Youtube comments of VisibilityFoggy (@VisibilityFoggy).
-
1900
-
597
-
437
-
398
-
384
-
372
-
200
-
185
-
151
-
143
-
129
-
128
-
118
-
113
-
98
-
92
-
85
-
82
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
62
-
54
-
51
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
39
-
37
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
I'm an American who has traveled to many areas of the world that are supposedly "dangerous" and each and every time, when I've gotten there, I felt perfectly safe – and confident that there were a lot of good people around who would be willing to help if there was ever a problem. There are cities in the U.S. (Baltimore, Camden, Flint, Newark, Detroit, etc.) that are arguably worse than this, and most definitely have a higher crime rate where I would not trust anyone to help me. In most of the world, being poor does not correlate with crime the way it does in the U.S. I don't doubt there IS crime in this village, but I highly doubt there were 700 murders last year like there were in Chicago.
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
They may have been surprised, but I doubt this was unexpected. In terms of the USAF, the Soviets did the exact same thing: a hi-lo mix of airframes with the Flanker being the heavy fighter and the Fulcrum serving as a point defense fighter. Naval-wise, though, the Soviets created the Su-33 which, to this day, is far too heavy for STOBAR carriers which limits its usefulness. This was supposed to have been "solved" by building the MiG-29K, however it only found one customer (India) which is getting rid of them and replacing them with either the Rafale-M or Super Hornet. The Russians themselves were planning to dump the Su-33 and replace it with the MiG-29K on their Kuznetsov carrier, but it doesn't appear that boat will ever see action again at this point after the fires and other incidents.
Russia pulled the plug on its STOVL Yak-41 (Freestyle) which probably would have been a much safer bet since it could operate from smaller carriers and assault ships, which would have been more affordable for post-Soviet Russia. Ironically, Lockheed was a minor partner in the Yak-41 program during the immediate friendly relations after the end of the Cold War, though the F-35B ultimately used a different type of vertical propulsion system.
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
The video was spot-on here, but the information was not. The Indians are absolutely fed up with their MiG-29Ks and decided to replace them. The competition was between the Super Hornet, Rafale-M and a theoretical variant of the Gripen known as the Gripen-M. Eventually, it came down to the Super Hornet and Rafale-M, and the Rafale-M won the competition, which made sense since the IAF had previously ordered land-based Rafales. Both the Super Hornet and Rafale-M were designed for catapult launch, however both were tested successfully in ski-jump configuration.
Also, the Su-33 is largely a disaster. It is a heavy fighter that can barely make it off the jump unless its loadout is significantly reduced. That is not to take anything away from the Flanker – it is a spectacular airframe and great platform – but it had no business being navalized. The weight of the airframe is at least partially why the USN's F-14 was replaced by the lighter Super Hornet, and why the F-15 was never selected to be navalized. In reality, NEITHER the Su-33 nor MiG-29K were ideal for Russia. They had hoped the Yak-41 project would materialize to compete with the Harrier, however the funds were never there, even after some partnerships with American defense contractors after the Cold War helped the project along.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Every year, Venezuela hosts the Nuestros Ríos Son Navegables, an 1,100 mile long boat race that goes through all of the connecting rivers, estuaries and waterways of the country. From what I hear, it was a blast during the better days there. Hopefully someday it will return that way. And yes, many people from Venezuela and Colombia (Argentina and Uruguay, too), especially, are of European descent. They didn't all move the US – many people went to South America and made great lives for themselves there. It is my favorite continent, by far, to explore.
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
-
@BoboTheSunniestPalDog I'm not sure what high-end equipment Russia has without a NATO piece of kit that is ahead in terms of technology, ease of use, availability, or lethality. There are some pieces of Russian kit that would likely match the west (the T-14, for example) but Russia cannot actually produce the machines they created. The Su-57 is a great aircraft, but its radar cross section is about the same as the F-18, which is aging out of U.S. service. Russia did field the R-73 air-to-air missile, which probably was superior to the AIM-120D, however this week the U.S. announced it had already created and armed aircraft with the new AIM-174B long range missile that fills the same role, based on the battle-tested SM-6 interceptor.
