us debt celling

[danyboy27]

The us Debt celling is supposed to be reached in july, and now the right wing nuts are acting like creazy over this, they fear that the us will default on their debts.


is default really an option at all? or is it just some glenn beckish claim made by some creazy libertarian?

[RGacky3]

The right wing is using the debt ceiling as collateral to get their way.

The debt ceiling will be raised, there is NO WAY the republicans will prevent that, even if they talk about it, the reason for that is that the people that will suffer first from that is big finance, and the republicans will never ever ever do anything that pisses off big finance, but they play chicken with it to just get stuff out of the democrats.

Even if the debt ceiling is'nt raised, I don't think it would be a huge disaster, because banks would realize that it will be rased a couple days or a week or so later, thats my opinion though, and some economists smarter than me disagree.

As far as debt is concerned I don't think its really an issue for the US in the short term, perhaps in the long term but worrying about it now, in the middle of a depression is kind of stupid, you take care of that stuff when the economy is doing well.

People point to greece as an example of debt gone wrong, heres the difference, Greece does not have control over its currency (and thus its debt), nor does it have control over its central bank.

The risk in the US is hyperinflation, where the US has to print money to pay interest, and then devaluation of the dollar if it subsequently gets dumped, but imo trying to fix a debt problem in the middle of an economic disaster is just digging the hole deaper, the economy will suffer, and thus the debt won't actually get fixed.

There are things you can do, that don't effec the eocnomy, but these are things that Capitalists do not like.

Heres the thing thats strange to me, Americans pay into social security and medicare, thats US sovereign debt to US, to the people, yet for some reason republicans think that debt is'nt important, the only debt that IS important is that to Chinese banks.

[Sadena Meti]

The debt ceiling will always be raised. The debt will continue to climb for decades until the whole system just collapses.

[agnixie]

The us Debt celling is supposed to be reached in july, and now the right wing nuts are acting like creazy over this, they fear that the us will default on their debts.


is default really an option at all? or is it just some glenn beckish claim made by some creazy libertarian?

The crazy libertarians are the ones claiming they won't raise the ceiling.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I immediately stop listening when I hear lines such as, "The debt crisis is what caused the current recession," or "The deficit is the #1 thing holding economic recovery back," and, especially, "There is absolutely no way we can raise taxes right now. The deficit must be brought into order based on what is needed for the economy--spending cuts alone."

Because that's all those really are, just lines politicians are reciting. They have no basis in reality and little chance of getting accomplished, though it is not needed to say that some are hoping they make an attempt (starting with Mr Obama no doubt).

[RGacky3]

Thats just it, really the debt debate has nothing to do with solid economics, its just political games.

[The Socialist Engineer]

God forbid we ever look at the cause of the problem rather than the problem itself! Instead of scrutinizing the debt lets look at whats causing the debt.

- Military Spending
- Over 20 trillion in overseas accounts to avoid taxes
- Mismanagement of government funds (useless shit, EPA etc.)
- Federal reserve

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

$20,000,000,000,000 in overseas accnts? I don't think I've ever seen it put that high, would you happen to have a source for that?


- Mismanagement of government funds (useless shit, EPA etc.)

Outside of military spending, please clarify on "useless shit." I ask because I do not consider the EPA to be useless shit whatsoever. What's next after the EPA, regulatory oversight on airplanes or cars? The National Parks Service? The FBI? The Coast Guard? The Postal Service?


- Federal reserve

Are you a tea partier by chance?

[danyboy27]

- Military Spending
okay.




- Over 20 trillion in overseas accounts to avoid taxes

yes indeed a lot of corporation are stashing money oversea to avoid taxes.



- Mismanagement of government funds (useless shit, EPA etc.)
the only ''useless shit'' that would represent a significant amount of money beside the military are social services. and they are not ''useless shit''

and do you know what EPA actually does? if the water you drink is not full of lead and the air you are breathing is not full of toxic particles, its beccause of EPA. if your backyard is not filled with barrel filled with mercury, its beccause of EPA, if the building you work in is not full of toxic particles its beccause the EPA put a regulation in place forcing your boss to change the air filter every 3 months.



