America is not only not great but looks like it probably never will be again.

roughbarked said:

America is not only not great but looks like it probably never will be again.

Don’t bet on that. If China attacked America with nuclear missiles right now then America would wipe China off the Map.

Or to put it another way, in the scale of Gibbons “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire”, America matches up with Rome at its peak, before any significant decline.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

America is not only not great but looks like it probably never will be again.

Don’t bet on that. If China attacked America with nuclear missiles right now then America would wipe China off the Map.

Or to put it another way, in the scale of Gibbons “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire”, America matches up with Rome at its peak, before any significant decline.

China knows it can’t beat America in an all-out conflict. At least, not for a long time to come.

Their immediate aim is to build enough strength and presence in the western Pacific to make America question whether anything less than all-out war is an option. As long as China makes the cost of limited conflict too high to countenance, and is careful to not provoke the US to the point where it says ‘screw this, we’re going in boots and all’, then China can achieve its aims gradually.

Great headline

dv said:

Great headline

ta. :)

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

America is not only not great but looks like it probably never will be again.

Don’t bet on that. If China attacked America with nuclear missiles right now then America would wipe China off the Map.

Or to put it another way, in the scale of Gibbons “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire”, America matches up with Rome at its peak, before any significant decline.

China knows it can’t beat America in an all-out conflict. At least, not for a long time to come.

Their immediate aim is to build enough strength and presence in the western Pacific to make America question whether anything less than all-out war is an option. As long as China makes the cost of limited conflict too high to countenance, and is careful to not provoke the US to the point where it says ‘screw this, we’re going in boots and all’, then China can achieve its aims gradually.

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

America is not only not great but looks like it probably never will be again.

Don’t bet on that. If China attacked America with nuclear missiles right now then America would wipe China off the Map.

Or to put it another way, in the scale of Gibbons “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire”, America matches up with Rome at its peak, before any significant decline.

China knows it can’t beat America in an all-out conflict. At least, not for a long time to come.

Their immediate aim is to build enough strength and presence in the western Pacific to make America question whether anything less than all-out war is an option. As long as China makes the cost of limited conflict too high to countenance, and is careful to not provoke the US to the point where it says ‘screw this, we’re going in boots and all’, then China can achieve its aims gradually.

The president has SFA influence on whether the USA is great or not. And even there, Rump is much better than Raygun ever was. Rump actually has a weaseloid intelligence, Raygun didn’t even have that.

What made America great again was the invention of efficient LTO mining technology in 2014. The USA has the second largest LTO reserves in the world, after Bahrain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_oil

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

I wonder if or when space or orbital based weapons will occur (assuming they haven’t already been snuck up there) and treaties be damned

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

It’s a bit Déjà Vu to see all the old Cold War parlance getting a 21st century airing.

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

The Chinese have their ‘aircraft carrier killer’ ballistic missiles these days. I don’t know how the pride of the US fleet would fare in a hot war with China nowadays.

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

It’s a bit Déjà Vu to see all the old Cold War parlance getting a 21st century airing.

Much could be done without actual weapons, mass hacking and social media election manipulation

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

It’s a bit Déjà Vu to see all the old Cold War parlance getting a 21st century airing.

It’s a bit deja vu to see the reds under the beds, yellow peril and domino theory revived.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

I can imagine if a carrier gets taken out it’s going to be a real war

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I have a tongue-in-cheek theory that China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR – Force them to spend more and more trying to keep up (with China’s massive manufacturing sector) and make them broke. The US won’t be able to afford the massive military budget, so they will lose their place as the #1 superpower.
Even more tongue-in-cheek is the possibility of China working with Russia to speed all that along.

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

The Russians will remember how they were conned by the US. “If you scrap your nukes we wont build any more of ours.”

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

The Chinese have their ‘aircraft carrier killer’ ballistic missiles these days. I don’t know how the pride of the US fleet would fare in a hot war with China nowadays.

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

The Chinese have their ‘aircraft carrier killer’ ballistic missiles these days. I don’t know how the pride of the US fleet would fare in a hot war with China nowadays.

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

They still haven’t returned Harold Holt

party_pants said:

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

As i say, you don’t have to have the capacity to win the fighting to win the war. You just have to make the potential cost of the fighting unpalatable to your opponent.

