How true is this?

How true is this?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    very

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw MiG 25 would be negative too if awacs weren't morons

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        jej

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      K/D BTFO USA rules the skies and the moon

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Who are the people in this meme?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Left is Artem Mikoyan, a soviet aircraft designer, while left is John Boyd, an US Airforce instructor that was a infamously narcissistic bullshitter and argued for human wave approach for aircraft design ie the opposite of what the USA went with.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >while left
          While right*

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Air Force guy
          >Name is literally "Bird" in a New York accent
          Who writes this shit

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >establish a setting involving two superpowers
            >they have weapons that could destroy the world
            >they focus on proxy wars and slowly push the boundaries before nuclear annihilation
            >spying subterfuge and clandestine operations everywhere
            >theres even plans on expanding their tensions into space
            >one of the superpowers just dissolves anti-climatically
            This author is a hack and a prostitute.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The economic collapse was foreshadowed from the very beginning, but most people refused to see it because they *liked* its economic theory. The only twist in the ending was the generals failing to launch a last-ditch war in an attempt to prop the system up with a fresh influx of plunder and slaves from Western Europe.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >establish a setting involving two superpowers
            >they have weapons that could destroy the world
            >they focus on proxy wars and slowly push the boundaries before nuclear annihilation
            >spying subterfuge and clandestine operations everywhere
            >theres even plans on expanding their tensions into space
            >one of the superpowers just dissolves anti-climatically
            This author is a hack and a prostitute.

            reddit moment

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Boyd
          codified the OODA loop which is as big a deal as Clausewitz, but yeah miss me with that F-5 shit

          You can apply that same logic to Spitfires. Late war Spitfires were basically completely different aircraft from their early war variants.

          Same airframe, which is more than can be said for the Super Hornet
          Spitfire stands

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >OODA loop
            Literally the best example of his narcissistic bullshitery, it is fascinating how people worship the guy for saying “you should try to catch your enemy off guard”.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              yes, and Clausewitz was just "attack the enemy where he's weak bro"
              like much else in the world, the concept sounds simple but the fact that others couldn't think of it, or pull it off, shows that it's actually not

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Clausewitz wrote his stuff mainly as a manual for young officers so they wouldn’t frick it up, while also going on the underlying issues both macro and micro that could plague any campaign(something that he knew personally because he himself fought in multiple wars), however he never claimed “ownership” of these ideas(he openly saw Napoleon as the guy that solved war), and if he was like Boyd he would never make past the idea of “War is the continuation of politics by other means” and that would be it.
                >like much else in the world, the concept sounds simple but the fact that others couldn't think of it, or pull it off, shows that it's actually not
                People have been trying to get to their enemies off guard since before Ur, hell, even literal monkeys do surprise raids and ambushes. The OODA is, at best, an attempt to formalize that idea, however it is so broad and tied to things that it fundamentally can’t control that it becomes useless as a tool, even if it is highly popular amongst Pentagon types that believe they can solve warfare with the right acronyms and power point presentations.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                think you're projecting a little there
                >People have been trying to get to their enemies off guard since before Ur
                and yet manoeuvre warfare as formally codified practised by armies is a 20th century thing, and only in the latter half
                >The OODA is, at best, an attempt to formalize that idea
                and that's a groundbreaking step believe it or not
                >it is so broad and tied to things that it fundamentally can’t control that it becomes useless as a tool
                not really
                the concept is the first step, the execution is in the field manual; it may sound useless but without the first step, the field manual cannot be formulated at all
                >even if it is highly popular amongst Pentagon types that believe they can solve warfare with the right acronyms and power point presentations
                ah, it's the same with anything
                nothing at all in the world is proof from being parroted unthinkingly by know-nothings
                but that is not in itself a fault of the concept

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >manoeuvre warfare as formally codified practised by armies is a 20th century thing, and only in the latter half
                I wonder if there was any technological advancement during that period that enabled that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >technological advancement during that period that enabled that
                contemporaneous armies move at the same speed, genius

                >and yet manoeuvre warfare as formally codified practised by armies is a 20th century thing, and only in the latter half
                That isn’t really true. Maneuver was the lynchpin of military strategy during the 19th and early 20th centuries, down to similar worries about advancing units being potentially cut off and logistical difficulties in supplying an advancing army. If you want an example, look at the Franco-Prussian War, or how the german maneuver warfare of WW2 was simple the application of those older principles with new technology such as tanks and planes.
                >and that's a groundbreaking step believe it or not
                What “groundbreak” did the OODA allow for, exactly?
                >the concept is the first step, the execution is in the field manual; it may sound useless but without the first step, the field manual cannot be formulated at all
                There were no field manuals before Boyd?
                >nothing at all in the world is proof from being parroted unthinkingly by know-nothings
                Boyd himself was know-nothing parroting nonsense. Remember, he never shot down an enemy aircraft, flew only a few sorties, and was embarrassingly wrong over stuff that he should have know better(see the fighter mafia,
                /reform movement, or when he was laughed out of Top Gun for his bullshit claims).

                >Maneuver was the lynchpin of military strategy during the 19th and early 20th centuries, down to similar worries about advancing units being potentially cut off and logistical difficulties in supplying an advancing army
                and even further into antiquity; yet older writings on military strategy don't stress on outrunning the enemy's decision process as a battle-winning force multiplier
                they practised it - Caesar vs Pompeii being one of antiquity's finest examples - but they did not formally define it, nor orient their strategies around it except in a vague way
                >german maneuver warfare of WW2
                the Germans sensed it as well but likewise didn't codify it beyond "auftragstaktik"
                >What “groundbreak” did the OODA allow for, exactly?
                to clearly describe a military decision cycle and describe a strategy for winning the war centred on manipulating that cycle
                >There were no field manuals before Boyd
                none that emphasise using speed to get inside the enemy's decision-making cycle