- Federal reserve
lolwhat

[jake williams]

The US won't default in the forseeable future. The US is more than capable of paying its debts. Yes, in the long run, you can't just indefinitely decrease taxes and increase military spending. For that matter, you can't indefinitely increase social security spending if revenue is falling or stagnant either. But neither of those are necessary, and anyway, that long run is a pretty long run. And a default would be a catastrophe for the US ruling class.

[Lt. Ferret]

if it makes you feel better the US military is downsizing right now dramatically.

edit: or at least trying to figure out where to make cuts, when i tried to join the air force and navy in 2009, they told me to go kick rocks. the army is looking to cut 40,000 troops as a start, thats a few brigades worth, quite a bit for a start. and more to follow, if a new threat doesnt pop up in the immediate future.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yes, the downsizing is very much underway, no doubt about it.

[RGacky3]

I would'nt call it "dramatic" cuts.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yes and no. Is it dramatic when comparing US military spending to other countries? No, probably not. Is it dramatic considering the explosion in military spending that, with the cancellation/downsizing of megaprojects like seawolf or the f-22/35, then yes.

The goal, according to Mr Gates, is something in the dozens of $bn's cut by 2015 with operations winding down, with more structural change up until, and after, that which will reduce costs. As disliked as they may be, things like drones and newer tech will replace personnel, which after operations (ie making war) is the largest expenditure. Also, petroleum alternatives are in full swing in the military.

Of course, the only thing that will make military costs fall, in the long run, is a dramatic change in the way the US military operates around the world.

[RGacky3]

BTW, the republicans are definately gonna raise the debt ceiling, there is NO WAY they would'nt raise it (considering the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street gave their marching orders), but the democrats are still acting as if its a legitimate threat and conceding.

Now do you think those democrats are just so stupid they can't see through it, they don't get basic politics? Or are they just looking for an excuse to take those cuts?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

First off, unlike the GOP, which is made up of people who are all too happy to stop thinking and get in lock step with whatever is being sold, the democrats are not a monolith. You have everything from the practically GOP, blue dog types to the progressives. Everything in between Joe Liebermann and Bernie Sanders (and that's a lot), whereas the difference between a centrist republican and a tea partier is miniscule in a non-election year and non-existent when courting campaign donors.

I do not at this time believe that there was a secret conspiracy among house democrats to lose their seats to GOP candidates.

[RGacky3]

I don't think there is either, but the democrats, unlike the republicans have pressure to moderate their stance left, and the type of democrats that get buisiness support are the ones that are more than willing to compromise.

[MattShizzle]

Military spending in the US is ridiculous. We spend nearly as much on military as the rest of the world combined. If we cut it in half we would easily have enough to keep and even expand social programs, give the middle class and poor a tax cut and probably not even give those people so unfortunate enough to be rich a tax increase that would break the conservatives' hearts. Of course were it up to me we'd give those rich exploiters a HUGE tax increase and give most of what came from it to the poor.

[danyboy27]

Military spending in the US is ridiculous. We spend nearly as much on military as the rest of the world combined. If we cut it in half we would easily have enough to keep and even expand social programs, give the middle class and poor a tax cut and probably not even give those people so unfortunate enough to be rich a tax increase that would break the conservatives' hearts. Of course were it up to me we'd give those rich exploiters a HUGE tax increase and give most of what came from it to the poor.

if lockeed and boeing would be nationalised, that would probably cut the military spending by a fucking third, a lot of military innovation are voluntary overpriced, its a scam basicly AND it would create job and reduce the outsourcing of the manifacturing industry.

The whole military-industrial complex is just a fucking scam from the start,everything is voluntary overpriced, from the price of the patriot missiles to the cost of a m16, and its all done in order to pay lips service to gigantic multi billion dollars buisness who lobby their way out to the governement.

[RGacky3]

Absolutely, the military spending is definately the elephant in the room, btw, the economy sucks so revenue is WAY WAY down, you boost the economy revenue goes up.

[Lt. Ferret]

well you can kiss most of europes social systems goodbye if they have to start paying for their own military hardware and not just letting america sit there and be a guard dog.

[agnixie]

well you can kiss most of europes social systems goodbye if they have to start paying for their own military hardware and not just letting america sit there and be a guard dog.