North Vietnam/General Giap knew that. The strategy all along was to make the war so costly and tiresome that America would just give up, which is basically what happened. The cost to Nth Vietnam was terrible, but they were prepared to keep feeding people into the conflict for as long as it took. Militarily, they could be beaten, and were on many occasions ( they got whomped at Tet in 1968 and in their 1972 Easter Offensive, albeit with help of US air power), but they were quite prepared to play the long game. As they say ‘we lost the battles, but we won the war’.

China needs only to present the scenario of a US victory which can be won only at savage cost to America, and be careful to not go beyond a certain point, and the US is unlikely to do anything ‘decisive’.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

As i say, you don’t have to have the capacity to win the fighting to win the war. You just have to make the potential cost of the fighting unpalatable to your opponent.

North Vietnam/General Giap knew that. The strategy all along was to make the war so costly and tiresome that America would just give up, which is basically what happened. The cost to Nth Vietnam was terrible, but they were prepared to keep feeding people into the conflict for as long as it took. Militarily, they could be beaten, and were on many occasions ( they got whomped at Tet in 1968 and in their 1972 Easter Offensive, albeit with help of US air power), but they were quite prepared to play the long game. As they say ‘we lost the battles, but we won the war’.

China needs only to present the scenario of a US victory which can be won only at savage cost to America, and be careful to not go beyond a certain point, and the US is unlikely to do anything ‘decisive’.

Yes.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

The Chinese have their ‘aircraft carrier killer’ ballistic missiles these days. I don’t know how the pride of the US fleet would fare in a hot war with China nowadays.

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

Ballistic missiles operate at speeds many times greater than cruise missiles. They’re practically unstoppable at this point in time i think.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Chinese have their ‘aircraft carrier killer’ ballistic missiles these days. I don’t know how the pride of the US fleet would fare in a hot war with China nowadays.

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

They still haven’t returned Harold Holt

Surely there’d only be his remains by now?

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

They still haven’t returned Harold Holt

Surely there’d only be his remains by now?

That is true

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

They still haven’t returned Harold Holt

Surely there’d only be his remains by now?

There was a doco about US electronic warfare destroyers a while ago. It’s my guess that the US have something way better than whatever they make public. There are rumors of missile killing lasers.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

As i say, you don’t have to have the capacity to win the fighting to win the war. You just have to make the potential cost of the fighting unpalatable to your opponent.

North Vietnam/General Giap knew that. The strategy all along was to make the war so costly and tiresome that America would just give up, which is basically what happened. The cost to Nth Vietnam was terrible, but they were prepared to keep feeding people into the conflict for as long as it took. Militarily, they could be beaten, and were on many occasions ( they got whomped at Tet in 1968 and in their 1972 Easter Offensive, albeit with help of US air power), but they were quite prepared to play the long game. As they say ‘we lost the battles, but we won the war’.

China needs only to present the scenario of a US victory which can be won only at savage cost to America, and be careful to not go beyond a certain point, and the US is unlikely to do anything ‘decisive’.

I don’t think anyone is going to want to take Chinese territory on their mainland, so the battle won’t be fought there. It will be about containing China to their mainland. Getting rid of their bases in the South China Sea, and kicking them out of overseas bases they are trying to establish in places like Sri Lanka and Djibouti, or anywhere else in Africa or the South Pacific they might try in future. Getting them to restrict themselves to an EEZ of 200 nautical miles like everyone else and not claiming the whole SCS for a start. They have a vulnerability in the Malacca Straits, they couldn’t control that strait in the face of opposition and it would be used to cut off their oil supplies. No oil supplies, no China.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Chinese have their ‘aircraft carrier killer’ ballistic missiles these days. I don’t know how the pride of the US fleet would fare in a hot war with China nowadays.

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

Ballistic missiles operate at speeds many times greater than cruise missiles. They’re practically unstoppable at this point in time i think.

Actually i might be out of date:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

Dunno about ICBMs though.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

Ballistic missiles operate at speeds many times greater than cruise missiles. They’re practically unstoppable at this point in time i think.

Actually i might be out of date:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

Dunno about ICBMs though.

The article mentions ICBMs , “it is commonly used for systems specifically designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Chinese have their ‘aircraft carrier killer’ ballistic missiles these days. I don’t know how the pride of the US fleet would fare in a hot war with China nowadays.

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

Ballistic missiles operate at speeds many times greater than cruise missiles. They’re practically unstoppable at this point in time i think.

