TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- South Korea residents ordered to "take cover"
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

Drill is over. Lets see if nK is all talk.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII China also could well win a world war, so could get interesting if they used this as an opportunity to take down the US or something...

Hmmmm, I dunno about that.

I love to rip on the US for their exorbitant military budget, but I don't think too many countries would want to go 'toe-to-toe' with them in a war. Even China, despite their rather developed military.

It would be disturbing if it happened though. NATO would almost certainly back the US/etc.

But nearly everything in the world, these days, is made in China. Imagine the impact! If international trading sanctions were put on China, 70+ percent of consumer items ALL OVER THE WORLD suddenly just go out of stock, with no idea on when/if new stock will arrive.

Now that's power.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Hmmmm, I dunno about that. I love to rip on the US for their exorbitant military budget, but I don't think too many countries would want to go 'toe-to-toe' with them in a war. Even China, despite their rather developed military. It would be disturbing if it happened though. NATO would almost certainly back the US/etc. But nearly everything in the world, these days, is made in China. Imagine the impact! If international trading sanctions were put on China, 70+ percent of consumer items ALL OVER THE WORLD suddenly just go out of stock, with no idea on when/if new stock will arrive. Now that's power.

If we didn't spend so much on our military there would be a lot more countries spending a larger percentage of their GDP on their own, including Australia.

i may want to ship my music back state side.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If we didn't spend so much on our military there would be a lot more countries spending a larger percentage of their GDP on their own, including Australia.

Nor quite the same though, is it? 22 million people, or 300+ million people. Huge difference in revenue, plus 'already established' military assets

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Nor quite the same though, is it? 22 million people, or 300+ million people. Huge difference in revenue, plus 'already established' military assets

We only buy them off the US, mostly at exorbitant rates, late delivery (like our long range fighter bombers they're still faffing about making), rubbish products like the two rust bucket landing craft (that where so bad they couldn't be deployed) and 100 really crappy M1 tanks they sold us which we can't really deploy anywhere because... same said landing craft had to be hulked.

Not to mention the ANZUS treaty which has seen Aust and NZ forces deployed on ALL foreign actions since 1951 the US has been a part of and we have to police the ENTIRE south pacific area, including (230million muslim Indonesians that hate us) because NZ has a couple of patrol boats and a few dozen helicopters.

And our closest major military ally is 'where'... oh wait, we don't actually have any.
What Australia has, it has deployed very well, but is thinly spread.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Hmmmm, I dunno about that. I love to rip on the US for their exorbitant military budget, but I don't think too many countries would want to go 'toe-to-toe' with them in a war. Even China, despite their rather developed military. It would be disturbing if it happened though. NATO would almost certainly back the US/etc. But nearly everything in the world, these days, is made in China. Imagine the impact! If international trading sanctions were put on China, 70+ percent of consumer items ALL OVER THE WORLD suddenly just go out of stock, with no idea on when/if new stock will arrive. Now that's power.

yeah, you're silly to take on the US right now... but you're also silly if you think they can maintain their superpowerdom when they havn't produced anything near what they need to be producing to maintain that power for like 20 years... they're slowly dying, and i'm wondering if their deathblow will come through war (fairly bad choice right now of course), or if they'll just collapse (almost happened with the 'financial crisis')


the US got most of their power and money by manipulating and playing politics in war: They came to be sole superpower by their position (or lack of ) during WW2, and by dodgy activities during the cold war.

if the US was in China's position i could see them using the conflict for their benefit..

hope to god china isn't like the US though, and actually considers what they're doing before acting

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith We only buy them off the US, mostly at exorbitant rates, late delivery (like our long range fighter bombers they're still faffing about making), rubbish products like the two rust bucket landing craft (that where so bad they couldn't be deployed) and 100 really crappy M1 tanks they sold us which we can't really deploy anywhere because... same said landing craft had to be hulked. Not to mention the ANZUS treaty which has seen Aust and NZ forces deployed on ALL foreign actions since 1951 the US has been a part of and we have to police the ENTIRE south pacific area, including (230million muslim Indonesians that hate us) because NZ has a couple of patrol boats and a few dozen helicopters. And our closest major military ally is 'where'... oh wait, we don't actually have any. What Australia has, it has deployed very well, but is thinly spread.

Hey those F-111s we gave (sold) you were freaking sweet...