The European union has at least 4 of the largest 10 military budgets worldwide, and these 4 countries combined are a more powerful naval and land power than anybody else aside from America, which spends a whopping 40% of worldwide military expenses. Two of them are nuclear, one of them even has fully independent nuclear assets.

And since the 50s, most of that has been used for propping up puppets in Africa. Clearly the threats are immense.

American bases in Europe would be overwhelmed pretty much immediately in case of war and are mostly there as military outposts.

I think they'll do fine without americans playing big damn heroes. If some European country went on a rampage, it's not like US forces in the area would be enough to stop a motivated "let's have a total war once more" dictator.

[RGacky3]

well you can kiss most of europes social systems goodbye if they have to start paying for their own military hardware and not just letting america sit there and be a guard dog.


To defend them from who? Europe has a normal reasonable military.

The US has a stupid huge miligary.

[Lt. Ferret]

To defend them from who? Europe has a normal reasonable military.

The US has a stupid huge miligary.

most of the US's stupid huge military is stationed, at the behest of their host countries, on foreign outposts. if russia would simmer down, the 40k troops in germany would go away. if the korean peninsula was united, the 30k troops there would go away. the large US military is a relic of the cold war and its being drawn down in the next few years.

[agnixie]

most of the US's stupid huge military is stationed, at the behest of their host countries, on foreign outposts. if russia would simmer down, the 40k troops in germany would go away. if the korean peninsula was united, the 30k troops there would go away. the large US military is a relic of the cold war and its being drawn down in the next few years.

You seriously thing that 40k troops, in the face of Russia, will change anything? The combined European militaries have about two thirds of a million active personnel to Russia's million. A single corps is a drop in the pond.

Korea? 30,000 troops, when the SK army is 650,000 strong because of universal conscription? Are you kidding?

[Lt. Ferret]

why would i kid? technology is the key to the battlefield. 40k soldiers with the best information, and command and control technologies can massacre ten times their number. i advise you to look at the gulf war. the proving ground for the Renaissance of american military power. third or fourth largest army in the world, absolutely massacred by american technology.

so yes, the 4 brigades stationed in germany would be a good front line against a conventional russian offensive. and with our ability to use fighter jets on any part of the globe, youd be amazed at what a modern fighter jet squadron or wing can do when they can overwhelm the opposition.

if nothing else, the number of aircraft over libya is less than 50 and theyre grinding down the libyan forces in a crazy fast initiative.

[agnixie]

why would i kid? technology is the key to the battlefield. 40k soldiers with the best information, and command and control technologies can massacre ten times their number. i advise you to look at the gulf war. the proving ground for the Renaissance of american military power. third or fourth largest army in the world, absolutely massacred by american technology.

so yes, the 4 brigades stationed in germany would be a good front line against a conventional russian offensive. and with our ability to use fighter jets on any part of the globe, youd be amazed at what a modern fighter jet squadron or wing can do when they can overwhelm the opposition.

if nothing else, the number of aircraft over libya is less than 50 and theyre grinding down the libyan forces in a crazy fast initiative.

40,000 soldiers in Europe aren't a massive advantage, it's a drop in the bucket. It's "america fuck yeah" trolling.

[progressive_lefty]

Military spending in the US is ridiculous. We spend nearly as much on military as the rest of the world combined. If we cut it in half we would easily have enough to keep and even expand social programs, give the middle class and poor a tax cut and probably not even give those people so unfortunate enough to be rich a tax increase that would break the conservatives' hearts. Of course were it up to me we'd give those rich exploiters a HUGE tax increase and give most of what came from it to the poor.

Just imagine an America that wasn't obsessed with Regan-styled policies of military and the 'we're bigger then you' mentality. I personally believe Obama has attempted to deal with this to some degree. This kind of issue is what brought so much support for Ron Paul, even from some sections of the left, but obviously the war obsessed right-wing crazies in the GOP and in Fox News won't accept a non-US military dominated world.

[PhoenixAsh]

well you can kiss most of europes social systems goodbye if they have to start paying for their own military hardware and not just letting america sit there and be a guard dog.

Right....because 300.000.000 for two...TWO...test fighters is getting the tech for free.