                that may be his only achievement but it's something

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >to clearly describe a military decision cycle and describe a strategy for winning the war centred on manipulating that cycle
                That didn’t explain it. I asked you what did the concept of breaking the OODA cycle allowed for, and you answered that it allowed for the concept of breaking the OODA cycle.
                I will ask in more direct terms, instead: how different, exactly, does an american military formation(squad/platoon/company/whatever) pre-OODA fought compared to a post-OODA one, in terms of tactical behavior/organizational structure that relates back to the OODA?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                sorry, I misunderstood your question
                >how different, exactly, does an american military formation(squad/platoon/company/whatever) pre-OODA fought compared to a post-OODA one, in terms of tactical behavior/organizational structure that relates back to the OODA?
                The US military generally focused on destroying enemy forces, whether through firepower, nukes, or encirclement. Even at the Fulda Gap the focus was initially on destroying as many tanks as quickly as possible and enveloping armoured thrusts. "AirLand Battle" in part introduced the idea of winning by attacking the enemy's decision process, in addition to other innovations.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >"AirLand Battle" in part introduced the idea of winning by attacking the enemy's decision process, in addition to other innovations
                Ok, and that was done how exactly? If it was "Smash blitz offensive by inconspicuously using fast-tempo/fluidity-of-action and cohesion of counter-blitz combat teams as basis for shifting of forces and quick focus of air and ground effort to throttle momentum, shatter cohesion, and envelop blitz in order to destroy adversary's capacity to resist” nonsense, than after you parse through this barely coherent barrage of buzzwords, how it was any different than a fighting retreat/elastic defense with some localized counterattacks to wear down the enemy and allow for a large scale counterattack?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >how it was any different than a fighting retreat/elastic defense with some localized counterattacks to wear down the enemy and allow for a large scale counterattack
                Targeting priority.
                It's easy to say "elastic defence" but what are your weapons hitting? Tanks? Artillery? Recon? Supply depots? All of the above?

                The buzzwords are indeed buzzwords, but you have to understand their purpose is to convey a large concept packed inside a single word. Which is often useless for understanding what it means prima facie, but is meant to be used as an aide memoire
                >t. have invented corporate buzzwords before

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It's easy to say "elastic defence" but what are your weapons hitting? Tanks? Artillery? Recon? Supply depots? All of the above?
                In context of tactical-level engagement (ie brigade and below), it would tactical-level enemy assets ie the shit that is shooting at you, could start shooting at you, or that is supposed to help the former 2 shot at you better, all which was already done by every single army in the world since forever.
                If you move a bit beyond that into the strategic layer, you start noticing a difference, especially in the air assets usage(ie ground-support vs interdiction bombing), but by all accounts the fighter mafia/reformists fricking hated interdiction bombing and wanted a heavy focus on tactical ground support and constantly criticized the US Air Force precisely because of its focus on it, which flies at the idea that it was an OODA innovation.
                >The buzzwords are indeed buzzwords, but you have to understand their purpose is to convey a large concept packed inside a single word. Which is often useless for understanding what it means prima facie, but is meant to be used as an aide memoire
                Except that it is not it is happening here

                >"AirLand Battle" in part introduced the idea of winning by attacking the enemy's decision process, in addition to other innovations
                Ok, and that was done how exactly? If it was "Smash blitz offensive by inconspicuously using fast-tempo/fluidity-of-action and cohesion of counter-blitz combat teams as basis for shifting of forces and quick focus of air and ground effort to throttle momentum, shatter cohesion, and envelop blitz in order to destroy adversary's capacity to resist” nonsense, than after you parse through this barely coherent barrage of buzzwords, how it was any different than a fighting retreat/elastic defense with some localized counterattacks to wear down the enemy and allow for a large scale counterattack?

                in Boyd's quote. He could have easily said "Disrupt and stop the enemy offensive through wearing it down with fast-paced tactical counterattacks done by flexible forces supported by air", but that would be compressive in its first read, which goes against his actual goal of impressing his readers so they can suck his dick, instead of informing them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the fighter mafia/reformists fricking hated interdiction bombing
                Yeah that's not accredited to Boyd of course
                >"Disrupt and stop the enemy offensive through wearing it down with fast-paced tactical counterattacks done by flexible forces supported by air"
                That's just another set of buzzwords anon
                and conveys less meaning than Boyd's original quote did: what does "wearing it down" mean? attriting its manoeuvre units?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah that's not accredited to Boyd of course
                Guilt by association is this case, specially since he opposed most technological aspects that enabled the US to achieve such a high efficacy at disrupting enemy movement/logistics/communications. Regardless, the core claim(that OODA somehow enabled the rise of disruptive air operations in the enemy rear) is nonsensical, as that was always a huge part of the USAF doctrine, long before Boyd.
                >and conveys less meaning than Boyd's original quote did
                What is "blitz offensive"? Does it means purely exploitation/maneuver by enemy assets, or does it also includes the breakthrough operations as well? What the hell "inconspicuously usage of fast-tempo/fluidity-of-action and cohesion" means? Is it supposed to mean simple tactical responsiveness and protectiveness? How is it usage done conspicuously vs inconspicuously? What is a "counter-blitz combat team"? Wouldn't that just defensive-oriented Kampfgruppe/Task Group? What is "envelop blitz" supposed to mean? Is it supposed to mean outright cutting of the enemy spearheads? Or is it supposed to have a more broad meaning, as in simple to cripple those spearheads capacity to conduct offensive military operations? Despite abusing buzzwords, Boyd quote is remarkably uninformative, since the whole thing relies on vague word associations to try to distract you from the fact it is barely telling you anything of substance.
                >what does "wearing it down" mean? attriting its manoeuvre units?
                Yes. If you want it to be more specific, you could also write "Disrupt and stop the enemy mechanized/armored formations through destroying their assets with fast-paced tactical counterattacks done by flexible forces supported by air".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You misunderstand me; I mean that Boyd is to blame for encouraging the fighter mafia
                >that was always a huge part of the USAF doctrine, long before Boyd
                USAF tended to target supply lines, conduct counter-air and help attrit enemy forces with close-in CAS; ALB focused their efforts on enemy C3
                >through destroying their assets
                still not specific enough
                what assets precisely? tanks? artillery? engineering?
                ALB switched the focus away from tanks and troops, and tightened it to focus on targeting C3 and the enabling logistics that would hamper the enemy's ability to manoeuvre or bring in reinforcements and supply
                >the whole thing relies on vague word associations to try to distract you from the fact it is barely telling you anything of substance
                to unpack the quote requires reading his thesis; that is the nature of such mottoes

                actually I find it is the last part of the quote that is most meaningful:
                >throttle momentum
                the first step is to drastically slow the enemy action
                >shatter cohesion
                then destroy C3
                >envelop blitz
                then encircle the manoeuvre units
                >in order to destroy adversary's capacity to resist
                with the objective being to force surrender rather than attrition

                and that is significantly different from previous US Army doctrines.