Either way you slice it though a lot of countries around the world can rely on the US having their back when shit gets really serious and that allows them to spend far less than the US has to on military. The only nations that spend close to us and are our allies are NATO members because they are bound by treaty to spend at least a certain percentage of their GDP on their forces. Australia also gets the benefit of being within the commonwealth, and the UK to a small (and smaller) degree plays the same role as the US.

Yes you kinda got a raw deal where you are situated, but until recently there were not a lot of threats to the Oceanic region besides limited Soviet/Russian naval activity. Now you are faced only with the prospect of low-intensity conflict in regions like Indonesia, and as far as I can tell you are able to deploy light infantry well enough to handle LIC and Peacekeeping operations. If shit gets real tough and the US feels obligated to help, the have an entire Marine Pre-positioning squadron at Diego Garcia that can be anywhere in the Indian ocean within a week and support combat operations for 30 days... Good to have people in your neighborhood like that.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII hope to god china isn't like the US though, and actually considers what they're doing before acting

Well you know one thing, they wont worry about troublesome things like civilian casualties.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Australia also gets the benefit of being within the commonwealth, and the UK to a small (and smaller) degree plays the same role as the US.

No it doesn't, least when I last owned defence industry shares in Thales and a few others, we buy it all ourselves with no mates rates and not a lot else.

quote:

Now you are faced only with the prospect of low-intensity conflict in regions like Indonesia

Low-intensity? Spoken by a dumb arse that's never been shot at a couple of times in 'low intensity' war, lost their house, vehicles and land. Had their neighbours hacked and shot to death, burnt alive in car tyres and petrol.
Oh, thanks by the way for the US government selling them 1960's surplus $47 rifles and $10 for a 500 round brick of ammo. Good job, we really appreciated that low intensity stuff

quote:

and as far as I can tell you are able to deploy light infantry well enough to handle LIC and Peacekeeping operations.

What, like the SAS being in Iraq 2 weeks before the US forces went in and the RAN Frigates that softened up the beach landings... when basically everyone else said no the invasion of Iraq is technically an illegal act and didn't go?
The Australians where one of the very few that went.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well you know one thing, they wont worry about troublesome things like civilian casualties. No it doesn't, least when I last owned defence industry shares in Thales and a few others, we buy it all ourselves with no mates rates and not a lot else. Low-intensity? Spoken by a dumb arse that's never been shot at a couple of times in 'low intensity' war, lost their house, vehicles and land. Had their neighbours hacked and shot to death, burnt alive in car tyres and petrol. Oh, thanks by the way for the US government selling them 1960's surplus $47 rifles and $10 for a 500 round brick of ammo. Good job, we really appreciated that low intensity stuff What, like the SAS being in Iraq 2 weeks before the US forces went in and the RAN Frigates that softened up the beach landings... when basically everyone else said no the invasion of Iraq is technically an illegal act and didn't go? The Australians where one of the very few that went.

are you really trying to use real facts, and reason to argue with nou?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well you know one thing, they wont worry about troublesome things like civilian casualties.

Soooooo, exactly like the US then

I'm still here.

BTW, I shot Artillery in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not against an armored force, but still shot none the less.

Days are tense here. Xmas will be busy which I'll probably spend at work. I'm becoming a master at Powerpoint though.

Our intel sources suck, so we read the news like you do. Er let me rephrase.. our intel sources aren't as quick and immediate as the intarwebs.

The secret info stuff is pretty boring. I get more tangible info from a combination of MSNBC, Fox news, and CNN.

NK backed down... PUSSIES!

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well you know one thing, they wont worry about troublesome things like civilian casualties. No it doesn't, least when I last owned defence industry shares in Thales and a few others, we buy it all ourselves with no mates rates and not a lot else. Low-intensity? Spoken by a dumb arse that's never been shot at a couple of times in 'low intensity' war, lost their house, vehicles and land. Had their neighbours hacked and shot to death, burnt alive in car tyres and petrol. Oh, thanks by the way for the US government selling them 1960's surplus $47 rifles and $10 for a 500 round brick of ammo. Good job, we really appreciated that low intensity stuff What, like the SAS being in Iraq 2 weeks before the US forces went in and the RAN Frigates that softened up the beach landings... when basically everyone else said no the invasion of Iraq is technically an illegal act and didn't go? The Australians where one of the very few that went.

I don't think you understand the difference between fighting a LIC war and one that involves fighting an organized, mechanized, fully supported nation state...

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I don't think you understand the difference between fighting a LIC war and one that involves fighting an organized, mechanized, fully supported nation state...