Edit: also...most host nations pay for the US to be there. Sharing in the cost directly AND in (trade/bussiness) contracts and deals...both military and civilian. You are also protecting your own eco and political interests here. Don't make it appear like the US is here as some samaritan doing "us" Europeans a favor on your own dime.

[RGacky3]

most of the US's stupid huge military is stationed, at the behest of their host countries, on foreign outposts. if russia would simmer down, the 40k troops in germany would go away. if the korean peninsula was united, the 30k troops there would go away. the large US military is a relic of the cold war and its being drawn down in the next few years.

Not at the request of the people of those countries, most of them are deals, i.e. the US gets to put a military base there and the country get something.

Also, Russia??? What the hell kind of threat is Russia?

[danyboy27]

this is all bullshit. with the actual existing technology, the us have the possibility to prop up any nation in the world by flooding them with advisor and high tech gear, and they could create an army of drones helicopter and planes to do their bidding oversea.

there is no need for 40k soldier outside the us territory, not with the actual technology avaliable, this is a waste of logistical ressources, and a waste of human lives.

Even for purely hegemonic goal, the current military deployement of us troop is just a big nonsense.

[Bud Struggle]

this is all bullshit. with the actual existing technology, the us have the possibility to prop up any nation in the world by flooding them with advisor and high tech gear, and they could create an army of drones helicopter and planes to do their bidding oversea.

there is no need for 40k soldier outside the us territory, not with the actual technology avaliable, this is a waste of logistical ressources, and a waste of human lives.

Even for purely hegemonic goal, the current military deployement of us troop is just a big nonsense.

I tend to agree there. Chances for another "Hitler" to appear in Germany or an invasion of Western Europe by the Russians is nonexistant. If North Korea attacks South Korea--it's not the soldiers but the airborn rockets that will stop the attack. And anyway that won't happen either.

The US needs to bring its soldiers home.

[RGacky3]

I think the attitude of Equador was great, "we'll let you keep the military base in Equador if you let us build a base in florida."

The "War on Drugs" (which is basically a war on the poor in latin America) is a big drain on the budget as well.

[Bud Struggle]

The "War on Drugs" (which is basically a war on the poor in latin America) is a big drain on the budget as well.

Gack, aside from our usual arguments-and an aside from this thread--are you against the US governments war on drugs? Should the government try to stop drugs from being grown in South America and from coming into the USA?

[danyboy27]

Gack, aside from our usual arguments-and an aside from this thread--are you against the US governments war on drugs? Should the government try to stop drugs from being grown in South America and from coming into the USA?

Most of the plants used for the production of Heorin and Cocaine could also be used to manufacture useful pharmatical products.

The coca plant and opium plants are really easy to grow in south america, there is no way the production of those thing could be stopped in a way or another, its useless to fight it.

financing farmer to grow the product for commercial use would probably do more good on reducing the production of drug than any military base in columbia.

manufacturing illegal drug is about survival for thousand of peoples, that why afghan farmer dont grow much corn, beccause the alternative will ensure a single farmer to feed its family, give an education to their childrens.

Hard drugs could also be legalised, beccause really a proper transformation process could reduce the addiction to the product in Question, and an awareness program could also help out people to understand the risks that are coming with using the product.

Personally, i would go toward a middle ground, legalize certain drugs, and use coca and opium to manufacture cheap morphine and other medical products to help the sick.

but, that just me.

[Bud Struggle]

Here's my thoughts. Have all the drugs you want. Everything, anything. Get caught driving under the influence, get caught doing a crime under the influence--you are in jail for life. No second chances.

Hurt yourself all you want--that's your business--get yourself in a position to hurt others.

We don't need you. If after the Revoution we don't allow the Bourgeoise to harm the Proletariat--when should we then allow Proletarians to do so?

[Sadena Meti]

You'd be amazed at what a modern fighter jet squadron or wing can do when they can overwhelm the opposition.

Yes, because Russia has no airforce. Smaller, faster, more agile planes.

[Sadena Meti]

Gack, aside from our usual arguments-and an aside from this thread--are you against the US governments war on drugs? Should the government try to stop drugs from being grown in South America and from coming into the USA?