The US have developed a ballistic missile defense system as an upgrade to the AEGIS air defence system. All of the US Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers operate AEGIS, and all will be upgraded with BMD, if they have not been already. Beginning with the ships assigned to the Pacific Fleet. I am not sure if the program has been finished already or not, it started about 2012.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Pretty well I’d reckon. The USSR had the same basic strategy with their long range bombers armed with cruise missiles. A US carrier never sails alone, it always has a group of cruisers and destroyers with them. These are heavily armed and very high tech ships in their own right, they operate as a group exactly to counter these sorts of threats, they are equipped with anti-ballistic missile weapons. The bigger danger is probably subs.

Ballistic missiles operate at speeds many times greater than cruise missiles. They’re practically unstoppable at this point in time i think.

The US have developed a ballistic missile defense system as an upgrade to the AEGIS air defence system. All of the US Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers operate AEGIS, and all will be upgraded with BMD, if they have not been already. Beginning with the ships assigned to the Pacific Fleet. I am not sure if the program has been finished already or not, it started about 2012.

My memory is failing me. I seem to erroneously remember the US having testing troubles under GW Bush.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Ballistic missiles operate at speeds many times greater than cruise missiles. They’re practically unstoppable at this point in time i think.

The US have developed a ballistic missile defense system as an upgrade to the AEGIS air defence system. All of the US Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers operate AEGIS, and all will be upgraded with BMD, if they have not been already. Beginning with the ships assigned to the Pacific Fleet. I am not sure if the program has been finished already or not, it started about 2012.

My memory is failing me. I seem to erroneously remember the US having testing troubles under GW Bush.

Fair enough.

Besides all that, you have to wonder how well ballistic missiles would go against moving targets like ships. You’d have to find them first, and track them. Right now China probably don’t have the navy to do the finding without being sunk themselves first.

i’d expect that china sees its trajectory as requiring a uniformity of ‘education’ (make of that what you will) among its own, which involves considerable mutual respect among its own, a cultural force that way, something substantially diluted in many other countries

a political eclectic doesn’t have much appeal

all china needs to do is maintain competitive pressure that force the models of liberty to protect private wealth in ways that are self-corrupting, in America you might see it as wealth disparity extremes, a failure to pick up their own and provide even modest certainty, which ought be cause for embarrassment

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

A long time back, Britain had a ‘two-power’ policy – it had to have a Navy that was stronger than any combination of any two of its likely opponents.

If the US feels compelled to do that, then it’s going to stress their economy hugely. They’d be very dependent on having superior technology, wheareas China and Russia have long had the idea that overwhelming numbers is the way to go.

Russia knew they were always behind the US in technology, and it was the maintenance of hordes of people and swarms of equipment that sent them broke. Back in 1984, one analyst said to me that ‘if the Russians don’t attack Europe this year, they never will’. Their equipment was getting outdated and worn out, couldn’t be replaced quickly as new equipment was more complex, and the cost of a massive re-equipment programme was beyond them.

Allied to a deep fear of Reagan’s SDI project (which they felt could not be made to work, but about which they could not be sure – Reagan was smart enough to play that bluff), they were feeling inclined to say ‘bugger this for a joke’, and the Russians hawks had to take a back seat.

The US have got a lead well in advance of 2 to 1 for any potential naval threat. They have 11 large fleet carriers, all nuclear powered, with conventional aircraft. No other nation has even one carrier close in size and capability. On top of that they have a similar number of LHDs which can operate STOVL aircraft. The nations with the next best carriers are all NATO allies anyway.

The Russians will remember how they were conned by the US. “If you scrap your nukes we wont build any more of ours.”

…and I can hear Vladamir LHFAO about Dump breaking up NATO…

transition said:

i’d expect that china sees its trajectory as requiring a uniformity of ‘education’ (make of that what you will) among its own, which involves considerable mutual respect among its own, a cultural force that way, something substantially diluted in many other countries

a political eclectic doesn’t have much appeal

all china needs to do is maintain competitive pressure that force the models of liberty to protect private wealth in ways that are self-corrupting, in America you might see it as wealth disparity extremes, a failure to pick up their own and provide even modest certainty, which ought be cause for embarrassment

“It’s own” doesn’t include ethnic minorities, apparently

Someone speculated as to a Russo/Chinese Alliance

Someone else suggested that China would be strangled by cutting off their oil supply

Scientists have calculated that Russia//USSR would be the sole beneficiary of Global Warming
in that they could finally grow crops to feed their population PLUS the Melting Arctic would
allow shipping for the first time and free up oil exploration and trade.