                Of course Boyd didn't come up with this operations plan, the US Army did. But that doesn't mean his description of it is empty of meaning.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >USAF tended to target supply lines, conduct counter-air and help attrit enemy forces with close-in CAS; ALB focused their efforts on enemy C3
                That is not true. USAF interdiction was heavily focused on disrupting enemy capacity to move and reinforce, which unsurprisingly also ended overlapping with logistical bombing because supply, reinforcement, and communication lines are mostly the same.
                >still not specific enough
                I have been far more specific Boyd bothered to be, even in my original quote.
                >ALB switched the focus away from tanks and troops, and tightened it to focus on targeting C3 and the enabling logistics that would hamper the enemy's ability to manoeuvre or bring in reinforcements and supply
                How was that any different, from, let's say, Vietnam?
                >the first step is to drastically slow the enemy action
                >then destroy C3
                >then encircle the manoeuvre units
                >with the objective being to force surrender rather than attrition
                So, the same as before ALB, except that you maybe throw extra bombs in the enemy divisional/corps HQ? Again, that sounds like Vietnam to me.
                >Of course Boyd didn't come up with this operations plan, the US Army did.
                Of course. Still, it is funny to see Boyd go from the next Clausewitz to some buffoon.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Also, just found this about the Gulf War and OODA.
                >One notable aspect of the congressional hearings was that Hart, Sprey, and Boyd all gave credit for the victory to Boyd’s “brilliance” and “genius” and said that the reason the Coalition won the war was because it adopted Boydís maneuver warfare principles and got inside the Iraqiís observation-orientation decision-action (OODA) loop. Inconveniently, Critics who were much more knowledgeable about maneuver warfare disagreed. Well known military analyst and author Martin van Creveld joined Critic and maneuver warfare enthusiast Steven Canby in examining the results of the war, and after making the Criticsí usual laments that “the facts are not all in [but] many official pronouncements during and after the war were hyperbole... skewed to influence future budgetary battles on Capitol Hill” and that “unit cohesion and training proficiency were not high” the two took strong exception to the other Critic’s comments before Congress. Van Creveld and Canby said that, despite Hart’s, Sprey’s and Boydís declarations, “the notion of entering into the enemy’s OODA loop never came into play” and closed with the comment that “Desert Storm was not a good example of maneuver warfare.”

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Again, that sounds like Vietnam to me
                It really wasn't.

                Also, just found this about the Gulf War and OODA.
                >One notable aspect of the congressional hearings was that Hart, Sprey, and Boyd all gave credit for the victory to Boyd’s “brilliance” and “genius” and said that the reason the Coalition won the war was because it adopted Boydís maneuver warfare principles and got inside the Iraqiís observation-orientation decision-action (OODA) loop. Inconveniently, Critics who were much more knowledgeable about maneuver warfare disagreed. Well known military analyst and author Martin van Creveld joined Critic and maneuver warfare enthusiast Steven Canby in examining the results of the war, and after making the Criticsí usual laments that “the facts are not all in [but] many official pronouncements during and after the war were hyperbole... skewed to influence future budgetary battles on Capitol Hill” and that “unit cohesion and training proficiency were not high” the two took strong exception to the other Critic’s comments before Congress. Van Creveld and Canby said that, despite Hart’s, Sprey’s and Boydís declarations, “the notion of entering into the enemy’s OODA loop never came into play” and closed with the comment that “Desert Storm was not a good example of maneuver warfare.”

                who really knows, anon
                I suspect you'd have to dig into Stormin Norman's memoirs perhaps to know what really went through his mind

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >who really knows, anon
                That is from congressional hearings. It is actually funny how utterly wrong Boyd and the critics were about the Gulf War. Here is another pretty brutal summation of the OODA loop:
                >Despite the length and seeming breadth of the briefing, Boyd followed Fallows’ example by giving the audience a simple theory that Boyd claimed to have invented, the “OODA” (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) loop. This “loop” involved a steady pattern of seeing an enemy first, observing his actions, then acting faster to counter them, what Boyd called ”getting inside the loop.” It was, in essence, simply doing the right thing faster than the enemy. This was a platitude like “hit ‘em where they ain’t” - the real issue is not what to do, but rather how to do it - but Boyd’s theory was acclaimed by the Critics and many in his audiences as “genius”. Even though most of Boyd’s thoughts were taken from truly original - if not always correct - military thinkers like Basil Liddell Hart and J.F.C. (John Fredrick Charles) Fuller, the Critics claimed the ideas were original to Boyd and called them “maneuver” warfare as opposed to what they asserted was the American strategy of "attrition" warfare.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                Also, about Norman and Boyd:
                >Les Aspin, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, seemed to express the sentiments of the entire committee when he said, “everybody would agree the military performed well, that the leadership was superb, that the quality of the troops was very, very good.” Everybody, that is, except Critic John Boyd. Boyd made a brief statement to the committee claiming his ideas were responsible for the victory, that “air power was not decisive” then went on a long tirade about how, because one of his “acolytes” was not promoted to general, the “military suppresses brilliant and unconventional young officers”. Boyd continued by saying military promotion system (the one that gave the American military Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, Charles Horner, and the other Gulf War generals) was flawed and urged Congress to “get involved with the issue of selection of people [to general]”, suggesting that Congress take over all general officer promotions from the military. The transcript of the hearing indicates the congressmen seemed appalled by the idea. Former Navy secretary Lehman, who was sitting on a panel with Boyd and was very familiar with military promotions, was horrified at the idea of Congress selecting flag officers. Responding to Boyd's proposal, he said “Congress should not get into the business of naming people and micro-managing”
                Wanting to complete change the United States Armed Forces' promotion system because one of his butt-buddies wasn't given a promotion is some next level shit.

