Comments by "David Aspinall" (@yt.personal.identification) on "Iran fires missile at mock US aircraft carrier during exercise" video.

  1. Yeah, carriers just sit still anchored solidly and do nothing while attacked and boarded. Seems legit.
    47
  2. I am no military strategist but may I suggest it is a bad strategy to use ground troops against battleships and carriers in the open ocean.
    3
  3.  Gap  I am not sure how it can be glorious if it's not even possible - that just sounds like you are trying WAY too hard to upset people, and looking foolish doing it. If you are going to troll successfully, you probably don't want to highlight that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The reactor may go into meltdown, but there will be no big explosion.
    3
  4.  Gap  That's not how it works.
    2
  5.  @sadekgheidan  No conflict is desirable. The end.
    2
  6.  @sadekgheidan  Every country has made developments. But telling what is theoretically possible and hinting that these kind of numbers actually exist sounds more like an advert. If you want to obfuscate the simple fact that securing and hold stationary that floating lump was possibly the most impressive part of that, go ahead.
    2
  7.  @sadekgheidan  Yes...like I said, Iran can bomb a stationary object.
    2
  8.  @sadekgheidan  And the Air base was an attack. It showed absolutely nothing about an ability to defend. Actually, it showed butthurt.
    2
  9. What do you mean? The US anchor carriers close to Iran and then abandon them of all personnel and defensive capabilities all the time. This is realistic.
    1
  10.  @davecue2  I was just being sarcastic is all. This is nothing more than PR, not a training exercise.
    1
  11. Sure, as long as it isn't at the expense of others' sovereignty.
    1
  12.  @youngz13o  Then you end up with Muslim nations applauding the CCP for human rights, for genocide of the Uyghurs. ...or nations infringing on other nation's territories, and buying votes to ensure they get away with it. Do you actually have a problem with my first reply? Do you disagree with it?
    1
  13.  @sadekgheidan  Exactly. The US lose a ship and with that much hardware airborne over that backyard, it is going to be painful. Those carriers will be shadowed by a lot more than you can see.
    1
  14.  @samuelsuglam7405  Carriers have better long range defence than a temporary base. ...but don't let that get in the way of your over inflated sense of capabilities.
    1
  15.  @samuelsuglam7405  Are you comparing a shot down helicopter, to boarding a carrier? What makes you think the US industrial military complex wanted Afghanistan conflict to end? It was big business for them. You clearly don't understand the nuance. ...and although they have killed innocents, it is just pathetic to try to claim they are the only ones. They have also successfully bombed many legit targets, regularly. I am not advocating for them, but to try to infer they are weak is just moronic, and genuinely dangerous.
    1
  16.  @samuelsuglam7405  Then who is...?
    1
  17.  @samuelsuglam7405  Russia and China are not talking like friends. Keep up. Russia stopped the S-400 delivery after the CCP tried to claim Vladivostok recently. Winnie messed up.
    1
  18.  Mr Nice_Hong_Kong_guy  Thanks. With that name, I know you won't steer me wrong. You have my full trust in any propaganda you feed me.
    1
  19.  Mr Nice_Hong_Kong_guy  The fact you replied indicates you do in fact care. The robust nature of that reply suggest you care a little too much. Don't get too upset if I find the need to question your credibility again based on the evidence you provide.
    1
  20.  @sadekgheidan  Prowess? In what way?
    1
  21.  @sadekgheidan  As long as everybody just holds still...
    1