In a temporary armed/trade alliance to take out America, Russia would be the winner in the
short run but as history will bear out, China is in it “For the Long Game”

Chinese/Russian relations are pretty poor right now.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

The US have developed a ballistic missile defense system as an upgrade to the AEGIS air defence system. All of the US Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers operate AEGIS, and all will be upgraded with BMD, if they have not been already. Beginning with the ships assigned to the Pacific Fleet. I am not sure if the program has been finished already or not, it started about 2012.

My memory is failing me. I seem to erroneously remember the US having testing troubles under GW Bush.

Fair enough.

Besides all that, you have to wonder how well ballistic missiles would go against moving targets like ships. You’d have to find them first, and track them. Right now China probably don’t have the navy to do the finding without being sunk themselves first.

ICBMs descend at 7km/s so it’s more about the accuracy of hitting a small target with less consideration of hitting a relatively slow-moving one.

Ogmog said:

Someone speculated as to a Russo/Chinese Alliance

Someone else suggested that China would be strangled by cutting off their oil supply

Scientists have calculated that Russia//USSR would be the sole beneficiary of Global Warming
in that they could finally grow crops to feed their population PLUS the Melting Arctic would
allow shipping for the first time and free up oil exploration and trade.

In a temporary armed/trade alliance to take out America, Russia would be the winner in the
short run but as history will bear out, China is in it “For the Long Game”

Russia and China don’t get along well. There is a long list of grievances, including China wanting to be a player in the Arctic but Russia wanting only those nations bordering it to be involved. China also has claims over what is currently Russian territory in the far east (Like Valdivostok), which was taken from from the Qing Dynasty in the 1860s. They also have complaints about China ripping off Russian military technology and intellectual property. There is a lack of trust on the Russian side with regards selling them military equipment.

in a sense, if you generalize the essentials of ideology, what makes an ideology (inclusive of religion), china is less heathen than the US, the latter possibly to the extent of bordering dysfunctional

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

My memory is failing me. I seem to erroneously remember the US having testing troubles under GW Bush.

Fair enough.

Besides all that, you have to wonder how well ballistic missiles would go against moving targets like ships. You’d have to find them first, and track them. Right now China probably don’t have the navy to do the finding without being sunk themselves first.

ICBMs descend at 7km/s so it’s more about the accuracy of hitting a small target with less consideration of hitting a relatively slow-moving one.

Shit i’m stoopid today. Obviously tracking of targets would have to be very accurate from the launch of ICBMs and their descent many minutes later.

transition said:

in a sense, if you generalize the essentials of ideology, what makes an ideology (inclusive of religion), china is less heathen than the US, the latter possibly to the extent of bordering dysfunctional

The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny. That of the two values they champion: democracy is by far the more important. If they can get that sorted they’ll be fine.

party_pants said:

transition said:

in a sense, if you generalize the essentials of ideology, what makes an ideology (inclusive of religion), china is less heathen than the US, the latter possibly to the extent of bordering dysfunctional

The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny. That of the two values they champion: democracy is by far the more important. If they can get that sorted they’ll be fine.

the cough democracy of money, nah they need drop the siege business, it’s in films, news, broadly permeates everything, leaks out here too, the incontinent bullshit, a device of ideology. Return to sender, they can keep it over there

party_pants said:

Ogmog said:

Someone speculated as to a Russo/Chinese Alliance

Someone else suggested that China would be strangled by cutting off their oil supply

Scientists have calculated that Russia//USSR would be the sole beneficiary of Global Warming
in that they could finally grow crops to feed their population PLUS the Melting Arctic would
allow shipping for the first time and free up oil exploration and trade.

In a temporary armed/trade alliance to take out America, Russia would be the winner in the
short run but as history will bear out, China is in it “For the Long Game”

Russia and China don’t get along well. There is a long list of grievances, including China wanting to be a player in the Arctic but Russia wanting only those nations bordering it to be involved. China also has claims over what is currently Russian territory in the far east (Like Valdivostok), which was taken from from the Qing Dynasty in the 1860s. They also have complaints about China ripping off Russian military technology and intellectual property. There is a lack of trust on the Russian side with regards selling them military equipment.

perhaps you’re familiar with the concept
“The Enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

..at least in the short term..