So, yes, generally speaking, NATO fields the best military equipment in the world. The USSR held that same title on occasions when they would spring ahead in tech during the Cold War. Their aircraft, especially, were respected globally. Russia? Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has not created much of anything new, and the few things it did are made in such small numbers they are almost useless.
China, on the other hand, designed and fielded the J-10 in large numbers (a powerful answer to the F-16), the J-20 and J-31 stealth aircraft, and some excellent A2A missiles, plus cutting edge drone tech. They also operate multiple carriers, including a CATOBAR carrier like the U.S. and France. That's why they are considered adversaries, but respected, while Russia is simply despised for its war crimes and lampooned for its military failures as of late.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The Aegis Combat System and the SPY radar really can't be "hacked," per se, but any electronic communications is subject to some level of jamming or interference which, in a worst-case scenario, could lead to a mission kill. In the case of a carrier strike group during an active conflict, the goal would be to prevent enemy assets capable of jamming up the system from getting close enough to do so in the first place. During peace time, for example, Russia and the U.S. routinely fly planes over and around each other's naval fleet during exercises. This kind of thing simply wouldn't happen during wartime, for either side. It would likely take a majority of the entirety of the PLAAF's aircraft to crack a single carrier group – and the U.S. has twelve of them, plus the new group that the HM Queen Elizabeth is leading (which includes U.S. ships and F-35s), plus the amphibious groups which effectively are just small carrier strike groups. CSGs are extremely well-defended. The Americans and British never really developed a lot of land-based SAMs, for instance, but both countries' ships are arguably the best defended in the world.
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
Right, because Saab, BAE Systems, Dassault, Airbus Defense, Leonardo, H&K, Thales, MBDA, Rolls-Royce and dozens of other defense contractors are American companies, correct?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1) Public transportation runs on a schedule. My car runs on my schedule.
2) I can go anywhere I want, door to door, in my car. What do I do when a train drops me off 25 miles from my destination?
3) Let's be honest, it's annoying as hell to deal with the general public. People are rude, noisy, smelly, dirty, and a hundred other things. I don't want to deal with them.
4) Why would I want to sit in a dirty train car when I could sit on nice heated leather seats, listening to whatever I feel like listening to, with the seat perfectly adjusted for my comfort, and the temperature set to the very degree I wish?
I literally would never move to a city where public transportation was my only option. I need to control my own destiny. And yes, I'll be honest, the idea of putting the government in charge of where I can go and when I can go there seems like an exercise in utter misery.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Their long-range platforms are good, but aren't designed to intercept the Tu-141 on its trajectory. Their short-range systems are generally not so good, as proven in several theaters in recent years (Russian short/medium range SAMs in Libya was an unmitigated disaster). And even when it comes to long-range SAMs, most of the incredible/amazing/game-changing things we've heard about the S-400... has come from Russia itself. Meanwhile, people make fun of Patriot for its performance as a brand new system in 1989, but don't realize it's been constantly upgraded over 30 years, and the new medium-range systems the west has fielded (NASAMS, IRIS-T SLM, SAMP/T) are absolutely excellent and, in some cases, cross into potential long-range territory with medium-range munitions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Peter, what you don't understand is that the US has absolutely no desire to attack, invade or occupy Russia or China. Both of these countries would be much better off if they worked with the U.S. for each others' mutual benefit rather than try to disrupt elections, steal technology, engage in corporate espionage and militarize sandbars in the middle of the ocean. Is America supposed to stand by while Russia is annexing territory and China is hell-bent on intimidating and potentially attacking its neighbors in Taiwan and elsewhere? Are we supposed to accept the reality that Chinese influence could make us all end up like the Uyghurs? I want to go to bed at night knowing the Chinese are scared to death to dare attack the United States or its allies.
Oh, and what "neighbors" has the U.S. attacked? Besides countering some tin-pot Soviet dictators installed during the Cold War tit-for-tat, I don't see much evidence. I mean, for what it's worth, the Maduro regime is still standing despite the U.S.'s capability to decapitate it within, arguably, hours.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In some ways, the shortened flight time could translate into diminished value. If I'm paying first class prices from the U.S. east coast to Europe, for example, my flight will usually take off 7:30pm-ish and get there in the early morning (Euro time). Plenty of hours to enjoy food, drink and rest. For me personally, there isn't a gigantic rush on these flights because of the times they depart. I almost never book anything above economy for a flight less than three hours on a mainline carrier because I don't really see the value in it for such a short journey. On long-haul flights, I justify the upgrade fees because I'm spending so much more time in the air and want to be comfortable. I feel like this is something I'd take once or twice for the experience of it, but never do it again because there's no compelling reason for it.