There's no point fighting the supply, it never works. If you don't like drugs, fight the demand.

[Lt. Ferret]

Yes, because Russia has no airforce. Smaller, faster, more agile planes.


our air force rapes theirs, and with the F-35 and Euro Fighter, we'll be well nigh invincible.

[Qayin]

Who gives a fuck

[Lt. Ferret]

i give a lot of fucks. they already fucked up my pay over this garbage. theyre threatening to do it again.

[Sadena Meti]

our air force rapes theirs, and with the F-35 and Euro Fighter, we'll be well nigh invincible.

The Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) is shit. It was designed with economy in mind, not effectiveness. Build one base frame, wing, and engine system and then make minor modifications and interchangeable parts to cut down on costs.

An F-22 could wipe out an F-35 in a blink because it was built for one purpose, to be the best fighter plane possible. It and it alone can compete with 5th generation Migs.

And the Euro Fighter, don't make me laugh. 30 years of development, setbacks, cobbled together technology.

[Lt. Ferret]

better than the soviet mig garbage they keep trying to export to CIS nations that dont want it.


I'm a stinger guy, i'm air defense artillery, so i dont care what they have, im going to try to shoot it down.

[Sadena Meti]

I'm a stinger guy, i'm air defense artillery, so i dont care what they have, im going to try to shoot it down.

And you have not heard of ECM? Electronic Counter-Measures. No lock, no hit. F-22 is so loaded it's sick, and the 5th generation Migs are nearly as good. F-35 has only a basic packages for economy measures.

[Lt. Ferret]

im aware of them, and there is still few if any aircraft that are unable to be hit by avenger or stinger missiles. i think the chinese have a single helicopter, and the russians a jet or two.

[Sadena Meti]

im aware of them, and there is still few if any aircraft that are unable to be hit by avenger or stinger missiles. i think the chinese have a single helicopter, and the russians a jet or two.

Stingers?! You mean the man-portable missile that despite 30 years of use have shot down only 270 planes? Despite 700,000 being made?

Avengers?! You mean the system "provides mobile, short-range air defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_defense) protection for ground units against cruise missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile), unmanned aerial vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle), low-flying fixed-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-wing) aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft), and helicopters" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter) which is to say NO fighters or bombers.

Russian's have "a jet or two?" You must mean the Mig 29, 31, and 35 which represent almost the entirety of the Russian Air Force. The Mig-35 can fly straight through the American air defenses and nothing would touch it. Smaller, Faster, more Agile than any American fighter except the F-22a.

And then there is China. Heard of the Chengdun J-20? China's got their own F-117. Actually, it is said to be "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II)

[danyboy27]

im aware of them, and there is still few if any aircraft that are unable to be hit by avenger or stinger missiles. i think the chinese have a single helicopter, and the russians a jet or two.


You do know that russia is currently focusing on considerably reducing the size of its military?

there is no way russia will start being agressive toward the us or europe with a smaller forces, too much ground to cover.

and forget china, they might have a large ground forces but their airforce and marine is relatively modest.

there are no credible threat out there that would justify something insane like the F-22 or the F-35, nothing.

Future conflict will be extremely asymetric, Various proxy war and powergrab on small nation states for natural ressources like coal and oil.

Its all gonna be about drones and special forces, high tech and low tech supply to party of interest.

The F-22 and the F-35 are probably the biggest scam ever realized by Lockeed. Useless piece of overpowered junk, fucking white elephants.

[Lt. Ferret]

Stingers?! You mean the man-portable missile that despite 30 years of use have shot down only 270 planes? Despite 700,000 being made?

Avengers?! You mean the system "provides mobile, short-range air defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_defense) protection for ground units against cruise missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile), unmanned aerial vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle), low-flying fixed-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-wing) aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft), and helicopters" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter) which is to say NO fighters or bombers.

Russian's have "a jet or two?" You must mean the Mig 29, 31, and 35 which represent almost the entirety of the Russian Air Force. The Mig-35 can fly straight through the American air defenses and nothing would touch it. Smaller, Faster, more Agile than any American fighter except the F-22a.