transition said:

party_pants said:

transition said:

in a sense, if you generalize the essentials of ideology, what makes an ideology (inclusive of religion), china is less heathen than the US, the latter possibly to the extent of bordering dysfunctional

The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny. That of the two values they champion: democracy is by far the more important. If they can get that sorted they’ll be fine.

the cough democracy of money, nah they need drop the siege business, it’s in films, news, broadly permeates everything, leaks out here too, the incontinent bullshit, a device of ideology. Return to sender, they can keep it over there

all they had to do was back the greedy unscrupulous bastid willing to SELL out his country

Ogmog said:

party_pants said:

Ogmog said:

Someone speculated as to a Russo/Chinese Alliance

Someone else suggested that China would be strangled by cutting off their oil supply

Scientists have calculated that Russia//USSR would be the sole beneficiary of Global Warming
in that they could finally grow crops to feed their population PLUS the Melting Arctic would
allow shipping for the first time and free up oil exploration and trade.

In a temporary armed/trade alliance to take out America, Russia would be the winner in the
short run but as history will bear out, China is in it “For the Long Game”

Russia and China don’t get along well. There is a long list of grievances, including China wanting to be a player in the Arctic but Russia wanting only those nations bordering it to be involved. China also has claims over what is currently Russian territory in the far east (Like Valdivostok), which was taken from from the Qing Dynasty in the 1860s. They also have complaints about China ripping off Russian military technology and intellectual property. There is a lack of trust on the Russian side with regards selling them military equipment.

perhaps you’re familiar with the concept
“The Enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

..at least in the short term..

The Russians see the EU and NATO as their biggest threat. The latter are not really in open conflict with China yet. China are a potential threat to the Russian east.

Ogmog said:

transition said:

party_pants said:

The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny. That of the two values they champion: democracy is by far the more important. If they can get that sorted they’ll be fine.

the cough democracy of money, nah they need drop the siege business, it’s in films, news, broadly permeates everything, leaks out here too, the incontinent bullshit, a device of ideology. Return to sender, they can keep it over there

all they had to do was back the greedy unscrupulous bastid willing to SELL out his country

Letter: Khrushchev prediction slowly coming true

transition said:

party_pants said:

transition said:

in a sense, if you generalize the essentials of ideology, what makes an ideology (inclusive of religion), china is less heathen than the US, the latter possibly to the extent of bordering dysfunctional

The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny. That of the two values they champion: democracy is by far the more important. If they can get that sorted they’ll be fine.

the cough democracy of money, nah they need drop the siege business, it’s in films, news, broadly permeates everything, leaks out here too, the incontinent bullshit, a device of ideology. Return to sender, they can keep it over there

Yes. The American dream. Where the dreamers get rich and the workers starve.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

party_pants said:

The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny. That of the two values they champion: democracy is by far the more important. If they can get that sorted they’ll be fine.

the cough democracy of money, nah they need drop the siege business, it’s in films, news, broadly permeates everything, leaks out here too, the incontinent bullshit, a device of ideology. Return to sender, they can keep it over there

Yes. The American dream. Where the dreamers get rich and the workers starve.

> The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny.

Agree. Except that “democracy” has nothing to do with voting.

And “tyranny” is another word for “effective legal system”. Remember what Wall Street does without government control.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

the cough democracy of money, nah they need drop the siege business, it’s in films, news, broadly permeates everything, leaks out here too, the incontinent bullshit, a device of ideology. Return to sender, they can keep it over there

Yes. The American dream. Where the dreamers get rich and the workers starve.

> The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny.

Agree. Except that “democracy” has nothing to do with voting.

And “tyranny” is another word for “effective legal system”. Remember what Wall Street does without government control.

What does democracy have to do with, dear sir?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Yes. The American dream. Where the dreamers get rich and the workers starve.

> The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny.

Agree. Except that “democracy” has nothing to do with voting.

And “tyranny” is another word for “effective legal system”. Remember what Wall Street does without government control.

What does democracy have to do with, dear sir?

Mob rule.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> The US need to drop their focus on capitalism vs communism and focus instead on democracy vs tyranny.

Agree. Except that “democracy” has nothing to do with voting.

And “tyranny” is another word for “effective legal system”. Remember what Wall Street does without government control.

What does democracy have to do with, dear sir?

Mob rule.

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What does democracy have to do with, dear sir?

Mob rule.

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

Mob voting for mob rulers?
America has two voting systems
popular votes for people
college votes for the mob

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What does democracy have to do with, dear sir?

