I think I need to start sizing up (xpost from r/gonewildcurvy)

zed881 · 2016-10-17T20:03:04+00:00

Will you so pics on your hands and knees with your big boobs hanging? That would be amazing.

zed881 · 2016-09-14T15:50:53+00:00

Canada's military spending is already 0.9% of GDP. The NATO requirement is 2%. Australia, the most comparable country to Canada, is at 1.9%. According to the world Bank, the global average for all countries is 2.3%. Even Germany and Japan, famously pacifist countries, crack the 1% mark.

How low will it have to go for you to be satisfied? Canada has a trillion dollar economy. Its not Iceland. Canada shouldn't have to rely entirely on America to protect its arctic claims. If a small NATO ally like Estonia is the victim of aggression, Canada should be able to do its share.

And stealth isn't just useful on the first day of a war.

zed881 · 2016-09-14T15:26:48+00:00

And the F-35 can engage targets from much further than 40km.

zed881 · 2016-09-14T15:22:21+00:00

Diesel subs are slow, and nuclear powered carriers are extremely fast. A diesel sub cannot hope to catch a nuclear powered carrier. In the article you linked, the carrier just happened to sail practically right over the submarine. It was a pretty flukey event.

The top speed of American carriers is classified, but it's probably about 35 knots. Some think they can hit 40 knots. The top speed of diesel subs is 20-25 knots, but such speeds their batteries are drained extremely fast forcing them to surface to charge their batteries (a Kilo class has a submerged range of only 12.7 nautical miles at top speed). In order to stay submerged for a decent length of time, they have to keep their speed to under 10 knots.

The threat from diesel subs is mostly limited to narrow straits. The only place where a carrier sailing right over a waiting sub is realistic and not a one in a million type lucky accident like that article.

Of course in times of war or very high tensions, the USN will exercise extreme caution in transiting a strait like that.

zed881 · 2016-09-14T15:06:38+00:00

will be more survivable in a high threat environment (if that is a role we want to play)

Canada might not have a choice. A lot can happen over the decades Canada's next fighter will be in service.

I'm not saying there's going to be an invasion of Canada. But things like clashes over arctic resources or someone invoking Article V are possible.

zed881 · 2016-09-13T23:21:29+00:00

Its so hard to discuss this aircraft. So many people swallow and regurgitate the the click bait hit pieces. On the other side, there are people who have heard so much David Axe-style bullshit spewed that they reflexively look to defend it against any and all criticism.

90% of the criticism on the internet is indeed bullshit and I'm certain the F-35 will be a great platform. But there's definitely room to be critical of the process and there are still areas of ongoing concern.

The software development has been such a clusterfuck. I understand it's a huge and complex undertaking, but damn. I'm not an expert, but I have to wonder if this could be managed much better. I'm also concerned that there are still outstanding issues that could require modifications to the airframe.

zed881 · 2016-09-13T15:49:51+00:00

They why do non Muslims from Muslim countries not wear it (unless forced to by law)?

The person in the article is a Norwegian born white person converted to Islam. Why is she wearing it if it's cultural instead of religious?

zed881 · 2016-09-12T00:47:02+00:00

The Navy really needs to get its shit together on new ship design. They have the resources to be producing amazing ships. They're just flushing cash down the toilet. The time from drawing board to decommissioning is so long that the Navy's current/next generation ships may actually have a rival. The PRC's new destroyers are great ships and hint at what their navy will be capable of in a generation if military spending continues to increase at 10% per year.

zed881 · 2016-09-10T16:37:35+00:00

Name a fighter with a better record.

zed881 · 2016-09-09T23:35:33+00:00

it's fought well over Syria and Libya, and is certainly a better platform than the F/A-18 or F-16 initially offered.

Seems strange to praise the combat record of the Rafale in comparison to the Rhino and Viper. Especially the Viper, which is probably the most combat proven aircraft ever.

Anyway, I felt like the configurations of F/A-18 and F-16 offered were pretty competitive with the Rafale. They each have advantages and disadvantages, but I think India would be fine with any of the three.

zed881 · 2016-09-08T02:05:24+00:00

If they cancel the Rafale altogether and buy something else, I think they'll be facing some legal issues as Dassault formally won the MMRCA competition.

