Post: #54251

The art thing is just one more reason to stop with the Ivanka worship. There is nothing about this women aside from the identity of her father that should make us fans. Her politics are odious. Her choice of husband is suspect. Her taste in "art" speaks of basic bitch cultural degeneracy.

Yes, she looks good for a 35 year old mother of three. But she's still a 35 year old mother of 3, so that's sorta damning with faint praise in my opinion.

I do not want Ivanka Trump to have a large voice in the Trump administration, let alone to have a successful political career in her own right. She has much more in common with a Chelsea Clinton than she does with us.

Don Jr. on the other hand would have my vote any day. That dude is like a Trump 5.0

Post: #54252

The problem with war spending is that you have to choose whether you're doing occupations or preparing for inter-superpower warfare.

A10. Everyone loves it because it makes a lot of sense in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where you have FOBs and you want a long linger time against a foe with zero air capability.

Against Russia? Not so much.

So military spending has to go necessarily in two directions at once. Grinding occupation and breakneck apocalypse.

This is what causes engineers to go bald by the time they're 30.

Post: #54253

The A-10 does make sense against Russia though. It's part of the American warfighting system, and it does a job literally nothing else we have can do. The A-10 was designed to fight the commies in WWIII, not to kill assclown insurgents in the middle east.

The arguments against using the A-10 usually require assuming the A-10 is not part of the general air war system we've built. Nobody's going to send A-10s in to fight SAM batteries or Su-35s unsupported. The A-10s will go in after the F-whatevers have taken over the airspace. If we can't take the airspace, we're not going to need the A-10s to support ground forces in the first place, because the ground forces won't be there.

Consider as an analogy the M1 Abrams, or any main battle tank really. Tanks are really only good for fighting other tanks, when you get right down to it. Oh, tanks might kill crappy AFVs and in the right circumstances they might pot a helicopter or take out a few infantry, but they're not hard for properly equipped infantry or high tech AFVs like M3 Bradleys to kill. Infantry are very difficult to engage in a tank, and a Bradley can drop a TOW missile on your head before you even see it if it's in cover. Or, a Bradley can drop a TOW on you a klick outside the effective range of your gun even if you do see it.

Should we get rid of tanks? Of course not. Because they're a critical part of the system. While tanks unsupported are pretty vulnerable to, well, everything but other tanks, if you use tanks in a combined arms push with mech infantry and indirect fire, they're an amazing force multiplier. It would suck to go against a combined arms force that had tanks without your own tanks, even if it is technically feasible.

It's not a perfect analogy but I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. The A-10 offers a unique capability that is not even halfway replicated by anything else in our air fleet, unless you count the scarcer-than-hen's-teeth, worth-their-weight-in-gold AC-130 gunships (latest variant = $253 million each). A-10s are relatively inexpensive planes ($19 million) with amazing survivability, and as far as I know lots of them just got wing upgrades to extend their life until 2030+ under the ongoing Boeing wing upgrade program. Why on earth would we give them up?

The only reason the AF wants to give up A-10s is because they're not sexy fighter jets, and the fighter fags run the show over there. They don't care if the only CAS they can offer is a few seconds of inaccurate, pathetic 20mm fire--which will not kill a modern tank by the way, even from the top--or a bomb that can't even be dropped on the enemy without risking serious friendly casualties (because the dangerous blast radius is 250m) before having to return to base to refuel and rearm. And that's if a plane is even available in a timely manner. When I was in Mosul, we called in jets a few times and it took 45 minutes for them to show up. Good thing we didn't need them in a hurry (we really didn't), but it's not like ground troops are real people anyway, amirite?

Remember, the Air Force brass are the geniuses who think in the future we won't even need ground troops. They think we can win wars from start to finish with jets using missiles and bombs. Don't even need guns on the planes! That tells me all I need to know about their understanding of war.