I don't think you ever made it off the couch, stuffing cheetos into your face, watching CNN and figuring that qualifies you for an educated comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith I don't think you ever made it off the couch, stuffing cheetos into your face, watching CNN and figuring that qualifies you for an educated comment.

Who was the one who had product on display at the Land Warfare Conference in Brisbane last month? You or me? Cause I know I did.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Who was the one who had product on display at the Land Warfare Conference in Brisbane last month? You or me? Cause I know I did.

I've owned shares in 3 companies that where there.
Until you graduate from a military academy, you'll still just be some tourist watching it on TV without even a basic theoretical background because you don't even have any hands on experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith I've owned shares in 3 companies that where there. Until you graduate from a military academy, you'll still just be some tourist watching it on TV without even a basic theoretical background because you don't even have any hands on experience.

So you are saying there are no civilian military historians or theorists with any idea what they are talking about?

Ever hear of the RAND corporation, they basically wrote the book on how the Cold War played out and were almost all civilians.

Its really not that hard to make observations on things like the military capabilities of Australia, a allied, open, friend of the US.

Military shit is all I do Lilith, it has never not been one of my passions. I am a constant student and I surround myself with service members who are knowledgeable and passionate about their fields and read anything I can get my hands on (by reputable research groups and think-tanks).

So you owning stock in three of those companies at LWC really makes you the expert compared to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby So you are saying there are no civilian military historians or theorists with any idea what they are talking about?

No, I'm saying YOU know nothing.
You're an obsessive-compulsive who gets an idea in their head and follows it as a feverish belief worthy of any in church, regardless of anything presented to contrary to the that belief. Maybe you will produce something productive, because you've done nothing with your life so far.
But we've all seen the negative aspects of your OCD behaviour here when they had to ban you dozens of times and finally IP ban the whole area.

You've never fought or stand to lose anything in your life, whatever passion you have is simply a self justification.

quote:

So you owning stock in three of those companies at LWC really makes you the expert compared to me.

Never said I was an expert. But I do know a lot about military spending practices simply from my stock reports on who was buying what, what for and why.

I find it ironic that when ever there is a sniff of war Josh gets an erection. He wouldn't last a sec as a soldier, he's that wuss that Patton brow beats in the field hospital.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith No, I'm saying YOU know nothing. You're an obsessive-compulsive who gets an idea in their head and follows it as a feverish belief worthy of any in church, regardless of anything presented to contrary to the that belief. Maybe you will produce something productive, because you've done nothing with your life so far. But we've all seen the negative aspects of your OCD behaviour here when they had to ban you dozens of times and finally IP ban the whole area. You've never fought or stand to lose anything in your life, whatever passion you have is simply a self justification.

So you are basing my knowledge on this on something totally unrelated... Good to know. When have I not been someone knowledgeable about military matters? Ask Zewad, I've talked pretty technical shop with him before.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Never said I was an expert. But I do know a lot about military spending practices simply from my stock reports on who was buying what, what for and why.

Wow spending practices. Tell me where I am wrong.

You got all stupid and emotional about something in Indonesia. Tell me how operations in Indonesia do not constitute a LIC type war zone?

Iraq and Afghanistan are both LIC. Indonesia doesn't even come close to the scale of combat operations in those countries.

So tell me how I am wrong or shut the fuck up, because you are just bitching to bitch otherwise and it makes you look fucking stupid.

Nah, I'm not changing the subject on what you are, your reference based on your forum behaviour holds very little credibility for me, or to be advising of anything. If I wanted a military advisor or needed the defence capabilities of someone competent, I'd hire ex-Sandline mercenaries again, not a computer programmer in Seattle.

See, there's a particular epithet endemic to the US actually to describe someone like you, took me a while to remember it-

"Chickenhawk"

quote:

The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgement, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war. The term is not applied to those who avoided military service without subsequently adopting a hawkish political outlook.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Nah, I'm not changing the subject on what you are, your reference based on your forum behaviour holds very little credibility for me, or to be advising of anything. If I wanted a military advisor or needed the defence capabilities of someone competent, I'd hire ex-Sandline mercenaries again, not a computer programmer in Seattle. See, there's a particular epithet endemic to the US actually to describe someone like you, took me a while to remember it- "Chickenhawk"

Where am I being a hawk?

You are crazy lady.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Where am I being a hawk? You are crazy lady.

can you read? Every post she's made has pointed out exactly how you are...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.