I could see myself wanting to go supersonic to South America, though, to save time since those flights (as they currently are scheduled) usually leave in the morning (eastern time) and involve a connection. If I could fly direct to Rio de Janeiro or Buenos Aires in half the time, that'd be worth it to me. I'd throw Bogota in there too, except I never personally fly there (and they're not going to have a supersonic route to Medellin or Cartagena) but it's another major route to consider.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If Americans actually demanded these passenger lines, they would have the support to be built. The truth is that Americans don't genuinely see a need for them. Sure, it would "be nice" to have high-speed rail lines like Europe – but would YOU use them? Honestly, I would not. If a destination is far away, a plane is faster, and frankly you have to spend less time in close quarters with other members of the public and all of the petty annoyances that come with that. If a destination is close enough, I'd rather drive in my comfortable car, playing the music I like, and be able to continue to drive and explore once I actually reach my destination. Another issue in the United States is that our major urban areas are generally very crime-filled and not places where most people want to travel outside of business hours. Why do we think "work from home" got so popular? If things change and the demand is there, this stuff will get built. But right now, it just isn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He's getting away with it now because the licensees have yet to be selected and the state is not yet collecting taxes on profits. So it's only up to the local city government to shut him down based on the municipal zoning ordinance, and they have no interest in doing so. Once New Jersey has its licensing system set up, they will shut down his store for operating without a license and charge him with tax offenses for failing to collect taxes on what he sells. Oh, and if he DOES try to collect taxes and comply, they will argue that they never granted him a certificate enabling him to collect sales tax on behalf of the state, so he collected the tax illegally and should also be charged with THAT. Oh yeah, and he'll be served with injunction after injunction by courts after licensed businesses ask judges to shut him down because he is competing with them illegally. I've met Ed and like him, and I'm rooting for him, but I'm afraid his days are numbered. Poor guy was better off with it staying illegal unless he finds someone who wants to give him millions of dollars to make the right campaign donations and kickbacks to get a license in NJ.
Remember, this is New Jersey, the most corrupt state in America. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission, run by the political hack who was interviewed in this story, is all hand-picked by the governor with ZERO input from citizens or even the legislature. They are there to do his bidding and his bidding only, which consists of kickbacks to his union cronies who put him in office, as well as his old buddies at Goldman Sachs. He is corrupt up to his neck.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Another consideration is the sheer size of the United States, and the fact that it was developed many years (centuries!) after Europe, and is thus less dense. It is not uncommon for cities of close to 100,000 people to be located several hours away by car from a hub. That makes regional airlines important for more people to be able to access travel opportunities. I live about two hours from a major hub, but 30 minutes from a regional airport where I can hop a quick flight and connect to South America, Europe and a host of other locations more quickly than driving to a hub, parking, dealing with longer security lines and additional delays.
As for runway length, that is just a product of geography. We have a lot of room in the US, so when they build an airport, they add in room to grow if necessary. Our regional airport also doubles as a Coast Guard air station, so it's put to good use. I believe Air Force One has landed there a few times, too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Vengeance of Diana - The new(ish) F-16 variants are great for countries that need a cheap multirole fighter, but it's really more of a JAS-39 Gripen analogue (though the Saab has better avionics and will be fitted with the Meteor). The F-16 is probably my favorite plane of all time, mostly because they used to fly down the beach in the town where I grew up all the time, and while it still has a place in combat the F-35 simply does everything better and wiped the floor with the F-16 at Red Flag.
Colombia, for example, is currently debating whether to buy the newest F-16 variant or the Gripen. They're also considering the Eurofighter, which is astronomically priced, mainly because their hostile neighbor has a Flanker fleet. But really, the F-16 should be perfect for QRA, deterring incursions by regional adversaries and striking insurgents along the border. Brazil is currently upgrading its entire air force with Gripens, which supposedly can use its electronic warfare prowess to counter the Flanker, so that might really be the perfect choice for Colombia, however they have extremely close ties with the US and may want an American system that can receive OEM service a few hours away.