-----

Regarding the F-35 program, I have no idea what will happen with it. I seriously doubt it will just be cancelled, but maybe it can morph into something more useful. I'm sure we learned something useful during the R&D process. I haven't been able to figure out where, precisely, all the bits and pieces of the F-35 are being made but if it's the usual crap where they try to build at least part of the plane in every single state to appease Congress we might be able to cut costs significantly just by consolidating production and actually holding Lockheed Martin accountable for their repeated failures to deliver what they've promised.

It's amazing, but they're building planes now that are basically broken. They can't be used for combat, and will require expensive modifications later once LM finally figures out how to fix all the software and systems problems they have. So we have like 175 expensive-as-fuck planes that are useless except as trainers, and they want to build even more without figuring out the problems first.

Post: #54254

Trump in peak shitlording mode

Post: #54255

Putin has no love lost for crazy cat ladies like Hillary or Merkel. He's giving them both a huge turn on their collective faces for Christmas. To see Trump pile on is glorious.

Post: #54256

Shout out to Fast Eddie. For he knows not what he says.

Post: #54257

Yeah Putin was full of bantz today. He had an end of year press conference, which is where the quotes are coming from:

Quote: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard.

We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the “vestiges of a 17th century chapel,” but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.

It seems to me there is a gap between the elite’s vision of what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would have called the broad popular masses. I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy.

They would be better off not taking the names of their earlier statesmen in vain, of course. I’m not so sure who might be turning in their grave right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win. (Applause).

The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

But my real hope is for us to build business-like and constructive relations with the new President and with the future Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the interests of both countries and peoples.

[...]


First, about the interference. I already responded to one of your fellow journalists from the United States. The defeated party always tries to blame somebody on the outside. They should be looking for these problems closer to home.

Everybody keeps forgetting the most important point. For example, some hackers breached email accounts of the US Democratic Party leadership. Some hackers did that. But, as the President-elect rightly noted, does anyone know who those hackers were? Maybe they came from another country, not Russia. Maybe somebody just did it from their couch or bed. These days, it is very easy to designate a random country as the source of attack while being in a completely different location.

But is this important? I think the most important thing is the information that the hackers revealed to the public. Did they compile or manipulate the data? No, they did not. What is the best proof that the hackers uncovered truthful information? The proof is that after the hackers demonstrated how public opinion had been manipulated within the Democratic Party, against one candidate rather than the other, against candidate Sanders, the Democratic National Committee Chairperson resigned. This means she admitted that the hackers revealed the truth. Instead of apologising to the voters and saying, “Forgive us, our bad, we will never do this again,” they started yelling about who was behind the attacks. Is that important?

Full Transcript
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53573

The bold bit about the US and Russia coming closer together around traditional values and a common view on the world's organization is just words, but it's potentially powerful stuff. It's a simultaneous roundhouse kick to both the cultural marxists and Neocon warmongers, who have had it their own way for decades. I look forward to the old media escalating their outrage over Trump and Putin, signing the Neocon tune in agitating for war with Russia.

Post: #54258

(12-23-2016 05:36 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm not even sure the F-35 can be killed at this point. There's so many sunk costs into it that it's become a white elephant and so many people are tied into it, but Trump's done the impossible far more than once. So let's see what happens. It's also possible to negotiate prices down.

But you do have to wonder what they were thinking trying to jerry-rig one plane for three different roles. Unless it was just a total giveaway to the MIC from the beginning which is possible.

At this point, I never doubt anything, especially about what Trump can and can't accomplish.

Post: #54259

Latinopan Wrote:At this point, I never doubt anything, especially about what Trump can and can't accomplish.

^ If the 2016 election cycle taught us anything, it's that underestimating Trump is a serious mistake.

Post: #54260

(12-23-2016 05:36 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm not even sure the F-35 can be killed at this point. There's so many sunk costs into it that it's become a white elephant and so many people are tied into it, but Trump's done the impossible far more than once. So let's see what happens. It's also possible to negotiate prices down.

Hold the leather seats and metallic paint options.

Post: #54261

You guys should quit speculating about war with Russia. Trump and Putin are going to team up to bring righteous justice to the death cultists in the middle east

Post: #54262

Someone has to explain to me the purpose of the nuclear weapons tweet.