And then there is China. Heard of the Chengdun J-20? China's got their own F-117. Actually, it is said to be "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II)


okay guy, write more snarky paragraphs telling me about air defense strategy and capabilities, i only do this for a living. especially when i war game for a living. we do a lot of training with the air force, and we have gotten judicated simulated kills knocking out fighter jets. bombers are too easy, especially if they have to dive down as they drop their payload. jets are pretty notorious for this as they hit ground targets.

also, i know you just wikipediad the fuck out of that shit, but guess what a low flying fixed wing aircraft is? its a jet.

and hitting 270 air targets? thats a pretty good damn number of air targets hit. and the lack of a good kill to production ratio for the stinger missile is more of an indicator of the lack of conventional air warfare in the last 30 years, than a weapon that doesnt work properly.

[Sadena Meti]

The F-22 and the F-35 are probably the biggest scam ever realized by Lockeed. Useless piece of overpowered junk, fucking white elephants.

1. The F-22 is a done deal, it's deployed.
2. Don't forget Boeing, it was a joint project.
3. The F-35 could be binned, but that's not going to happen.

From an engineering point of view, the F-22a really is an amazing aircraft. It might not be useful, but it is a work of art.

[Lt. Ferret]

I pretty much jerk off to the F-22.

[Lt. Ferret]

I am just waiting til we deploy the Arwing.


http://news.soft32.com/wp-content/upload/nintendo/starfox_NDS.jpg

[Sadena Meti]

bombers are too easy, especially if they have to dive down as they drop their payload. jets are pretty notorious for this as they hit ground targets.

This is the age of precision guided munitions. They don't dive bomb anymore. The munitions are deployed during level flight.


also, i know you just wikipediad the fuck out of that shit, but guess what a low flying fixed wing aircraft is? its a jet.LOW FLYING is not a jet or a bomber. And of course I wiki, I don't even remove the links so others can go look up the data.


and hitting 270 air targets? thats a pretty good damn number of air targets hit. and the lack of a good kill to production ratio for the stinger missile is more of an indicator of the lack of conventional air warfare in the last 30 years, than a weapon that doesnt work properly.700,000 produced, 270 successfully used. 0.04% of those produced have been successfully used. The rest either fail or are stockpiled, a classic case of overproduction. Zero Point Zero Fucking Four!

[Lt. Ferret]

the failure rate on a stinger is pretty low. and yes, there are a lot stockpiled, i think the US has only maybe 13,000 left. we sold al ot to other countries as well, they wanted it.


and i dont know whre you get this idea that jets are nowhere near their targets, bombers either. and even IF the stinger is not placed near the intended target, theyre still going to take predictable air avenues of approach. thats when you get them. they change speeds, altitudes, everything when launching ordnance. its not like i dont know how to use my weapons system.

[Sadena Meti]

they change speeds, altitudes, everything when launching ordnance. its not like i dont know how to use my weapons system.
As a Lieutenant, which means you just got into the Army, you very well might not know your business.

Let's talk altitude.
An Avenger can target a UAV. Maximum altitude 25,000 ft.
Compare to a fighter. F-22a. Maximum altitude 65,000 ft.
Av Avenger can target a helicopter. Maximum altitude 21,000 ft.
Compare to a bomber. Maximum altitude 50,000 ft.

Do you see a trend? The Avenger is designed for low flying targets.

[Lt. Ferret]

youre not at 50,000 when youre releasing your payload. very few aircraft do that. and, if this was a conventional war, ill even give you that a stinger couldnt hit it, but thats why we have Patriot, THAAD, SLAAMRAM, and other weapons systems.

and as a Lieutenant, I train for a year in my profession before going to my unit, and im in the unique position of being at a post that hosts wargames every month, 21 days a month straight. and air defense is utilized heavily in these war games.

[Sadena Meti]

ill even give you that a stinger couldnt hit it, but thats why we have Patriot, THAAD, SLAAMRAM, and other weapons

Systems that you don't use and brag about being able to hit anything.

Patriot is primarily an anti ballistic missile system, not aircraft defense.
THAAD is an exclusively anti ballistic missile system, not aircraft defense.
SLAMRAAM (not SLAAMRAM) has been cut. And it had shitty range.