The U.K., on the other hand, is a world power that also needs to be able to coordinate complex combat operations with the U.S., and requires a fifth-gen fighter to compliment its 4th-gen Typhoon air superiority fighter which can still be used for QRA and other NATO obligations. It's also perfect for the U.K. so Britain does not need to develop a fully-indigenous fifth-gen aircraft, and instead focus on the Tempest program, which will be a sixth-gen plane to replace the Typhoon. Now THAT is gonna be a badass fighter when it comes 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@newborn6 The issue, of course, is that the only way to "kick out" anyone is to actually fire on them. Merely being there isn't going to deter a U.S. Navy carrier group. And then, of course, if you DO take the action of firing on a major USN ship, you've blown the mission. Instead of deterring the USN, you've invited a whole bunch more of them, plus ships from the JMSDF, RN, RAN, etc., into the region and they will likely be targeting the bases from which the original attacking ships were deployed. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. The reality here is that the U.S. military, which the Chinese seem to laugh off for some ignorant reason, can absolutely decimate their forces and send them back about 50 years in capability in short order – then go home. China, on the other hand, has absolutely no capability to show up off San Diego or Virginia Beach and pick a fight. If they want to try and tangle with all those ANG F-22s and advanced ships in Hawaii, that's their mistake to 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
-
As an American, I have absolutely no issue with South Korea or Japan having nuclear arsenals. Hell, take a few from us! That's what friends are for, right? ;) The difference with SK and Japan (versus DPRK), however, is that these countries have democratically-elected leaders who are respected the world over. They don't seek conflict. In theory, I tend to agree with you in principle, but Kim Jong-Un just strikes me as being too unstable to be trusted. A man who kills his own brother and uncles for disloyalty, tortures people on a daily basis and does not comport with any global norms for human rights is a dangerous man. There is a case to be made he is mentally ill or suffering from any number of conditions (syphilis?) that may affect his judgment. Ultra-authoritarian states do not have the level of checks and balances of others. Even in the former USSR, many authorizations were needed before a nuclear launch, and this practice literally saved the world twice. In the case of North Korea, it is up to a single man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schokobar4133 Awesome. FWIW, how, exactly, would Russia stop a potential western annexation of Kaliningrad? The Baltic Sea is now a NATO lake (thanks to the SMO), Russia's bomber fleet would be destroyed by F-22s and Eurofighters in theater, the Flanker pilot complement simply cannot tangle with western adversaries, the S-400 has proven to be a paper tiger, and Russia has next to no logistical means of transporting materiel to Kaliningrad. The only risk to NATO would likely be to AWACS and tankers, with the MiG-31 armed with the R-37M missile. Russia could go nuclear, but at that point, Russia ceases to exist anyway. Frankly, one wonders how effective Russia's nuclear deterrent even is at this point, given the poor performance of seemingly EVERY other piece of military kit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why? What's wrong with a British company designing something for the U.S. military? Most of the European defense contractors (BAE, Saab, FN, Kongsberg, Airbus Defense, etc.) have subsidiaries in the U.S. and usually partner with an American company to assemble the system at hand. Our companies do the same. The F-35, for example, has quite a bit of tech from BAE inside. The new USN littoral combat ships have Saab weapons tech. Our special forces use many specialized weapons from European gun manufacturers. Washington, D.C. is being protected right now by a Norwegian anti-aircraft system (though it uses an American missile made by Raytheon). If allies didn't partner on projects, you'd have a lot less allied countries from the start, which arguably increases the potential for conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EJH783 The difference, of course, is that western Christians do not follow the Bible in anything close to a literal sense. They barely attend church services and have largely abandoned organized religion despite continuing to follow some social traditions. I have never heard any Christian person, in Germany, the US, or elsewhere, seeking to impose biblical law upon the rest of the country, or trying to carry medieval brutalities into 2024. Ultimately, we have to admit that the world is not a group of people singing Kumbaya around a campfire. Certain cultures are simply incompatible, and unless newcomers to the west are willing to fully adapt to western culture and lifestyle, these problems will continue. I would never be so arrogant as to move to another country and segregate myself from the local culture of that country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deaddoll1361 - This is simply not true. Dassault (the manufacturer of the Rafale) certified that its avionics systems could not comply with the Five Eyes treaty. That is why it was taken out of consideration for both the Australian and Canadian air arms. It has nothing to do with anyone "undermining" anyone else. In Canada, Dassault even voluntarily removed itself from the competition. Also, Australia invested in the development program of the F-35 and, as a result, is allowed to manufacture certain components domestically, creating jobs. Finally, acquiring the F-35A would open up the option for the Royal Australian Navy to purchase STOVL 'B' variants for its Canberra-class ships in the future if the decision is made to arm the Navy with fixed-wing aircraft again. The Rafale has a navalised variant, however it would be unable to operate from the Canberra class due to runway length considerations.