                Is there a source for all this?

                Anyway. I didn't give Boyd credit for developing the Army's doctrine, I said he described it well. And I disagree with
                >This was a platitude etc...
                for the reasons I've already posted above.

                Also, when the author claims Boyd copies Liddell-Hart he shows he doesn't understand the difference between say the German "blitzkrieg" and AirLand Battle. Superficially they are the same, but the priority of targets and overall intent are not. "Blitzkrieg" for example didn't set out explicitly to attack enemy C3.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Is there a source for all this?
                https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
                >"Blitzkrieg" for example didn't set out explicitly to attack enemy C3.
                It actually did. A big reason why the soviet Western Special Military District/Western Front collapsed during the opening days of Operation Barbarossa was because a lot of their communication were done by exposed (as in not buried) telephone cables, which were cut off by the Luftwaffe and long-range artillery.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >which were cut off by the Luftwaffe and long-range artillery
                By far a secondary or even tertiary objective if not happenstance
                "Blitzkrieg" was really about breaking through selected enemy strongpoints (at the "schwerpunkt") with tanks, CAS and artillery, and then encircling the force

                [...]
                I will also add that Boyd himself heavily disagreed that the army doctrine resembled his ideas, and him and his posse were openly saying that the USA was sleepwalking into disaster in Iraq because of that(they changed their tune after war, since the alternative was to admit that they were full of shit).

                Well yeah
                Once again, I didn't claim that Boyd wrote Army doctrine
                Either OODA influenced the Army, or the Army begat Boyd's OODA, or (most likely) the two influenced each other; either way, like the fighter mafia's F-15, the military took the initial idea and imposed their own take on it

                I'm only giving credit to Boyd for formulating the OODA model, and saying that it is worthy of credit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm only giving credit to Boyd for formulating the OODA model, and saying that it is worthy of credit
                I agree with that, however I disagree with the idea the OODA loop that played a role in developing US doctrine.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Is there a source for all this?
                https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
                >"Blitzkrieg" for example didn't set out explicitly to attack enemy C3.
                It actually did. A big reason why the soviet Western Special Military District/Western Front collapsed during the opening days of Operation Barbarossa was because a lot of their communication were done by exposed (as in not buried) telephone cables, which were cut off by the Luftwaffe and long-range artillery.

                I will also add that Boyd himself heavily disagreed that the army doctrine resembled his ideas, and him and his posse were openly saying that the USA was sleepwalking into disaster in Iraq because of that(they changed their tune after war, since the alternative was to admit that they were full of shit).

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                A-LB had a number of fathers, but one of the most important was probably Huba Wass de Czege. I met him online back in the '90s on a military forum. He was a great guy; incredibly smart, and could make complex subjects make sense to the layman, and always trying to figure out a better way to do things.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >who really knows, anon
                That is from congressional hearings. It is actually funny how utterly wrong Boyd and the critics were about the Gulf War. Here is another pretty brutal summation of the OODA loop:
                >Despite the length and seeming breadth of the briefing, Boyd followed Fallows’ example by giving the audience a simple theory that Boyd claimed to have invented, the “OODA” (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) loop. This “loop” involved a steady pattern of seeing an enemy first, observing his actions, then acting faster to counter them, what Boyd called ”getting inside the loop.” It was, in essence, simply doing the right thing faster than the enemy. This was a platitude like “hit ‘em where they ain’t” - the real issue is not what to do, but rather how to do it - but Boyd’s theory was acclaimed by the Critics and many in his audiences as “genius”. Even though most of Boyd’s thoughts were taken from truly original - if not always correct - military thinkers like Basil Liddell Hart and J.F.C. (John Fredrick Charles) Fuller, the Critics claimed the ideas were original to Boyd and called them “maneuver” warfare as opposed to what they asserted was the American strategy of "attrition" warfare.

                Also, about Norman and Boyd:
                >Les Aspin, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, seemed to express the sentiments of the entire committee when he said, “everybody would agree the military performed well, that the leadership was superb, that the quality of the troops was very, very good.” Everybody, that is, except Critic John Boyd. Boyd made a brief statement to the committee claiming his ideas were responsible for the victory, that “air power was not decisive” then went on a long tirade about how, because one of his “acolytes” was not promoted to general, the “military suppresses brilliant and unconventional young officers”. Boyd continued by saying military promotion system (the one that gave the American military Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, Charles Horner, and the other Gulf War generals) was flawed and urged Congress to “get involved with the issue of selection of people [to general]”, suggesting that Congress take over all general officer promotions from the military. The transcript of the hearing indicates the congressmen seemed appalled by the idea. Former Navy secretary Lehman, who was sitting on a panel with Boyd and was very familiar with military promotions, was horrified at the idea of Congress selecting flag officers. Responding to Boyd's proposal, he said “Congress should not get into the business of naming people and micro-managing”
                Wanting to complete change the United States Armed Forces' promotion system because one of his butt-buddies wasn't given a promotion is some next level shit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >and yet manoeuvre warfare as formally codified practised by armies is a 20th century thing, and only in the latter half
                That isn’t really true. Maneuver was the lynchpin of military strategy during the 19th and early 20th centuries, down to similar worries about advancing units being potentially cut off and logistical difficulties in supplying an advancing army. If you want an example, look at the Franco-Prussian War, or how the german maneuver warfare of WW2 was simple the application of those older principles with new technology such as tanks and planes.
                >and that's a groundbreaking step believe it or not
                What “groundbreak” did the OODA allow for, exactly?
                >the concept is the first step, the execution is in the field manual; it may sound useless but without the first step, the field manual cannot be formulated at all
                There were no field manuals before Boyd?
                >nothing at all in the world is proof from being parroted unthinkingly by know-nothings
                Boyd himself was know-nothing parroting nonsense. Remember, he never shot down an enemy aircraft, flew only a few sorties, and was embarrassingly wrong over stuff that he should have know better(see the fighter mafia,
                /reform movement, or when he was laughed out of Top Gun for his bullshit claims).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why there’s Viktor Orban sitting in the left all smelly?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot the F-22 now 2-0 against the chinks