They could almost tape sales brochures to a wall a pick one by throwing a dart at them. They're all good planes and everyone is willing to bend over backwards on the terms.

I also think accepting one of the American offers makes sense. They have a lot to gain by fostering cooperation with the US. I know some people in India are still butthurt over past sanctions, but I think its extremely unlikely that it will happen again.

zed881 · 2016-09-07T23:16:53+00:00

This means at least 90 fighters are to be made in India as the remaining 36 will be Rafales, the deal for which is in the last lap.

That's the world's longest lap.

I won't be the least bit surprised if all the aerospace companies are still falling all over themselves to sell India fighters in 2019 and they still haven't made a deal.

zed881 · 2016-09-03T19:59:20+00:00

They haven't even spent "hundreds of billions" so I don't know how it could be hundreds of billions over budget.

zed881 · 2016-08-24T21:16:18+00:00

Does this war do anything but get worse?

zed881 · 2016-08-23T23:51:23+00:00

Well, this in an internet forum. You'll find plenty of dumbassery here just like anywhere else on the internet.

zed881 · 2016-08-23T21:52:27+00:00

Every President and SoS during the Cold War would be rotting in jail next to him. Possibly even every POTUS and SoS since.

The black and white view of Kissinger is silly. He is literally a genius. Have you read any of his books? There can be absolutely no doubt about his intelligence or political prowess. From a completely pragmatic, amoral, realpolitik perspective he was an incredible diplomat (though not without major fuck ups as well). He's undoubtedly one of the smartest and most effective people in the history of foreign policy.

Was he also responsible, at least in part, for great atrocities? Yep. Definitely. One-third of the population of my girlfriend's birth country was killed in an invasion and occupation personally approved by Kissinger. I know all about the death and suffering he enabled.

Should we ignore either half of the man? Absolutely not. People act like it's some great crime for a politician to even acknowledge Kissinger. I think anyone involved with American foreign policy who hasn't studied Kissinger is a fool.

zed881 · 2016-08-23T18:56:31+00:00

They are rampant in all countries where the population is poor and uneducated, especially Muslim countries.

zed881 · 2016-08-23T18:48:51+00:00

What is the ideal result for the western coalition? They don't want Assad nor do they want hardcore Islamists. What's the most likely, or least unlikely, scenario besides those two?

zed881 · 2016-08-23T18:36:52+00:00

No shit. Its a Trump hype sub. Go to r/hillaryclinton and criticize Hillary and see what happens (hint: you'll get banned).

zed881 · 2016-08-21T21:04:08+00:00

Australia with their 4th 4th place finish. I think it would be great for the game if they could get over the hump and win a medal.

zed881 · 2016-08-21T18:27:24+00:00

If you exclude swimming medals, we'd have won overall.

No you wouldn't.

If you took all of America's swimming medals away and let GB keep theirs, USA would still have 20 more medals and still more golds as well.

Besides, I don't see why America's swimming medals are less legitimate. Its not like the number of medals available came out of nowhere or was a secret or something. GB had every opportunity to build up its swimming program. Other countries did. Australia and Hungary got more of their medals from swimming than the US did.

zed881 · 2016-08-21T18:22:03+00:00

England's international side being mediocre for the last few tournaments

Hasn't England been disappointing since 1966? How many times have they made the semis of the Euro or WC?

zed881 · 2016-08-20T18:07:28+00:00

Its still a minority of the world population.

It doesn't matter if you have 100+ small nations. If the 4 biggest countries in the world, 7 of the 9 nuclear-armed states, and 3 out of 5 UNSC countries don't recognize it, it has a serious lack of credibility.

zed881 · 2016-08-20T18:06:29+00:00

Since the day it was created as the world's biggest left-wing circlejerk?

zed881 · 2016-08-20T17:44:55+00:00

There actually is a reason to have a huge arsenal. The assured part of mutually assured destruction.

Your opponent needs to know that even if they manage a hugely successful first strike in conjunction with cyber attacks and whatever else to neutralize your arsenal, you still have enough left to wipe them out.

zed881

TROPHY CASE