Mob rule.

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

Voting is what it is.
But democracy is simply mob rule.

We may be able to discern and make our own vote but the mob still rules.

I am glad that someone changed the way the thread was going.
Being great is not about military capacity.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Mob rule.

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

Voting is what it is.
But democracy is simply mob rule.

We may be able to discern and make our own vote but the mob still rules.

The majority vote is not the same as “the mob”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

Voting is what it is.
But democracy is simply mob rule.

We may be able to discern and make our own vote but the mob still rules.

The majority vote is not the same as “the mob”.

Barely millimetres off.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Voting is what it is.
But democracy is simply mob rule.

We may be able to discern and make our own vote but the mob still rules.

The majority vote is not the same as “the mob”.

Barely millimetres off.

So what’s your preferred alternative?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The majority vote is not the same as “the mob”.

Barely millimetres off.

So what’s your preferred alternative?

Teach your children well.

roughbarked said:

I am glad that someone changed the way the thread was going.
Being great is not about military capacity.

No, it isn’t.

This has undoubtedly been pointed to in this forum before today, but it sums it up very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Barely millimetres off.

So what’s your preferred alternative?

Teach your children well.

And think of other peoples’ (e.g. your constituents’) children as being equal to your own. Not as some amorphous faceless ‘mass’ that you hope can be moulded and utilised only as a ‘market’ or a resource, or as cannon fodder to fulfil whatever agenda your party or your sponsors have.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So what’s your preferred alternative?

Teach your children well.

And think of other peoples’ (e.g. your constituents’) children as being equal to your own. Not as some amorphous faceless ‘mass’ that you hope can be moulded and utilised only as a ‘market’ or a resource, or as cannon fodder to fulfil whatever agenda your party or your sponsors have.

I value your contributions greatly. :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What does democracy have to do with, dear sir?

Mob rule.

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

Though I respect Mollwoll’s credentials, I would never place myself in consensus in regard to anyone’s religious or political views.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Barely millimetres off.

So what’s your preferred alternative?

Teach your children well.

So that’s an alternative to democracy is it?

Where is this law that democracies must not allow people to teach their children well enshrined?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Mob rule.

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

Though I respect Mollwoll’s credentials, I would never place myself in consensus in regard to anyone’s religious or political views.

OK, forget the fumble bit then.

How do you answer the question?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So what’s your preferred alternative?

Teach your children well.

So that’s an alternative to democracy is it?

Where is this law that democracies must not allow people to teach their children well enshrined?

Private schools is one big set of examples. They turn out people like Tony Abbott.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So is the roughbarkfumble consensus that democracy depends on mob rule, and has nothing to do with voting?

What do we call a system that does have to do with voting then?

Though I respect Mollwoll’s credentials, I would never place myself in consensus in regard to anyone’s religious or political views.

OK, forget the fumble bit then.

How do you answer the question?

You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Though I respect Mollwoll’s credentials, I would never place myself in consensus in regard to anyone’s religious or political views.

OK, forget the fumble bit then.

How do you answer the question?

You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Teach your children well.

So that’s an alternative to democracy is it?

Where is this law that democracies must not allow people to teach their children well enshrined?

Private schools is one big set of examples. They turn out people like Tony Abbott.

What do private schools have to do with democracy?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, forget the fumble bit then.

How do you answer the question?

You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

You don’t comprehend structural deficiencies?

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

I am glad that someone changed the way the thread was going.
Being great is not about military capacity.

No, it isn’t.

This has undoubtedly been pointed to in this forum before today, but it sums it up very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs

OK, but what alternative universe does he come from where America used to be as he described it?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

You don’t comprehend structural deficiencies?

Yes, I comprehend structural deficiencies very well thank you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

I am glad that someone changed the way the thread was going.
Being great is not about military capacity.

No, it isn’t.

This has undoubtedly been pointed to in this forum before today, but it sums it up very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs

OK, but what alternative universe does he come from where America used to be as he described it?

The American dream scenario?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have no idea what you mean by that.

You don’t comprehend structural deficiencies?

Yes, I comprehend structural deficiencies very well thank you.

Good.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

You don’t comprehend structural deficiencies?

Yes, I comprehend structural deficiencies very well thank you.

Good.

So what did you mean by:

“You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, I comprehend structural deficiencies very well thank you.

Good.

So what did you mean by:

“You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.”?

You seem unable to read and continue the conversation. Back up a few steps and read it all again.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Good.