There is actually a good case to be made against the very existence of the Rafale, despite its excellent capability and beautiful engineering. France had a hissy fit after learning it couldn't dominate the Eurofighter program and decided to take its toys and go home to make its own fighter. What France ended up with was a Eurofighter lookalike that does not have the benefit of the robust upgrade program of the Typhoon, significantly raising its lifetime cost of operation. Now France is left with no fifth-generation aircraft while the U.K., Spain and Italy will have a potent mix of Eurofighters and stealth multirole F-35s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 think one of the issues that is overlooked is the styling. The Model 3/Model S is so admired because it is a normal, sporty looking car that people can drive to work, etc. Most people don't want spaceship-looking vehicles in wacky color schemes as their daily drivers. Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those silly looking Leaf or Bolt vehicles. EVs have to begin physically looking more like the cars people want to drive, including SUV/pickup models. For example, right now I drive a BMW 3-Series. It's a popular car, I like how it looks, how it drives, how it handles. I'd happily buy an EV version of it. I would *not*, however, buy the ridiculously weird looking BMW i3.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia knows it is no longer capable of winning a conventional war with any of those three countries. Their nuclear deterrent protects them from total destruction of the Russian state, so their losses would be limited to whatever China (the most likely candidate) could bite off, then settle diplomatically. Putin decided that invading Ukraine was more important than protecting his country's other flanks, so that's what has happened.
This, of course, was incredibly stupid, since Ukraine had zero interest in a conflict with Russia, and even if accepted into NATO, would not be eligible to invoke Article V for an offensive war. The USA has absolutely no reason or inclination to invade Russia. A President would be thrown out of office before attempting that. Turkey is nicely positioned to influence global commerce and is developing a more advanced aviation and defense industry group. Starting a war with Russia does not serve its global purposes at all. That leaves China, which I can already see just drooling over that northern resources area. Ya done messed up, Vlad!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think it has ever been possible for the U.S. or anyone else in "invade" Russia. It's too large. Plus, what would be the objective? To occupy a vast, relatively poor country? In any event, while in theory these missiles could target U.S. ships from 2,000 kms, by these maximum distances they likely would never reach their targets given countermeasures and very potent defenses from USN ships. While the US never placed much emphasis on SAMs, its fleet defense is actually very, very effective. That is the problem with all of these long-range missiles on both sides: at their maximum ranges, they lose effectiveness and are unlikely to actually strike their targets (unless the target is undefended). Russia is also known to greatly overestimate the capability of their weapons. The US and Chinese, however, tend to underestimate their capabilities, at least in public.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neutronalchemist3241 In fairness, while Leonardo, Thales and other European manufacturers built excellent kit, USN ships have been utilizing Aegis and related battle management systems for decades, with multiple upgrades and generations of enlisted and officers who are trained on these systems. It also allows for smoothly networked warfare between ships, planes, drones, CCAs, and the ability to communicate and share data with MULTIPLE allies in a hot war. It's not that European tech firms couldn't build a similar system – it's that the US already uses a system that has been perfected and has upgrade paths already planned for the future. So on that, the USN is correct. The problem here is the physical construction of the ship and the silly bespoke mission capabilities that are being demanded from a frigate – not just swapping out modular electronic warfare systems. Australia, for example, uses much of the same electronics as the US and were able to adapt it to a British platform fairly easily. Japan adapted Aegis to their destroyers and frigates as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This I can agree with. There are too many things that are illegal, especially personal choices like whether to consume cannabis. And we can debate