[Lt. Ferret]

This isn't really something I'm stressing about. Patriot is damn good at hitting aircraft. I have been trained on the Patriot as well, though i'm obviously not in a patriot battery.

and did I ever say that the stinger missile is going to end air warfare as we know it? i dont recall it.

[Sadena Meti]

I'm a stinger guy, i'm air defense artillery, so i dont care what they have, im going to try to shoot it down.
:D

[Lt. Ferret]

Oh you ! I'll play your lawyer ball. I said try.

[Sadena Meti]

Oh you ! I'll play your lawyer ball. I said try.
You're going to try to shoot down a high altitude jet (which I have a feeling the Stinger couldn't even target much less hit) with a Stinger? Now I know where the 700,000 Stingers really went. Spray and Pray.

If you wanted to be in Air Defense, you joined the wrong branch. The best weapon to use against a plane is a plane. But I'm guessing you couldn't get into the Air Force Academy.

[Lt. Ferret]

You're going to try to shoot down a high altitude jet (which I have a feeling the Stinger couldn't even target much less hit) with a Stinger? Now I know where the 700,000 Stingers really went. Spray and Pray.

If you wanted to be in Air Defense, you joined the wrong branch. The best weapon to use against a plane is a plane. But I'm guessing you couldn't get into the Air Force Academy.


I didn't attempt to go to a military school. I had a great time in college, then went into the Army through the Officer Candidate School program. I think it was the right choice. Plus I wear glasses so if I ever even got to fly a plane, itd be some boring ass transport plane.

[Sadena Meti]

I didn't attempt to go to a military school. I had a great time in college, then went into the Army through the Officer Candidate School program. I think it was the right choice. Plus I wear glasses so if I ever even got to fly a plane, itd be some boring ass transport plane.
Actually you can't fly period without 20/20 (as of 1994 at least). Now they accept Lasik.

[Lt. Ferret]

I am still hesitant to let them cut my eyes up or shoot me with lasers.

[Sadena Meti]

I am still hesitant to let them cut my eyes up or shoot me with lasers.
Two cool facts I got from family members who had it done. First, they cut your cornea and peel it off, and second, when the lasing first starts, you suddenly go blind for 30 seconds. Fun!

[Lt. Ferret]

seriously it makes me cringe and makes my penis invert, is how uncomfortable i am with the concept.

[danyboy27]

I am still hesitant to let them cut my eyes up or shoot me with lasers.

if i could i would probably pass the surgery.

but i cant, hypermetropy cannot be treated with lazer.

plus i have a minor form of strabism.

there is nothing to fear, this technology is completely safe ferret.

[Sadena Meti]

seriously it makes me cringe and makes my penis invert, is how uncomfortable i am with the concept.

The cornea comes right off and they put it in a dish.

And imagine if they had a power surge or failure during the procedure.

Just burning patterns into your retina!

[danyboy27]

The cornea comes right off and they put it in a dish.

And imagine if they had a power surge or failure during the procedure.

Just burning patterns into your retina!


would you stop! like servers, those kind of technology probably have built in battery for safety measures.

the operation itself take only a fews minutes.

[Sadena Meti]

would you stop! like servers, those kind of technology probably have built in battery for safety measures.

the operation itself take only a fews minutes.
I'm trying to drive him up the wall and make him swallow his tongue! You ruined it!

[Lt. Ferret]

you guys are literally killing me.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If you wanted to be in Air Defense, you joined the wrong branch. The best weapon to use against a plane is a plane.

Other means have been effective.



Russia has officially confirmed the loss of three Su-25 strike aircraft and one Tu-22M3 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Tu-22M3) supersonic bomber.[377] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-aviation.com-376) Analysts at Moscow Defense Brief give a higher estimate, saying that the overall losses of Russian Air Force in the war amounted to seven aircraft, while Anton Lavrov (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=Anton_Lavrov&action=edit&redlink=1) lists 6 Su-25s, 2 Su-24s and 1 Tu-22M as lost.[ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-defensebrief-19)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Georgia_war#Equipment_losses_and_cost

Also, the patriot air defense system has been very succesful in shooting down planes, actually too sucessful regarding some friendly fire incidents.