So what did you mean by:

“You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.”?

You seem unable to read and continue the conversation. Back up a few steps and read it all again.

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question. Back up one step, read the question and answer it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but what alternative universe does he come from where America used to be as he described it?

As i’ve mentioned before, i listen to a lot of old-time radio dramas and serials. Often these, especially the American ones, come complete with ads and announcements (one had an interruption to say, basically, that the Korean War had started).

That includes govt announcements and campaigns. Give blood, volunteer for community programmmes, help out with your local school, donate to foreign aid charities, etc.

Those were, at least, times when American govts had no qualms about encouraging a more positive view among Americans of their duties to their own society and to the greater world.

Would probably be condemned as ‘commie bullshit’ these days.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So what did you mean by:

“You may gather that perspicacity does not, like many other answers in this thread, put oneself out on a limb with structural deficiencies.”?

You seem unable to read and continue the conversation. Back up a few steps and read it all again.

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question. Back up one step, read the question and answer it.

I did answer it but you keep asking. I won’t define any political or religious system as perfect and the way. I’ve seen so many make errors of judgement
The point is, you can’t make me give you the answer you want.
You are asking me to solve the worlds problems for you.
My name isn’t Donald Trump nor is it Alan C. Carlson.
Democracy may have served us well but there is as many have said, a fine line. As the Bhuddists say, If you want to see a bad person, look in the mirror. If you want to see a good person, look in the mirror.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

You seem unable to read and continue the conversation. Back up a few steps and read it all again.

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question. Back up one step, read the question and answer it.

I did answer it but you keep asking. I won’t define any political or religious system as perfect and the way. I’ve seen so many make errors of judgement
The point is, you can’t make me give you the answer you want.
You are asking me to solve the worlds problems for you.
My name isn’t Donald Trump nor is it Alan C. Carlson.
Democracy may have served us well but there is as many have said, a fine line. As the Bhuddists say, If you want to see a bad person, look in the mirror. If you want to see a good person, look in the mirror.

Good morning Mr barked, hope you are keeping well.

You seem to be reading an awful lot into a simple statement of non-comprehension, but I think I will let it drop.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question. Back up one step, read the question and answer it.

I did answer it but you keep asking. I won’t define any political or religious system as perfect and the way. I’ve seen so many make errors of judgement
The point is, you can’t make me give you the answer you want.
You are asking me to solve the worlds problems for you.
My name isn’t Donald Trump nor is it Alan C. Carlson.
Democracy may have served us well but there is as many have said, a fine line. As the Bhuddists say, If you want to see a bad person, look in the mirror. If you want to see a good person, look in the mirror.

Good morning Mr barked, hope you are keeping well.

You seem to be reading an awful lot into a simple statement of non-comprehension, but I think I will let it drop.

I do understand. ;)
However, we could discuss it long and hard over a table where we could see each others faces.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I did answer it but you keep asking. I won’t define any political or religious system as perfect and the way. I’ve seen so many make errors of judgement
The point is, you can’t make me give you the answer you want.
You are asking me to solve the worlds problems for you.
My name isn’t Donald Trump nor is it Alan C. Carlson.
Democracy may have served us well but there is as many have said, a fine line. As the Bhuddists say, If you want to see a bad person, look in the mirror. If you want to see a good person, look in the mirror.

Good morning Mr barked, hope you are keeping well.

You seem to be reading an awful lot into a simple statement of non-comprehension, but I think I will let it drop.

I do understand. ;)
However, we could discuss it long and hard over a table where we could see each others faces.

Adopts inscrutable expression. :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Good morning Mr barked, hope you are keeping well.

You seem to be reading an awful lot into a simple statement of non-comprehension, but I think I will let it drop.

I do understand. ;)
However, we could discuss it long and hard over a table where we could see each others faces.

Adopts inscrutable expression. :)

Too much poker playing. ;)

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I do understand. ;)
However, we could discuss it long and hard over a table where we could see each others faces.

Adopts inscrutable expression. :)

Too much poker playing. ;)

:!

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Adopts inscrutable expression. :)

Too much poker playing. ;)

:!

Is all this :; {} () ¡! ¿? business adequately inscrutable ¿

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Too much poker playing. ;)

:!

Is all this :; {} () ¡! ¿? business adequately inscrutable ¿

Not really.

I wanted to use :|
but I couldn’t find a | symbol on the pad I was using.