Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.

The W76 refurbishment program was completed in 2019, what the hell are you talking about?
4
If US naval ships are sitting ducks, how come isn't Russia or China controlling global trade?
2
@icewaterslim7260 They can get to altitude faster, they can get to the edge of their range faster, and they carry weapons that can be fired at targets 80 miles away. The most important range requirement is being able to meet an incoming aircraft firing a missile or providing targeting information to a missile.
2
@icewaterslim7260 I don't know how else to explain it. Greater range implies larger tanks (or fuel fraction), less weight, more efficient power plants. The most efficient way to fly is not the one with the most thrust. The more weight cutting you do the more iffy your structure is so good luck doing carrier landings. Having "too much" fuel saddles you down which means you fly like a brick and don't get to carry a lot of weapons.. So now you have a highly efficient high-subsonic aircraft with a ton of range, payload isn't great, and it turns like a school bus because if you tried to maneuver too hard the structure would rip apart due to the forces involved. It's a complete sitting duck and can't even run away from trouble if it encounters it. We could just design a high performance aircraft and pump more fuel into it on the way to the objective. Drone killings are a matter of policy, not technology. Just look at how effective drones were in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
2
Full scale invasion is silly. You don't need to capture vast amounts of land when you can easily cripple a country's economy.
1
@apostle100 Seethe.
1
@apostle100 Global trade as it exists right now is essentially enforced by the US and allies. If there's a threat to US naval power, whoever wields that threat becomes the de facto ruler of the seas. You don't understand... if US ships are sitting ducks, things don't need to go kinetic. The only option is to submit rather than get the Navy wiped out in a foolish last stand. An 8 year old would understand that a large bully in the playground can beat him up, so it's best to not start a fight.
1
@apostle100 So for nukes to offer deterrence they need to be used? A weapon can deter an enemy without being used, by virtue of nations not being totally suicidal. If Russia or China have global sea domination, all the US can do is take a bow and leave the podium. Not fight and lose all its Navy in a pointless last stand. Stealth aircraft have offered a major deterrent to hostile nations because they know that US air power can cripple them. They never had to be used for strikes against China or Russia. "Russia and China do not need to control global trade for US ships to be vulnerable to hypersonic weapons" - Talk about missing the point. US ships being vulnerable to hypersonic weapons automatically awards Russia or China the control of global trade because they just became the world dominant sea power. You read it completely backwards. "US could control global trade and yet its ships are still vulnerable to hypersonic missiles" - If a weapon has outpaced your Navy and essentially made it obsolete, you have no control of global trade. "nothing but a straw man because there is no war" - But that's my point. The scales being tipped doesn't lead to war, it just leads to a country having an undisputable trump card. Instead of conflict, the trump card grants you the biggest leverage in the negotiation table. "Who said anything about starting fights" - You're the one requiring things to be kinetic for a weapon to tip the scales of power. "if you're in a state where a lot of people conceal carry and most people don’t - guess what.....the people who don’t carry would be sitting ducks to those who conceal carry (or those who open carry for that matter) in the event the armed turned against the unarmed" - The issue is that people in the street to not have disputes with everyone they see. In the global stage, everyone has their own interests and competing for the same thing. For a good comparison, there's one person who open carries (everyone knows about their weapon) and the local stores only sell one of each item per day. So whenever the person who open carries shows up, people just let him take what he wants and wait for another day instead of fighting him. Without the gun ever leaving the holster, this guy controls the entire town. "There is no war" - Yes. And still, the US has a huge naval presence to enforce its interests. Having a warring force out at sea is a form of diplomacy even when no shots are being fired.
1
Tankers are simply a fact of life and will always be necessary. The A6M range thing is possibly very misleading. It could not do that range at the same speed, climb to the same altitude, and carry the same weapons. A modern fighter can carry a greater payload than a B-17.
1
Afghanistan was an exercise of nation building where very few outside the cities even want that nation to exist. The guys with AKs were consistently losing fights. The issue is that they don't need to win, they just need to not lose. If Afghanistan was America and the people living there were American, the Taliban would not be able to operate. The people are Afghan, and not all want Americans there.
1
@chungalunga9815 That only reinforces my point. It's possible to control cities somewhat, but the mountains make it hard to hold political control over the whole territory. Same thing happened with the Mongols, they massacred the Afghans in larger population centers but those who fled to the mountains survived. The people living in these regions don't even see Afghanistan as a nation and have no reason to want to fight for Afghanistan as a nation.
1
Because "everyone" gets their talking points from media rather than thinking. Appealing to the knowledge of the "everyone" is a bad move when the public is pretty ignorant.
1