On May 15, 3:13=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 1:00=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On May 15, 2:15=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 10:59=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 12:15=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 15, 9:48=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 15, 11:34=A0am, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 15, 7:47=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > ...so consistently? LOL!
>
> > > > > > > > "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning
to=
the
> > > > > > > > military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that
expensi=
ve, new
> > > > > > > > conventional weapons must prove their value to current
confl=
icts,
> > > > > > > > marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a
place=
in future
> > > > > > > > budgets."
>
> > > > > > > > =93Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely
ne=
ed in the
> > > > > > > > years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities
we=
need
> > > > > > > > today,=94 he added."
>
> > > > > > > > [i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]
>
> > > > > > > > "Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the
newest=
> > > > > > > > generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs,
in =
particular
> > > > > > > > the Army=92s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force=92s
F-2=
2 advanced
> > > > > > > > warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon
budg=
et
> > > > > > > > officers questioning whether either would be required for
mi=
ssions
> > > > > > > > similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."
>
> > > > > > > > "The defense secretary also criticized a budget process
that=
he said
> > > > > > > > results in the production of fewer, but more expensive,
wars=
hips,
> > > > > > > > warplanes and armored vehicles."
>
> > > > > > > > [i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows,
an=
d larger
> > > > > > > > quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost
exactl=
y like
> > > > > > > > I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an
anachronism=
from the
> > > > > > > > cold war.]
>
> > > > > > > > "To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at
th=
e end of
> > > > > > > > the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in
a=
position
> > > > > > > > to write his strategic view into any but the next budget.
Th=
us, the
> > > > > > > > services and industry may seek to push through the
programs =
Mr. Gates
> > > > > > > > said should be scrutinized."
>
> > > > > > > > [i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself.
LO=
L!]
>
> > > > > > > > "The military, he declared, =93has ample and untapped
combat=
power in
> > > > > > > > our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any
=
=97 repeat,
> > > > > > > > any =97 adversary who committed an act of aggression,
whethe=
r in the
> > > > > > > > Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of
T=
aiwan.
> > > > > > > > There is a risk =97 but a prudent and manageable one.=94
>
> > > > > > > =A0 Nothing is static. =A0How long will the risk in the
Gulf, =
the Taiwan
> > > > > > > Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?
>
> > > > > > Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and
Iraq, =
2pid.
> > > > > > That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read?
LOL!
>
> > > > > BS, the forces that are in play in Afghanistan are hardly the
forc=
es
> > > > > that will be needed to operate in the Taiwan strait. =A0
>
> > > > Um, 2pid, the fighting forces are *always* the smallest part of
the
> > > > deal. Think "logistics". If we're logistically tied up with a
large
> > > > effort elsewhere, it very much limits our abilities elsewhere.
Duh.
>
> > > The battle for Taiwan won't last longer than 5 days.
> > > =A0If logistics come into play, you'll have already lost.
>
> > We've already lost then, 2pid, as aircraft or naval forces cannot even
> > get there without logistics. We'd have to divert from our main effort,
> > which is Iraq.
>
> =A0 BS, we have at most 1 or 2 carrier battle groups in the Persian gulf
> at any one time.
> Carrier Group 5 is based in Japan.
You're 'thinking' all-Navy, 2pid. You also apparently aren't factoring
in travel time for the Atlantic fleet, or from west-coast bases.
An aircraft carrier carries about 85-90 aircraft of all types. Even if
they were all F/A-18s that is at most 1080 aircraft if we had 12
carrier groups there. We won't have 12 there, and not all 85-90 are
fighters. Do the math, imbecile.
Three groups would be a maximum of 270 aircraft, minus patrol, anti-
sub, helicopters and other types. And this against the Vast Chinese
Armada you fear so much. LOL!
> You remain, as always, full of ****.
Do the math, 2pid. As you say, I note the breakdown in your argument.
Please, please, PLEASE try to grow a brain. Your stem is obviously
overtaxed.
If I am full of ****, I am in the company of the CJCS and the SECDEF.
Considering we are talking about military matters, that's better
company to be "full of ****" with than a know-nothing imbecile,
wouldn't you agree? ;-)
Lol LoL lOl LOL!
|