Post: #54263

Russia is apparently upset that we're improving our anti-ICBM capabilities in Europe. Tuesday Putin said Russia needs to improve its strategic nuclear capabilities to be able to penetrate any existing defenses. Mr. Trump said "bring it, Vlad", implying that if Russia wants to get into another arms race with us, he's happy to oblige and we'll knock their socks off because we have way more money to spend on such things than Russia.

That's pretty much it.

Post: #54264

(12-24-2016 02:48 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Someone has to explain to me the purpose of the nuclear weapons tweet.

Sure thing, bud.

weambulance correctly touched on it already, but earlier this week Putin stated publicly that Russia must "enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems" (going with the Western media outlet translation of his remarks).

No matter what may have been said by various people in Trump's entourage after the fact, Trump's tweet was very clearly a direct response to Putin's challenge. Trump is putting Putin and his people on notice: Unlike the openly globalist (and crypto-fag/commie) Obama -- who is going to be taken out with the trash in four weeks' time, not a moment too soon -- the United States under Trump will not be remiss in modernizing and, if necessary, expanding its nuclear weapons arsenal; especially so if Russia intends to "enhance" its own capabilities in this regard.

In case any of you have doubts about what Trump meant by the tweet, you should note that Trump telephoned Mika B during Friday's broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe and said in the clearest terms possible: "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."

At long last, we Americans will be getting straight talk from a real human being who has his country's interests first and foremost in his mind. Amen.

Does that clear it up?

(Incidentally, Vicious, I wouldn't worry about Putin if I were you -- isn't Sweden prepared to fight Russia to the last Finn??)

Post: #54265

Quote: Incidentally, Vicious, I wouldn't worry about Putin if I were you -- isn't Sweden prepared to fight Russia to the last Finn??

I've never met a Finn ungrateful for the troop and material support from Sweden during the Winter War, and I'm surrounded by them daily. In a conventional war the military consensus is that a Russian attack on the Nordic countries would be initiated by an amphibious assault on the Swedish island of Gotland to control the Baltic. In a nuclear war however this is all moot, the Nordic countries would be wiped out before any possibility of the civil population to react.

However this is off topic, but I'd be happy to continue elsewhere as these are the scenarios I've trained for in my service.

The question regarding Trumps tweet was an honest one, I've simply not kept up with current events due to everything going on with yuletide.

Post: #54266

And here we were being told by the fake news media that Trump was Putin's puppet.

WRONG!

Post: #54267

(12-24-2016 04:41 AM)Bushido Wrote:  And here we were being told by the fake news media that Trump was Putin's puppet.
WRONG!

I'd like to think that all the women who claimed sexual assault by Trump are getting together with all the Russian hackers for an end of year celebration to reminisce about the year that was...

Post: #54268

Safe to say that in July 2015, this Presidency isn't what I would have expected.

Post: #54269

Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

Post: #54270

(12-24-2016 06:14 AM)nick_ Wrote:  Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

Forgive my analogy, but I've been watching Savage Kingdom on NatGeoWild, and I'm quite impressed with lion social hierarchies. The main lion tribe in the show is ruled by two brothers, who scent mark the borders of their territory that's so large a round trip takes two weeks. It's quite annoying to travel the same route over and over again but it's preferable to fighting other male lions.

Similarly, it's expensive to have to strengthen the nuclear arsenal, frustrating to hear liberal idiots deliberately distort the intent and effect of Trump's tweets, and only a little time consuming to explain it to those genuinely curious people who don't understand - but it's preferable to showing weakness that invites Putin to attack our interests.

Trump's tweet was just peeing on the ground, in lionspeak.

Post: #54271

How soon we forget that the nuclear arms race is largely what forced international conflict from being world-spanning wars of total destruction to covert operations and regional proxy conflicts.

A far lesser evil in my humble opinion.