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it is true but only remains true to the extent that US R&D spending exceeds that of the Russians/Chinese.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      eh, idk. Despite US R&D and procurement being a huge clusterfrick I think it's probably worse in openly authoritarian countries. I think it's also a 50/50 now that China never actually exceeds the USA's GDP which is pretty lol in and of itself considering there are a billion of them. Well, in 50 years it will be ~800 million or so.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        20 years ago
        >lol China only has 1/10th our GDP
        2023
        >lol China only has 8/10th our GDP

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          GDP is built on population size. China’s population is declining. Even if they manage to achieve parity with the USA, it will be very brief.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      russia spent the cost equivalent of F-35 program on Su-57 and was supposed to have over 100 of them by last year or two.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If only the superyacht didn't need another gold toilet...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Or a top-of-the-line SAM system

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      During the Cold War the USSR was spending upwards of 25% of GDP on military spending, in contrast to the USA spending 10-15% on military spending.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        and what was the GDP of the US vs SU in the 1980s

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong, it's genetic
      R1b Anglos are simply a vastly superior people to spastic chink bugs or slave snow coons, history has proved this time and time again

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >history has proved
        My Black person detector is going off the charts. I don't think you belong to your precious haplogroup. It's either that or you're one of the more moronic specimens.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong. For example, China is expending way more than Taiwan and US in chips and it's still 12 years behind.
      Cuba received more money from the Soviets than Europe from the Marshall plan.
      Money is not enough to solve problems.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's very true. See: the F-15
    >Russia makes this new plane
    >we pick it up on satellite
    >holy shit it's fast
    >The USSR has apparently just bested the US in every way imaginable making a fighter jet we cannot hope to in any way match with current technology
    >US shits a brick and pulls out all the stops and starts funneling money into the MIC to produce something to best this new threat, pushing beyond the limits of technology as we knew them in every direction
    >And thus the F-15 was born, the end all be all air superiority fighter, even today 50+ years after its first flight it remains in active service and still undefeated in air to air combat with a flawless 102:0 record
    >Russia, meanwhile had actually not produced a fighter, but an interceptor capable of going really fast in a straight line and nothing else
    >which we later discovered after a Soviet pilot stole his MiG-25, flew it to Japan, landed, and held up the Japanese at gun point when they ran out to figure WTF was going on and who the frick just landed, insisting he would only surrender to the United States

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >put pilot in fastest plane ever
      >so fast nobody could ever hope to catch him
      >he leaves
      Surprised Pikachu face

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      whats funny now is the MIG-31 has ass raped&gaped the ukraine so bad, it will never fly a sortie again.

      the MIG-31 singlehandedly ruled the skies for Russia

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But russia destroyed the entire Ukrainian air force in the first couple hours, what does the Mig31 have to do with that?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >But Russia destroyed the entire ukrainian air force in the first couple hours, what does the Mig31 have to do with that?
          I too agree, the hohol air fleet was fricking decimated the first 48hrs
          thankfully MIG-31's have been Ramming R-37 and R-77 up the remaining hohol pilots asses,
          sending their aircraft into a flaming wreck,
          and the pilots "200"

          There is probably no other historical war where a single plane posed such a problem for an entire nation.. except maybe like desert storm
          the MIG-31 effectively closed the ukraines skies, outside of near suicide-missions for whatever craft and pilots left alive

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I of agreeing as well, air force of Russia is indeed very powerful, not at all like rotted shell of Soviet era like rest of Russia. Soon Su-57 Checkmate will dominate Ukranazi and HATO skies, just like Mach 4.5 MiG-23

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Russki, you know that vranyo thing only works when everyone has to play along right? You're full of shit and your plane sucks lol

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I of agreeing as well, air force of Russia is indeed very powerful, not at all like rotted shell of Soviet era like rest of Russia. Soon Su-57 Checkmate will dominate Ukranazi and HATO skies, just like Mach 4.5 MiG-23

              lmfao, how did 1 jet come to have so much influence over ukrainian airspace?

              why do ukrainain pilots keep going 200 every time Miggers hit the scene?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh yes comrade, MiG-31 is leagues better than such decadent western aircraft such as MiG-29

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because Ukraine is a bunch of drunken slavic monkeys flying even older snowBlack person flying coffins, as you already know you disingenuous israelite

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >never fly a sortie again
        >literally footage of the ukie airforce doing sorites in the last few months
        >news this week of jdam explosion in byrdansk
        sure anon whatever you say

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Or the "bomber gap" in the 50's
      >the Soviets produce a jet-powered strategic bomber, which gives the US officials night terrors about Soviets now having trans-Atlantic capabilities to nuke American cities
      >the Soviets then show these things off at an airshow, which naturally has US glowies taking notes
      >they've only made 20 or so by then, but to impress the foreign officials, the Soviets make two passes with one group of planes, adding a few more to the formation on the second pass
      >the CIA is successfully bamboozled, they do some napkin math and estimate that the Soviets are in full factory production and will soon have hundreds upon hundreds of brand new high tech bombers
      >faced with visions of the sky being blackened with Soviet bombers raining endless waves of hellfire, the US officials shit bricks in terror and order the manufacture of ALL THE BOMBERS to close the gap
      >as the US is fricking drowning in thousands of strategic bombers, they discover that the Soviets not only didn't make more than a hundred M-4 Bisons or so, but it also was never capable of trans-Atlantic range in the first place

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget US also investing massively in a huge and hi-tech interceptor fleet and designing the most advanced SAMs to date as well.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Sprint my beloved….