these big reform programs, but let's start with something simple: no more pulling people over for a brake light being out, a tinted window, a plate cover that touches the name of the state and is technically "illegal." Even rolling stop signs, a failure to signal, minor speeding barely touching a white line, etc. A driver should have to demonstrate an articulated danger to the safety of others before they can be stopped.These minor traffic infractions are fishing expeditions. They lead to "the smell of marijuana," which is probable cause to search, which ends in someone being arrested or having to go through "the system," or someone running which can lead to an armed confrontation. In my opinion, simple reforms to reduce the number of traffic stops would make a bigger difference than going after qualified immunity or other broad-based, top-down reforms that will likely lead to a whole different set of problems down the road.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NeatxBullet - So, why don't they? Hamas is a terror group whose members are motivated by radical religiosity and resort to homemade bombs and suicide attacks. The fact that this militant group controls even a square kilometer of territory is mind-boggling, and Israel – if anything – has done everything to hold back a formal conflict in recent history. Contrary to what one might assume from dumb comments sections like this, most Muslims are not hell-bent on killing others. In fact, as another commenter said, there are many in the Muslim world who, frankly, don't even know why they're "supposed" to hate Israel to begin with, much less risk their lives in a war to conquer the Israelis. It's just not that important to the everyday citizen who wants to wake up, go to work, raise their family and lead a fulfilling life. As for Hamas, if Israel took the gloves off they could smash Hamas and retake Gaza very quickly. Hamas exists because Israel has not chosen to destroy it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kerier1911 - The media over there is really selling you guys a bill of goods. I tried. Really, though... find 100 Americans and ask if they want to invade Russia or have anything to do with Russia. My guess is 99 of them would say no. I don't live in a dream world. But it seems you've created a boogieman in us because your government wants to distract you as they take away your democratic and human rights. It is textbook domestic policy for authoritarian leaders, repeated across the world.
As for Putin, do you really like being subject to the whims of one man dictating how you speak, live, travel, communicate and consume information? The sad part is that you don't seem to realize what you've squandered when the CCCP collapsed. It could have been a bright future of friendliness and cooperation, but instead an ex-KGB thug decided to waste your money trying to build a silly empire and a military to defend against a country that has no desire to go to war with you.
And for what it's worth, there are hundreds of millions of Americans who believe in traditional marriage and the fact that there are two genders. They're vocal about it and nothing happens to them. But there are also people who believe differently and nothing happens to them either. I've visited Russia. It has its nice areas and depressing areas like any other country. The people seem pretty nice – especially the older folks who have good perspectives on history. But your economic situation (I know, I know, somehow that's our fault) could be much improved if you embraced democracy, free elections, and joined the rest of the developed world in positive trade agreements and friendly military relationships. As it currently stands, your best friends on Earth are Nicolas Maduro and Bashar Assad. You also want to sell anti-aircraft missiles to the same guy who shot down one of your planes a couple years ago. That's poor company to be keeping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Heer_Kuipers - The F-4's issue (initially) was that it was not outfitted with a gun and the early AIM-7s were, well, not good. These issues were eventually fixed, but it took some time. The MiG-25/31 was not a fighter, it was purely an interceptor. It really had no role in this conflict because its purpose was to attack enemy bombers and support aircraft from long range, not get into dogfights with smaller and more maneuverable fighters where it would almost certainly lose the engagement. As for the MiG-23, it is largely considered a failure, having had a dismal performance in Afghanistan. It was a maintenance nightmare, and had an abysmal accident rate, and the Israelis picked them off pretty easily in skirmishes in the 1980s.