Post: #54272

(12-24-2016 06:14 AM)nick_ Wrote:  Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

We (the USA) really do need to upgrade our nuclear missiles. We are still using tech from the 1960s to the 1980s and the reliability of our current missiles is in question due to age.

example:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/us/pentago...s-nuclear/

Post: #54273

More butt hurt from CNN.

Muh Muslims!

Post: #54274

(12-24-2016 07:39 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 06:14 AM)nick_ Wrote:  Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

Forgive my analogy, but I've been watching Savage Kingdom on NatGeoWild, and I'm quite impressed with lion social hierarchies. The main lion tribe in the show is ruled by two brothers, who scent mark the borders of their territory that's so large a round trip takes two weeks. It's quite annoying to travel the same route over and over again but it's preferable to fighting other male lions.

Similarly, it's expensive to have to strengthen the nuclear arsenal, frustrating to hear liberal idiots deliberately distort the intent and effect of Trump's tweets, and only a little time consuming to explain it to those genuinely curious people who don't understand - but it's preferable to showing weakness that invites Putin to attack our interests.

Trump's tweet was just peeing on the ground, in lionspeak.

I see it another way, albeit through John T. Reed's eyes: Putin is testing Trump. These guys are not best buds, and won't be for quite some time yet. It's one thing to be a businessman and like the leader of another country, another thing entirely to be the leader of one country and like the leader of another.

Something similar happens to each US President shortly after he takes the office - someone decides to just offer a little shit to see what sort of man they're really dealing with. It can be North Korea, China, you name it, but the sign is always there: early on, someone decides to be James Dean and push back on the teacher to see how far he can be bent. Consequently entire continents have been unconcerned about the US for the past 8 years or so. Obama would do everything but declare war and so every nation in the world knows he never had the balls to stand behind his threats of red lines and so on.

Trump has calmly said to Russia, "If you want to throw rocks, we will throw rocks back." Proportional escalation, in other words: no histrionics (as Hillary surely would have done) threatening dire consequences, just a plain old hitting the ball back. Supposedly, this form of retaliation was one of the more effective ways of garrisoning in Iraq: you didn't shoot the kid who was throwing rocks at your guys, you threw rocks back until he decided to up the ante.

(In passing: in the famous "Sit Room" photo of Obama and friends watching as the Osama kill mission goes down, the guy is crouched over like he wants to be anywhere else but there. If you asked a stranger who'd been living on a tropical island for a year or two to spot the President of the US in that room, I doubt anyone would've pointed at Barry. That's the sort of guy Obama was.)

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #54275

(12-23-2016 05:47 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  The art thing is just one more reason to stop with the Ivanka worship. There is nothing about this women aside from the identity of her father that should make us fans. Her politics are odious. Her choice of husband is suspect. Her taste in "art" speaks of basic bitch cultural degeneracy.

Yes, she looks good for a 35 year old mother of three. But she's still a 35 year old mother of 3, so that's sorta damning with faint praise in my opinion.

I do not want Ivanka Trump to have a large voice in the Trump administration, let alone to have a successful political career in her own right. She has much more in common with a Chelsea Clinton than she does with us.

Don Jr. on the other hand would have my vote any day. That dude is like a Trump 5.0

Part of the price of Ivanka has more to do highlight femininity. Is a counter cultural attack against the price Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham by the media.

One reason the right have been losing the cultural war is because the right spends more time attacking each others, many times about what real right wing is, than counter attacking.

I agree she should not have large voice in the Trump administration.

She has more in common with a Chelsea Clinton than she does with us, so does Trump with Hillary.

We have to use what we have, we cannot start waiting for some magical candidate that is 100% fit to what we want.

Like with Donald, we eventually found a way his victory will benefit us, you can see the different point of view changing from last year.

Now we have to ask, in the cultural war, how can we use the first daughter to beneficiary for us?

One you already pointed out, "Yes, she looks good for a 35 year old mother of three." While the cultural Marxists use Lena Dunham as a sex symbol we men should price, Ivanka is 5 years older with 3 kids and look better.

Feminist: Amy Schumer is redefining beauty

RVF member: I prefer a woman like Ivanka

Feminist: triggered intensifies