being commissioned by the IJN on October 24, 1921. Colorado, on the other hand, wouldn't be completed until August 30, 1923. The US was blatantly negotiating in bad faith by on one hand insisting that the cutoff was based on the date of November 12, but on the other hand including a ship that had to be scrapped despite already being complete before that date.
It's also not really accurate at all to say the Japanese were rushing to complete Mutsu. Mutsu's construction was actually slightly slower than Nagato's, and Nagato certainly wasn't a rush job. And she was completed before the conference had even be called, let alone before the US proposed that all capital ships not already completed be scrapped. So there's really no basis for suggesting they were rushing to beat a deadline that didn't exist yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The original Zionists were completely upfront about the fact that they were colonizers. And why wouldn't they be? It wasn't until the 1950s that anybody in Europe thought of colonialism as a bad thing. In the 19th and early 20th century, colonialism was openly celebrated as being the height of civilization.
Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism and revered in Israel as "the spiritual father of the Jewish State", openly and proudly declared in the 19th century that Jews would colonize Palestine, and that they would do so directly following the British Empire's model of colonizing the Americas and Africa. To support this endeavor, the Zionist movement would establish such companies as the "Jewish Colonisation Association" (1891), "Jewish Colonial Trust" (1899), and "Palestine Jewish Colonization Association" (1924).
Herzl and his World Zionist Organization insisted on using the colonial model because if European Jews asked for permission to immigrate to Palestine, the existing population could say no. By colonizing Palestine, they would take away the existing population's ability to reject their takeover of the land. This was not a secret, it was their openly-declared intention.
It's only now in the 21st century, when the vast majority of the world considers "colonialism" a dirty word, that supporters of Israel started denying that their country was founded by colonization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@F-Man There actually was a successor fast battleship design drawn up, one of the alternate concepts for Montana called "BB-65 Scheme 8" (this being before Illinois and Kentucky were ordered, so it had been presumed there would only be 4 Iowas). It was meant to maintain the 33 knot speed of Iowa while still adding a 4th turret.
This design wasn't chosen because its size (and therefore cost) was considered simply absurd. 70,000 tons standard displacement, (7,000 tons heavier than the finalized Montana) and 1,050 feet long at the waterline. This is size that wouldn't be reached in an actually-built warship until USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in 1961. And the propulsion was equally insane. 320,000 shaft horsepower would've the highest output of any ship in history until USS Gerald R. Ford in 2017. That's why the ship would've had to be so long, to fit so much machinery. And since late 1930s technology couldn't produce a shaft capable of handling 80,000 horsepower. BB-65-8 would've needed six shafts.
And while the belt armor wouldn't be as thick as the 16.1 inch chosen for the finalized Montana, 15.3 inches is still nothing to sneeze at, and a massive improvement over the 12.1 inch belt on Iowa, 12.2 inch on South Dakota, and 12 inch on North Carolina.
All of this illustrates what an insane ship is required to improve on Iowa's firepower and protection without sacrificing any speed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rand Kocher
It's not "companies" that I have a problem with, it's plutocrats. And these claims of "over-regulation" are nonsense. Meanwhile, Trump is giving us under-regulation.
The unemployment numbers were not somehow worse than reported under Obama. (I suppose you think that the same unemployment numbers are magically accurate now under Trump, right?) And the idea that the unemployment rate has any connection to eligibility for unemployment insurance is a persistent but completely baseless myth. What determines whether you're counted as "unemployed" when you don't have a job is whether you're actively seeking a job. If you are, you count toward the unemployment rate, regardless of whether you qualify for unemployment payments.
When Obama took office, the national debt was over $11 trillion, and hit $12 trillion by the time he first had a budget sent to him by Congress. When he left office it was $19 trillion, passing $20 trillion late last year. So you're exaggerating by upward of $2 trillion in order to create your "doubling" narrative. I suppose going from 12 to 20 trillion is close to doubling, but since none of the national debt figures have been adjusted for inflation, it's also not that meaningful.
The idea that the economy was "revving up red hot because of Reaganomics" is comical nonsense, because Reaganomics was a complete disaster. The effects of Reaganomics are a big part of how Clinton got elected in the first place: the recession of 1991-92 and its jobless recovery were the fruits of Reaganomics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1