The outlier here is the MiG-21 (ironically, the plane the MiG-23 was supposed to replace), which was fast, maneuverable and durable. Its limitations were in avionics and radar, but the airframe was (and is) very solid and it enjoys an excellent reputation. The Soviets should have heavily upgraded the MiG-21 rather than design an inferior replacement. I don't think they realized what a good plane they already had in their fleet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uhh, I know this is probably a CCP troll account, but let's correct it for everyone here: America does not have more nuclear bombs than any other country. Russia has the most. And the U.S. has also contracted with Northrop-Grumman to develop a brand new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III, which will be (by far) the most advanced land-based missile platform in the world. Next one: ICBMs are hypersonic by definition, so ANY country that fields them has this capability. Finally, the U.S. would use its SLBMs in a first strike against China, with additional strikes carried out by stealth B-2s that can penetrate Chinese air defenses. On the other hand, China's only bomber is the H-6, which is based on the ancient Tupolev "Badger" bomber. These planes can be easily detected and would be shot down by carrier fighters long before it could ever get anywhere near the U.S. coast. American attack subs and its growing fleet of P-8 Poseidons are far more advanced than China's missile subs, which would likely be tracked and detected in times of high tension, and GBI would be activated for incoming launches of ground-based missiles from China. This is REALLY not a path China wants to go down, and it's actually a bit scary that this is what they are telling their citizens.
Your government oppresses you and does not allow you intellectual freedom to obtain facts on your own, which is a sad reality for the Chinese people. Obviously you are using a VPN to get around your country's internet censorship (perhaps you should ask why they need censorship in the first place) so it would behoove you to do some genuine research rather than relying on what the Communist Party tells you. Do you even know that your government operates concentration camps and forces people into slave labor?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xeji4348 - The air defenses are easily taken out by the HARM missile (as well as an overwhelming barrage of Tomahawks), which has numerous launch platforms. And at this point, the Chinese will have to face the fact that that their man-made island bases are essentially aircraft carriers that cannot move. Once the air defenses are taken out from standoff range, a strike aircraft (likely a combination of F-15E/Xs, F/A-18s and B-1s) can come in and destroy the runways on the airstrips, denying forward operating capability in the South China Sea. China's air force isn't near as capable as some believe it to be. There are a few copies of the Flanker, which is potent but easily dealt with, and the J-20, which seems to have useless "stealth" thanks to its giant canards behind the cockpit. The area where China has an edge is in air-to-air missiles, however the US has reached relative parity the AMRAAM-D variant, and will best the PL-15 with the AIM-260 in the next year or so, which will be the first true BVRAAM missile since the AIM-54 Phoenix. China will also be dealing with the European Meteor missile in air to air combat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are a few more layers to this. First, the air complement of the QE could be surged. The F-35s offer both ISR as well as air defense capability, bonus in stealth form. There is also the USAF F-15 fleet Lakenheath, which would obviously defend its base, but would also be networked into the larger air defense picture through Link 16. Not to mention, since Article V would have been invoked at this point, these Russian jets would have to get through multiple intercept attempts by every NATO member state along the way. The Tu-160 is a platform largely equivalent to the B-1B. It has a massive radar cross section and would easily find itself in the no-escape-zone of modern air-to-air missiles like the Meteor and AMRAAM-D. The Blackjack's role in modern conflict will be conducting airstrikes and providing air support once air superiority has already been achieved and a no-fly-zone imposed.
All this said, I think stealthy strategic bombers are still of use, especially when they can also serve in roles such as a low-observable comms node, ISR platform, maybe even AWACS. That's all planned for the B-21 project. It might be worth it for the RAF to jump back into the bomber game... there's been some talk of Australia buying them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I believe he was referring to planes deploying from Kadena, which have historically been F-15Cs and have now been rotated out for F-22s. Technically, the F-16CM still officially has the SEAD mission, but I guess this would be subsumed by the F-35 in a high-end fight. The thing is, there aren't a ton of F-35As anywhere near the region. The USMC's F-35Bs would have a presence, as would the UK's F-35B fleet if they were deployed to the region (which they probably would) but I'm not sure of the extent to which they focus on SEAD versus something along the lines of support for ground forces. The F-35C is a wildcard, as it depends which carrier is on station at the time. This all changes once airframes and munitions are ferried in, but the most likely planes you're going to see on our side in the beginning of this conflict would, indeed, be the F-22 and F-15C. We'd also have to see what Japan brings to the table. Unfortunately, Australia doesn't operate carriers or LHDs (at least not yet). On the other hand, they have E-7s that will be a HUGE help playing quarterback for all