Comments by "Colonel K" (@Paladin1873) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters"
channel.
-
@theangrycheeto You completely misinterpreted my comments. As for 400 years of systematic racism, how do you explain the fact that we freed the slaves in the bloodiest conflict in American history, along with later saving the world from Nazism, Japanese imperialism, and Soviet communist enslavement? You'd think if Americans were so beastly and racists, we'd have joined with these latter monsters instead of destroying them.
By the way, if we're supposed to constantly dwell on past sins then why aren't we berating the Japanese, Germans, and Russians? For that matter, what people or nation on this planet should escape our constant berating? Do you really believe the average American today is a racist? If so, how did Obama get elected? Why were any Blacks ever allowed to served on the Supreme Court or become captains of industry, military leaders, and successful actors? Even before our founding as a nation there was ongoing debate over the wisdom and morality of slavery. Most Americans opposed it, including many in the South. We could not remain a free people while it existed. As an example, draconian laws were passed in some slave states to punish people who spoke out against it, thus curtailing First Amendment rights. The century following the Civil War was a uphill battle for Blacks, but they had a lot of help from Whites. Today the idea of systemic racism has become a bad joke. We have laws against it which are vigorously enforced. We bend over backwards to accommodate anyone who is seen as different or oppressed or a minority. It's not limited to race. If anyone of these group members fails to measure up to the commonly accepted standards, we lower the standards just for them. We don't dare criticize them or treat them as we would a WASP. So in a way, you are right. There is a systemic problem, but it isn't anti-black racism. It's the ever changing values of our society, a society less and less willing to judge a man by his merits when skin color or some other arbitrary measure can be substituted instead. We have returned to the thinking of the past with vigor and a new twist on what constitutes prejudice.
1
-
The USA is not pulling out of Europe, but we are pulling back. Trump plays hardball, expecting some push-back before both sides make concessions. As for who spent the most in support of Ukraine, this is an accounting question. Trump may be looking at the sunk cost of old equipment and munitions we are providing, plus their replacement cost. To be fair, the latter should not be considered, but he is operating in the world of politics and human emotion, not the world of dry economics and bean counting. The same argument applies to Europe's political leaders. If all NATO members start paying their fair share for defense, and if the EU will stop its unfair trade practices with the USA, we will respond in kind (I hope). Until then, the general mood in my country is no longer supportive of a Europe first policy. And before you try to collectively match or surpass the USA in economic power, you might try repopulating and ridding yourselves of your EU overlords and their feckless rules.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This could be a great force multiplier, but we need to supply them and other weapons in secret, not blab to the world about our plans. What the Ukraines need most are antiaircraft missiles and antimissile systems, from MANPADs to something along the lines of Iron Dome, as well as mobile artillery for counter-battery fire, sophisticated mobile secure C4I, drones, antitank weapons, small arms, and munitions. If they can force the Russians into a stalemate, they will have time to train and equip an air and armor force capable of outmaneuvering the Russians and cutting them off from outside support. This will take quite a while and require a lot of money. It also may require a massive buildup of the Ukraine military from 200K to possibly a million men. In the interim they should create a huge militia which can focus on insurgency warfare to hamper the Russians at every point. They did this very effectively against the Germans in WWII.
At present our military role in the West should be supplying them with free training and equipment, while they do their own fighting. They certainly seem quite capable and united on this point. This war could turn into Afghanistan on steroids for Putin, but it also may mean he will turn to desperate strategies involving NBC. We shall see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danbenson7587 I cannot find any source indicating such 45 ACP ammo existed in the 1920s, but I believe it was theoretically possible to have developed it. All it would have required was a hard penetrator and a muzzle velocity much higher than that of the standard 45 ACP round (achievable by using a lighter projectile and more powder). Some specialty 45 ACP ammo did exist at the time, but was limited to blanks, tracers, and shot cartridges. Because of the lackluster performance of the 45 ACP and 38 Special, the 38 Super was introduced in the late 1920s, followed by 38 Special Hi-Speed (aka 38/44) in 1931, and the 357 Magnum in 1935. All three were marketed as being capable of penetrating a car body and body armor. As an experiment at least one Thompson was chambered for 38 Super, and another was chambered for the stretched 45 Remington-Thompson cartridge, which possessed true 44 Magnum level performance, but neither setup proved commercially successful. A version chamber for 351 WSL was tested by the French but failed miserably. These conversions might have proven effective at penetrating body armor, helmets, and light cover, but only if the velocity was kept high enough, which means getting the plane very close to the intended target.
1
-
1