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >designing the most advanced SAMs to date as well

          Here's something that is never discussed. The US was covered by a belt of SAM sites that were more lethal than anything the Soviets were able to field in the same era.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I read it as "napkin meth" and it still made sense.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >>holy shit it's fast
      It wasn't just that. The US thought the giant wing of the MiG-25 made it highly maneuverable. In reality it needed that just to get off the ground because the whole thing was made out of carbon steel and weighed a frickton.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        *stainless steel

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You left out
      >The MiG-25 was designed to counter bomber that never entered production.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >a Soviet pilot stole his MiG-25, flew it to Japan
      This guy is so fricking based it's unreal. His life is basically a capitalist propaganda story.
      https://web.archive.org/web/20021125211924/http://www.geocities.com:80/siafdu/viktor.html

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I highly recommend his book. It's an amazing read and provides insight into the soviet society than no other book or article i've read does. It's outright amazing.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The one thing that always stuck with me was when Belenko was being debriefed by a USAF contact and he found that the guy to him was a Wild Weasel pilot. He knew just how dangerous the mission was and so realized it wasn't just some desk bound half assed type talking to him.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Later I complain about that to my friends in Wyoming. And they said, "Viktor, Brits love cowboys." I said, "Really?" Next trip I had cowboy hat, cowboy boots. I show up in their pubs; they look at me with astoundment. "Are you cowboy?" I say, "Yup." My vocabulary was very limited: Yup and Nope. But I did notice that they accept American cowboy with respect. And not only in England, in Europe and other countries as well. So I do advise my friends, who are traveling abroad, wear cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and act as a cowboy. American cowboys belong to the world!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >defector
        >based
        Right...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I highly recommend his book. It's an amazing read and provides insight into the soviet society than no other book or article i've read does. It's outright amazing.

        I read his book years ago and still have it. It's a great read on all levels. The guy's attitude is really uplifting, and also pretty based because he says how anyone in American who doesn't succeed is a fricking moron because they're starting with more opportunity than a Soviet could ever dream of.

        I wish he did a second book a few decades after the first. You don't get a sense of his life in the US after the first few months he was here. I'd love to hear about his ongoing life. Chuck Yeager did mention him in one of his books--they'd go camping together. Apparently Belenko fit right in as a hard drinking wiseass.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          apparently he genuinely did just settle in and live a normal life, there's a couple videos of him hanging out at a local bar and answering a couple questions.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            http://www.chrisdixonreports.com/margaritaville/oshkosh/folioentry7.html

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Waht a cahntree!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There's more to it than that. The F-15 was only a small part of that lopsided arms race.
      >US designs and builds the B-70 Valkyrie to cruise at Mach 3 at 77,000 ft.
      >A literal wunderwaffe on its own that can avoid Soviet interceptors and advanced SAM systems
      >Soviets see this and design the Mig-25, a flying steel brick with engines big enough to force it to Mach 3 and wings big enough to allow the heavy b***h to get off the ground
      >US sees the big engines and big wings and says "Shit! A high thrust/weight ratio, low wing loading superfighter! How will our Phantoms even compete?!"
      >US designs and builds wunderwaffe F-15, able to outmaneuver anything in the sky. But the Mig-25s weren't that capable.
      >Soviets see this and design the Su-27 and Mig-29. They have decent radar-guided missiles and can do intimidating but impractical stunts at airshows.
      >US sees these and says "Shit! Two supermaneuverable fighter jets!? How will our F-15s and F-16s even compete?!"
      >US designs and builds wunderwaffe F-22, able to outmaneuver anything in the sky while hiding from their radars. But the Su-27 and Mig-29 weren't that capable.
      >Russians are trying but failing to keep up with the F-22 and F-35 by producing the Su-57 and Su-75, but there aren't that many Su-57s and they have inferior electronics and stealth.
      >The US can now safely operate the B-70 Valkyrie. But they canceled and retired it before the Mig-25 even entered service.
      >Why? Because Gary Powers' U-2 got shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM. The military feared new Soviet SAMs would be able to shoot down even the B-70. But as the SR-71 proved. . .
      >The SAMs weren't that capable.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >>Why? Because Gary Powers' U-2 got shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM. The military feared new Soviet SAMs would be able to shoot down even the B-70. But as the SR-71 proved. .

        https://hushkit.net/2018/04/01/russia-reveals-wreckage-of-us-blackbird-spyplane-shot-down-in-1983/

        LMFAO MIG-31's were downing Blackbirds in the 80's
        lol the MIG-31 has been btfo'ing western 'world-policing' for 40+ years

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Publication date: April 1, 2018

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            can you read dipshit?

            the SR-71 was shotdown in 1983 by MIG-31s

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://hushkit.net/2019/04/01/revealed-us-admits-to-existence-of-top-secret-mach-6-rs-85-aurora-spyplane/

              Mig-31s couldn't even detect the RS-85 Aurora, let alone shoot it down.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >desperate vatBlack person falling for a fricking april fools joke
          how much more of an embarrassment can you become?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You left out the bit were the soviets told their pilots to push the engines to the point of destruction in order to make the west think the jet was way faster than it actually was.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    BAD DEALS
    PRIMITIVE TECHNOLOGY
    MOCK UPS

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I cant even

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    might apply to the MiG-31/F-15 (Thanks Viktor) but I doubt Russia has anything that even approaches F-22/F-35 tech (unless they are better at hiding prototypes than we think)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Look at this fricking war going on right now. Do you GENUINELY think they have anything?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Clearly blew all the money on artillery. Jesus Christ the last picture of Bakhmut I saw looked like the moon.

        Honestly I'm kind of happy about that, artillery is cool as frick and my old man would go on these great stories about how stupid his crew was and all their antics. I hope the response to this whole debacle is for everyone to build up huge amounts of artillery so that every stupid war from now until doomsday turns into a stupid artillery war. I love artillery warfare.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >when the Hoi4 zigger in charge of logistics put all of the factories on artillery but forgot to make guns
          Sounds about right

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The image should really be a MiG-25, which is probably the aircraft the original post had in mind. In the case of the MiG 25 it was basically true except the USA did the talking up of the MiG-25's capabilities themselves.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    When will the aerospace MIC ever learn the time-tested formula for a successful military aircraft
    >Spitfire, the only airframe to fight from 1939 to 1945
    >Mosquito, the best fighter of the war
    >F-4, F-15, F-22
    >even the Mig-31, the best-performing Russian aircraft in Ukraine
    Build the fastest airframe possible, build in plenty of payload capacity, then figure out what to carry on it
    Simple as

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Spitfire, the only airframe to fight from 1939 to 1945
      Bf109?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        *only Allied airframe, I should say then
        >I mean technically the Bf109 was around in 1945
        >not doing much, but yes, around

