Comments by "J ay" (@Jay-ho9io) on "Ryan McBeth" channel.

  1. For a blockade to be credible, the Navy enforcing it must be a credible threat to the United States navy. There are no credible threats to the United States Navy on planet Earth.
    1
  2. Then go ahead and program one, make your millions.
    1
  3. The answer would be the United States navy. If you tripled the Chinese Navy it would still not represent a credible threat to the United States Navy before you start adding their allies.
    1
  4. Then you're not pretty smart. China has played their hand much better than either Russia or the United States has in the last 20 years.
    1
  5. ​ @bocadelcieloplaya3852  That's what mechanized artillery is for.
    1
  6. A constantly repeated line when you're the person not being screwed. The moment it happens to you you sing a different tune.
    1
  7.  @AnarexicSumo  I get that you don't want them to be, but as stated they don't even show up on the Geneva conventions radar. Incendiary weapons are not inherently covered by the convention. Look I understand that people haven't really considered the impacts of these weapons because they weren't being used on people that resembled them in their minds, or that this war has made certain techniques that we were comfortable being used on people we cared less about suddenly uncomfortable but war really sucks and weapons are really powerful and the weapons we used to fight wars, they're pretty awful. That still doesn't make them against the Geneva convention. FAE bombs and thermobarric devices are potent weapons, but really just different ways to skin a similar cat when it comes to explosive power.
    1
  8. Notably, every nuclear armed country and their military doesn't agree with you.
    1
  9. If Ukraine sucks so bad, why haven't you beaten them yet?
    1
  10.  @nohandler1493  cool story bro. Of course finishing it in 3 days like you said you would would have saved you more of both. However bad you say Ukraine is, however bad you say the support they get is realize your side is sucking harder because you keep not winning. And there's no amount of bullshit YouTube posts that's going to change that fact
    1
  11. We don't have long hair.
    1
  12. 500.
    1
  13. It was absolutely a victory. Removing him from leadership was never the point and was specifically stated as not the point. One of the things that made it such a cataclysmic victory was that for fucking once no one tried to include mission creep. The goal was to remove him from Kuwait and degrade his ability to ever invade anyone else again. Both were an incredible success.
    1
  14. If 73 Easting wasn't a real battle neither was the majority of the battles in World war II. Which would be stupid. So yeah they've been in real battles.
    1
  15.  @AnarchyEnsues  you made a statement that was confidently wrong and was completely refuted. Moving the goalposts changed nothing about that. Neither will easily fact checked lies. You people are just as effective at this as your officers are at fighting. "Their losses can't be sustained much longer". That's been the battle cry of failing generals since the beginning of time. You were going to win in three days. And that's was so many months ago.
    1
  16. No amount of poorly developed skills will replace the fact that you suck at life.
    1
  17. ​ @oicfas4523  What's the exception of the fact that the majority of their viewership takes it seriously and they have yet to defeat dominion in court with that particular line of reasoning/bullshit
    1
  18. That's nice. But you're not a country nor are you a ruler or figure of power in a country so your beliefs don't matter. Whereas Russia very much believes in article 5.
    1
  19. Then don't watch. His subscriptions are growing, your absence won't be noticed
    1
  20. It's not an either or situation. We can tax corporations, shareholders and the mega wealthy appropriately (Eisenhower levels.) And still fund an advanced and superbly-trained military.
    1
  21. Your Navy would need to be a credible threat against the most powerful navy in the world first. It is not.
    1
  22. Hey shit for brains, there's this thing called the United States Marine Corps Combat Logistics Battalion 451, and they were in New Orleans right after Katrina. As other Marine units took part in response to hurricane Andrew and dozens of others going back in my own memory to at least 1958, where Marines from United States Marine Corps headquarters responded, in addition to others, to the disaster caused by heavy snowstorms.
    1
  23. No. They have perfectly viable attack helicopters of their own, that are quite competent. And their pilots know how to fly those, versus Apaches or Cobras. The F 16's on the other hand, would allow them to increase their air support umbrella wide enough for them to be able to address the minefields without having to worry about artillery which is going to make Ukrainian combat engineers a hell of a lot happier, and healthier.
    1
  24. Your entire second sentence is a level of fantasy generally reserved for masturbation. There's no data available that justifies everything you said there in any way other than a best case scenario built out of best case scenarios under the religious assumption that the enemy would simultaneously experience every possible worst case scenario. Let me say this another way, even CHINA doesn't think that's going to happen.
    1
  25. And what if rocks had wings? And what if the sun didn't rise tomorrow? You can come up with a very long list of pointless hypotheticals, but they're just that: pointless. Neither Korea nor the Philippines nor Australia nor Japan have any desire to share the Eastern world with a completely dominant Chinese hyper power. And a credible blockade requires the blockading Navy to be able to threaten any Navy that would cross it. The Chinese Navy is not a threat in any way shape or form to the United States Navy.