of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Iran would lay mines and they could block the strait for a short amount of time. In reality, what would occur is the dismantling of Iran's SAM and anti-ship batteries by a barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and HARM missiles. (Remember, on the first night of the 2003 Iraq invasion, 1,000 cruise missiles were fired over the course of a few hours.) Frigates and destroyers, as well as attack helicopters and some fighter jets, would engage in a battle with the IRGC fast boats, which would eventually be defeated. Once that occurs and air/naval superiority is achieved, American and British minesweeping vessels would remove the mines. It's a lengthy, annoying process in which some people would lose their lives, but in the end, no, the world would not sit back while the strait was closed, a la the Suez crisis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One of the issues they have found, particularly in very violent cities like Camden, Detroit, etc., is that few residents want to become police officers, and of those who do, they cannot pass a background check due to either past convictions or ties to gang members. In Trenton, N.J. (a very violent city), they do have this rule in place. Officers have to live three or five years (forget which) in the city. They all live on about two blocks at the edge of town, and none of them have children until they leave for a suburb. I couldn't believe it when a friend who was an officer there showed me the "cop streets." They looked like this strange oasis amidst the chaos of the rest of that town. It's a nice requirement, in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SWRaptor1 - No, the F-22 does not destroy it in every metric. The F-22 is a heavy air superiority fighter. The F-35 is a multirole fighter/attack aircraft. The F-22 is light years behind the F-35 in sensor fusion, networking, and range of uses. The F-22 is absolutely the best fighter in the world, but the F-35 does a ton of things the F-22 cannot: the aforementioned battlefield management, close air support, fleet defense, EW jamming, acting as a mini-AWACS platform, Wild Weasel, etc. The two planes are not meant to compete. They each have different roles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RonPaulBot1234 Unfortunately, no. The international driver permit is essentially just a translation of your home country's license into a foreign language. It isn't an official document issued by a government, but rather a private organization that is authorized to do so (in the US, it's AAA, for example). I do not believe you need to take classes if you have a valid license in another country. My license from the US was accepted in an EU country when I lived there, but it very well may be easier to transfer an American license than a Russian one. The thing with the US, though, is that there is no "American driver's license." There are 50 different state licenses, each with their own regulations and small differences. The Florida license, which I have, meets the international standards, but I have heard there are a few US states whose licenses do not as of 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
-
Fully mobilized? No. The reality is that no world power, including Russia and China, have anywhere near the transport capability to bring the number of weapons, troops and materiel it would take to pull off something like this. Incoming combat aircraft would be picked off halfway across the Atlantic and Pacific as they refuel, as well as AEW aircraft and tankers. Ships would be sunk before they could get in range of launching any attacks. Once infantry arrives, they must defeat the U.S. Marines AND the U.S. Army on its own turf. Then there are the Rocky Mountains. How does the opposing force cross them? Also, keep in mind that there are more guns than people in the U.S. Japan once considered what to do if an occupation of the U.S. mainland was an option. They decided that Americans resorting to guerilla tactics would be such an impediment it would likely not be worth the effort. People also need to stop talking about internal American politics. You can dislike the current president, or congress, or whoever, but nothing pulls a country together like foreigners occupying your soil. We, as Americans, should arguably know that best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Roman my man, great video and great topic! The one thing I wanted to let you know is that sometimes it's not as simple as the "far right" or "far left." I am an American and consider myself center-right. In general, I believe the Biden administration has done fairly well in foreign policy and handling the Ukraine war. I also very much disagree with how his political party has treated those who dissent in the United States itself. Most of us "conservatives" (as they say) know who Putin is, know what he represents, understand his nationalist and racist motivations and oppose him. But authoritarianism can come from either the right of the left, and in the United States, it has been more frequently (admittedly, in small ways) coming from the left. Folks like myself support liberal democracy, a democratic-led world order, and Ukrainian sovereignty BECAUSE we do not want anyone from EITHER side to ever chip away at the rights we have here. Unfortunately, despite his good foreign policy, domestic policy has been a little scary for those who disagree with the majority party and the mainstream media. There are two sides – actually, probably 10 sides – to every story, and having been a huge fan of you and your channel for a few years, I don't want to see you get the wrong impression about me or people like me – just like I have never had a closed mind toward anyone in the five continents I've visited over the course of my life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1