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          109 saw combat in '37, so I'd say that makes up for any 1945 deficiencies

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Early vs late war 109s were as related to each other as the Hornet and Super Hornet are the same plane.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              You can apply that same logic to Spitfires. Late war Spitfires were basically completely different aircraft from their early war variants.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Recycling the general aerodynamics while otherwise calling it the same type when significant airframe redesign is conducted counts against it being the same plane. The Super Hornet is a Hornet in appearance only, as is a 109K is a 109A in appearance only.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                To make my point clear:
                >I consider the 109G to be related to the BF109K than either of them are to a 109A to D.
                Starting from the E to F point significant redesign of the airframes was made to the point that they might as well be a different plane but with the same general aerodynamic design. The 109F and up might as well be almost as different as the 309 prototype to the 109A.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think they're still a little traumatized by Vietnam.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Spitfire, the only airframe to fight from 1939 to 1945
      >Hawker Hurricane
      >B-17
      >Fairey Swordfish

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        P-40 as well

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I was limiting myself to planes that were still being flown by the original makers of the plane. Otherwise there's a whole lot of planes in Russia and the allies that jumped on board in 1944 and 1945 you gotta look at, and that's not really fair.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >F4F

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          My favorite plane despite its flaws

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But that's not even true--the F-15 *wasn't* the fastest airframe possible. There were Mach 3 designs floating around, and they were rejected in favor of a Mach 2.5 design (really, Mach 2.0 or less with weapons) that could dogfight really well. And the US has been lowering top speed requirements ever since: F-22 can only hit Mach 2.2, and F-35 tops out at a wimpy Mach 1.6.

      You see, the US figured out that because supersonic flight eats up absurd amounts of fuel, aircraft spend very little time at supersonic speeds (other than the SR-71, which carried an absurd amount of fuel). Focus then shifted towards having enough speed to conduct an intercept and get into a favorable position for it, while otherwise concentrating on trans-sonic and high-subsonic performance. The F-22's supercruise was a breakthrough, but it's still only good to ~M1.6-1.8. The dreams of the '60s and '70s, that the future would be dominated by absurdly-fast interceptors, died.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The dreams of the '60s and '70s, that the future would be dominated by absurdly-fast interceptors, died.
        lmfao, explain the MIG-31 and ukraine then

        because it seems like exactly, precisely what the effective strategy is
        >"Fly SUPER high"
        >"Fly super fast"
        >"launch missile at fast speed to +++missile speed+++ to hypersonic"
        >"turn and burn out, before anything can see you, let alone touch you"
        and it has been so effective ukraines skies are essentially closed

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          your vatnik brainrot is going into it's last stage

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >and it has been so effective ukraines skies are essentially closed
          To everyone, mostly because of ground based AA.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The dreams of the '60s and '70s, that the future would be dominated by absurdly-fast interceptors, died.
        lmfao, explain the MIG-31 and ukraine then

        because it seems like exactly, precisely what the effective strategy is
        >"Fly SUPER high"
        >"Fly super fast"
        >"launch missile at fast speed to +++missile speed+++ to hypersonic"
        >"turn and burn out, before anything can see you, let alone touch you"
        and it has been so effective ukraines skies are essentially closed

        Pretty sure the F-15 was so OP because it could lock on before you even knew where it was. The APG-63 was like alien tech compared to any other fighter radar in the 70s.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty true

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >MIG-23 has a clear advantage in both altitude and speed over the proposed F-15 and can be a Mach 4.5 airplane in 5 years

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >MIG-23 ... can be a Mach 4.5 airplane in 5 years
        Maybe if you strap one to a Saturn V and launch it into LEO.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Thats fricking crazy to me that the F-15 was being developed in fricking 1969 Nd is STILL among the best fighters on the planet.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      When your driving credo is that there's no kill like overkill, over-reactions to perceived threats are the norm.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Vaguely true.

    US doctrine since WW2 has placed a major emphasis on achieving and then leveraging air dominance. This has led to them pushing hard to ensure they are at least on par with any potential opponent's capability in every aspect of air warfare in particular.

    It hasn't always held true though. Sometimes the US does the opposite of the OP pic - underestimating a threat and then underfunding development on their end. The best example is probably the AA-11 which was significantly superior to the contemporary AIM-9 models the US was fielding.

    In domains outside the air the US is much more willing to accept being second best. Anti ship cruise missiles make a good example there. The Harpoon isn't bad, but it's no match for the likes of Sandbox.

    >tl;dr Maybe don't only learn from greentexts and memey infographics

    Now look at Ben Shapiro's pregnant sister's massive, milk-manufacturing mammaries.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >it's no match for the likes of Sandbox
      Sandbox can be shot down by Aegis-controlled Standard SAMs, whereas a squadron of F-18s launching two sea-skimming Harpoons apiece would have been enough to settle the hash of any Soviet SAG

      Harpoon is the equal of Soviet supersonic missiles, it just solves the problem in a different way

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not sure the Ticonderoga skipper staring down a 16 shot sandbox volley with his 2x2 shot mark 26 launchers would share your 'easy win' assessment, but thanks for sharing.

        Bunker Hill - the VLS upgrade - didn't commission till late '86, 10 years after Sandbox entered service. Also the year the price of oil collapsed and strangled any further soviet weapons development.

        I'm also not seeing any booba attached to your post.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The overriding issue with the P-500 is that it's a fricking huge missile so only very few platforms can actually field it, much less carry them in large numbers, those being their submarines or cruisers.