    1
  26.  @shepherdlavellen3301  yes.
    1
  27.  @shepherdlavellen3301  by providing Ukraine all the tools they are using to successfully defend themselves? Cool story bro.
    1
  28.  @shepherdlavellen3301  the Chinese Navy has no capacity to block the United States Navy. If they engage they managed to destroy a capital ship at the cost of every one of theirs within shooting distance. They will not make the war nuclear, and they cannot win conventionally. China is excellently placed to prevent any invasion of china. It cannot project power outside of its borders, on the United States Navy.. any fight at initiates will result in their defeat.
    1
  29.  @shepherdlavellen3301  "say" isn't "is." NATO is the reason that Ukraine is in the fight at all. They were able to do that without initiating contact directly with China. China cannot do the same on a naval blockade. The world does not recognize the 9 dash line no matter how strongly Beijing demands otherwise. And the Chinese Navy cannot credibly deter a US Ship that is escorting any ship in globally recognized international or Taiwanese waters. To enforce a blockage, the blockading nation has to be willing to board or sink ships that attempt to run the blockade. There is no world where that works out any way in the Chinese Navy's favor.
    1
  30.  @shepherdlavellen3301  and China will not engage in a nuclear exchange for the same reason Russia hasn't. They aren't suicidal. As well, directly conflict with the US is financially not to their interest. China wins by being patient and waiting for the variables to change in their favor. And they've demonstrated plenty of patience over the last twenty years and very little of the self absorbed arrogance of the US, or the ignorant arrogance of Russia. In short, China is smarter than any of the ideas you're suggesting and hasn't demonstrated that it is stupid enough to try any of them.
    1
  31. Da, tovarisch. Y'all have defeated Ukraine 6 months ago, everything else that's going on is nearly video. All a part of Vladimir Vladimir raviches nine-dimensional chess plan. 😒 It hurts so bad to know that your side fucked up an invasion against the country less than a 6th their size, so bad.
    1
  32. Yes and no. We are two separate services, although we are both part of the department of the Navy and often work very closely together. Certain naval personnel are integral two Marine units (all of our non-combatant staff comes from the United States Navy.) But the significant majority of the United States Navy does not have Marines assigned to it, and there are large sections of the Marines that aren't necessarily tied to any naval ship.
    1
  33. There is no body of seawater on planet Earth where anyone can have an advantage once the United States Navy decides it doesn't.
    1
  34. ​ @artnull13  Recon at the division or battalion level isn't part of SOCCOM. Those are still Fleet only elements. MARSOC is detached to SOCCOM and represents the only USMC units that are a part of SOCCOM.
    1
  35.  @artnull13  Force Recon and MARSOC have significantly different capabilities and mission sets. I didn't need a website to walk me through that. I had Stone Bay and a career in the Corps.
    1
  36. Satire seems lost on you, it doesn't seem that he thinks any of these people are particularly worthwhile spokesman, which is why he makes fun of them.
    1
  37. Because it's a s Soldier's channel? One Marine to another, brother sit the fuck down and shut up and let the SFC do a decent job talking about something we do well.
    1
  38. Yes.
    1
  39. Not at the moment it doesn't.
    1
  40.  @rubydragon1034  hit dogs yelp. The fact that this bothers you enough for three replies makes it quite clear how hit this particular dog was.
    1
  41. Your guy lost, cope.Your military has nothing to do with hours. Ours doesn't overthrow the government.
    1
  42. Documents and sources?
    1
  43. Really, you're picking it up after all of your space fighting military experience?
    1
  44. "It is not a primary battlefieldIt is not a primary battlefield nor is it a realm of battle..." Yeah I don't know what AFSC you were for 30 years, but you were bad at learning from it.
    1
  45. Agreed. And yet, that's the world.
    1
  46. Aircraft denial is quite different from blockade running. The United States Navy ship escorts of ship into taiwan. The Chinese have the option of shooting or not. If they shoot the destroy a single United States Navy ship and the ships that shoot are eradicated from the face of the Earth. They have achieved cost of one United States ship, while costing themselves the place of being an attacker, and having lost multiple ships. A blockade only works when the blockade Navy is a credible threat to all other navies in the area that would choose to run it. China is not that Navy.
    1
  47. It is possible for a ship to carry a boat, no boat can carry a ship. "But what about submarines" Many sub boats are transported on ships, no ships are transported on subs.
    1
  48. It is possible for a ship to carry a boat, no boat can carry a ship. "But what about submarines" Many sub boats are transported on ships, no ships are transported on subs.
    1
  49. Sources and documents.
    1
  50.  @RustedCroaker  so then you should have links, where are they? Put down something that can be followed, or admit you're full of shit.
    1