          The US never developed superheavy AShMs because they felt they were a waste. Why put your own expensive capital ship at risk trying to sail it into missile range when you can just launch dozens of relatively cheaper aircraft that can each load up to 2-4 lighter AShMs and attack multiple targets simultaneously or a single one from different directions simultaneously.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Man, I would love to strike her belly repeatedly until she has a miscarriage and then immediately impregnate her again, if you catch my drift

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I am incredibly sexually attracted to hot pregnant women

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        SAME its hot AF and I wish more women understood the implications of this

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The Harpoon isn't bad, but it's no match for the likes of Sandbox.
      lol

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I want to burn down her house and force myself on her, if you're smelling what I'm stepping in.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Less-than-quantifiable factors are something that it seems in many cases the US got right and the USSR got wrong. Take the Bradley vs BMP-2: while having relatively comparative on-paper stats, the BMP values a low profile, promising increased survivability, over crew comfort/efficiency. Now, its impossible to know just how many shots that would have hit and killed a Bradley missed a BMP they were fired on, but experience seems to imply that the trade there wasn't worth it. Of course, the opposite is also true, and one could argue the Bradley was put into better scenarios in which to fight compared to the BMP

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    very true, its why every thing else in america is left to squalor

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's only so many ways you can make a hunk of metal fly fast.

    Russia and China do carry a lot of false bravado, but they're not harmless.

    What America pays 10x for is a 5% increase in accuracy.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Eh, I'd argue that the MIG-31 was pretty advanced for its time with its huge PESA radar and early datalinks, and was built in enough numbers to be tactically relevant. Besides flying fast and carrying a lot of shit will never be obsolete.

    There is a case to be made in making moderately capable (or more like specialized) cheaper aircraft in great numbers.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >There is a case to be made in making moderately capable (or more like specialized) cheaper aircraft in great numbers.
      I have a feeling those are going to be all over the fricking place, but unmanned. High-performance 5+ generation manned aircraft will control them.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Be Russia in the early 1960s
    See the U.S designed the XB-70
    Design the Mig-25 to counter it
    XB-70 gets cancelled
    Be the US
    See the Russians designed the Mig-25
    Assume it's a super air superiority fighter
    Design the F-15 to counter it
    Pikachu face

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Outside of nukes and SAMs, it's essentially true. And worse, is that after we develop something awesome, the Ruskies and chinks just steal the tech and copy it anyway.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Bruh, nukes are the case where it's more true than anything else. SAMs too, but to a lesser extent.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Bruh, nukes are the case where it's more true than anything else. SAMs too, but to a lesser extent.
        That's literally what I said. English a problem for you?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Did you mean to use the word different from "outside"? Because that's not what the word means.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >OP said how true is his picrel
            >I said "Outside of nukes and SAMs," his picrel is true.
            >"Outside" meaning besides those two things.
            You may want to revisit grammar school, dunce boy.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, and i corrected you saying that these two things were not outside of OP's story, in fact nukes were the most blatant example of it.

              Are you high?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You are so stupid, it hurts. Please go suck your father off some more, or ask forgiveness from your mother for the fetal alcohol syndrome she gave you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you so angry? I correctly understood your argument and corrected it, yet you seem unable to comprehend this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I correctly understood your argument and corrected it, yet you seem unable to comprehend this.
                Same. You seem unable to comprehend English. Try upping your Ritalin dosage, homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If you did understand me then why are you so angry?

                My argument was that nukes are a prime example of US dominance over soviets. What did you think it was?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you so angry? I correctly understood your argument and corrected it, yet you seem unable to comprehend this.

                Yes, and i corrected you saying that these two things were not outside of OP's story, in fact nukes were the most blatant example of it.

                Are you high?

                Did you mean to use the word different from "outside"? Because that's not what the word means.

                Literal moron-tier reading comprehension or elaborate troll. You actually made me re-read the other anon's post to see if I could find any error. I hope you clean the lead in indoor ranges because there is no alternative excuse to be so intellectually disabled.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are you suffering an aneurysm? "Outside of X, it is essentially true." would generally mean that X is an exception to that truth.
                The OP statement was that the US enjoys near-total technological superiority. So the statement of "Outside of nukes and SAMs, it is essentially true" implies that nukes and SAMs are the only two areas where US tech is NOT totally superior.
                The guy you're responding to noted that, far from being an exception to US technological superiority, nukes are one of the best examples of it.
                But I'm pretty sure you're just trolling to avoid admitting you fricked up.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      moron

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The major advantage of the American military is not that our tech is light years ahead of any non-ally country. It's that we produce so much fricking more of it. Look how many fricking fighter jets we have, and the ability to place them anywhere on the globe with carriers and foreign bases. Do you think any country with say, 40 planes, has a chance? Even if they shoot down one jet for every one of theirs that we shoot down, we still win by sheer numbers. Our economy and quality of life is dogshit, so this is the only way we can remain the world's superpower.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Amazing; just about all of that is wrong

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Except that it's literally all true. Way more aircraft carriers. Way more aircraft. Way more drones. Way more foreign bases. Way more missile systems. We outspend and outproduce the next 7-9 largest militaries combined, dumbshit. Yes, some of our stuff is the most advanced, but that is not really the most important thing, as tech advancements are always in flux.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >that is not really the most important thing, as tech advancements are always in flux
          wew lad

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Kinda, except everyone in the American MIC is in on the bit and actively encourages it in order to continually further American military superiority.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hey..
    Remember how the Chinese keep pretending they have carrier killer missiles?
    Remember how Russians keep spewing bullshit about hypersonics?

    Yeah..
    https://www.easternherald.com/2023/03/09/the-united-states-deploys-its-first-battery-of-hypersonic-missiles-by-the-end-of-the-year/

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Factually accurate
    This is why underselling your own stuff and planning for the worst is always better than sabre rattling about your paper shit to keep your brainless population blindly patriotic

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    doesn't matter. the west always loses because of politics.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Bakhmut still not taken after 8 month in the 3 day special operation that will completely take over ukraine
      Now i see the superior politics of the great russian empire

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Very but it ignores the fact the standard US responce has put them in the most debt of any country in history both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Responce
      Seething thirdie

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's 4am here, do you have a counter argument or are we done?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Where is Saddam Hussein?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            In the bag.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Hydraulic ram for close quarters combat and for lovings of long time
          What is up with the the mid-to-late 2000s and really weird fetish deviantart shit?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          A weapon to surpass Metal Gear

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Defense glowie here. We're so far ahead of everybody else we'll probably be able to take on alien civilizations in a hundred years. But there's this fusion powered
    exoatmospheric bomber I want the gov to buy en masse so I'll tell everybody I know China is building one. It's just the nature of the game.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *