Imagine believing this. Say what you will about our conventional military, but we have completely lost the propaganda war, and the proof is the fact that there are Americans that belive this.
>propaganda war
Echo chambers form easily and places like this attract stunted, primarily white/mixed/indian/anglosphere, primarily male, primarily mid 20s, primarily single or in unstable relationships individuals. I wouldn't take anything here seriously. The people from /misc/ (who are at best fricking weird) coming here to raid make it even harder to discern real posters as half of them are fake.
Try and CWIS a volley of ASMs at close range.
Motherfricker if you knew anything you'd know that a 5 inch gun can blow straight through the hull of a modern US warship. You do not need cruise missiles, just pack an artillery piece (say a ex-soviet D-20) in a container and fire when the ship comes alongside.
That being said, you're moronic because US ships don't fricking do that. You are being called stupid for a reason.
I mean it makes sense, making ships giga-armored would make them slow as frick. How the drone managed to get there in the first place is another question.
>Echo chambers
Go ask your average college student what they think of America's war policies right now. Echo chambers are everywhere, and almost everyone is in one. That's how we lost - defeat in detail.
The ones weve seen are probably real, but theyre also probably the only ones that existed. Honestly its a smart idea, people meme on the pallets thing but having your missile systems straight up built into containers is logistically sold and will probably be copied.
Boarding actions are done by helicopters or small boats you dumbass.
https://i.imgur.com/7hvbdyS.png
>a 5 inch gun can blow straight through the hull of a modern US warship
Try a fiberglass drone.
I hope they try. Not this bullshit one ballistic missile at a time stuff, a proper attack.
>Echo chambers
Go ask your average college student what they think of America's war policies right now. Echo chambers are everywhere, and almost everyone is in one. That's how we lost - defeat in detail.
Bro half of the people here are not American and American politics, despite being the majority of online discussion, do not actually matter that much. Some college kid in the US discovering that Yemen has a insurgent problem and Iran likes to fund said insurgents is not a big event. It happens, and has happened, continuously for all of history.
>American politics, despite being the majority of online discussion, do not actually matter that much
Domestic opinion matters a LOT to military effectiveness. The next foreign war the U.S. is involved in, like all wars fought by democracies, is going to be won or lost by the public's desire to fight it.
Since it falls on the shoulders of the U.S. to deal with the Houthi problem and protect the global economy (and all those national economies that depend on it), and because combat effectiveness was never in question and the only questionable factor is the aforementioned public will, American public opinion is in fact THE deciding factor in how this conflict plays out.
Bro you didn't have a fricking clue what was going on in this region or the various factors at play before this became a major news topic. The US has been murdering terrorists in this area for the last 2 decades, more if you include the stuff before 2001. This is not something that can be changed by the angry tweets of some people, and you need to seriously reexamine your thinking if you believe this is the case.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>This is not something that can be changed by the angry tweets of some people
Angry tweets are a symptom of public opinion, which politicians take into account when deciding on policy, especially when a major election is coming up. Once a topic becomes a talking point, it does in fact start to influence policy. I don't see the Houthi issue specifically there yet, but general topics like non-interventionism are hugely popular right now and stand to make a difference in our handling of that conflict. >Bro you didn't have a fricking clue what was going on in this region or the various factors at play before this became a major news topic.
Correct. See above.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Angry tweets are a symptom of public opinion, which politicians take into account when deciding on policy
Holy frick no.
>I don't see the Houthi issue specifically there yet, but general topics like non-interventionism are hugely popular right now and stand to make a difference in our handling of that conflict.
This is straying dangerously into political shit.
>Correct.
Thank you. You should research what CENTCOM and AFRICOM have been doing for years. These types of attacks on various insurgent groups are handled by the military and lower levels of government and are apolitical, they aren't something (with a few exceptions) that the President is actively involved in. A serious change in this would involve political frickery so extreme that cries of treason would begin to be thrown around. Even Trump would be unable to do it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You're thinking too short term. The lower-level day-to-day low-intensity shit that goes on right now is a result of a long-term policy implemented by previous administrations, based on longstanding political and military realities. If this kind of shit starts happening in a new region, or if the conflict in this region escalates further, the president may at some point need to approve whatever new action is taken, and those political and military realities may have changed in the preceding decades.
It's the job of the democratic government to set overarching strategic goals for the military, and in the future those goals may no longer include "protect global shipping" or "stabilize the middle east."
3 months ago
Anonymous
>It's the job of the democratic government to set overarching strategic goals for the military, and in the future those goals may no longer include "protect global shipping" or "stabilize the middle east."
Oh, I wasn't aware I was talking with a /misc/ poster. No anon the US government is not going to stop protecting international shipping. Stop coping. I assume your claims that the "public opinion" in the US is turning towards non-interventionism comes from /misc/ also?
3 months ago
Anonymous
It took me under a minute to google this and make this graphic. Please don't be so confidently wrong about things that are so easily verifiable.
it was misunderstood by morons. intermodal transport is convenient, it was never about >oh ehm gee were gonna super sneaky a >FRICKING UNARMED MERCHANTMAN INTO COMBAT
it was about being able to buy 5 53' intermodal containers and have an anti-ship battery that you can move around with shit you already have and people you already have trained.
the problem is that nobody online has a fricking brain.
You know what's even more convenient than a shipping container? A traditional TEL with wheels and an engine so you can just drive it around. Those caught on half a century ago, and the anti-shipping container exists only in promotional material. Huh.
>heh what if we disguise our military personnel as civilians
China brags about doing the same shit too. And the entire middle east of course. Theres a reason everyone else considers its a war crime, all it does is force your enemy to slaughter civilians to survive, and no nation that actually cares about its people would intentionally make them targets. Though i guess the loss of face they'd suffer in exchange for a few meaningless civilian lives would be an acceptable exchange for Russians, Chinks, and muslims.
Thirdies are obsessed with the idea of The Big Sucker Punch. They think that if they can just do one big surprise attack, then they will completely break the will of these soft, decadent westerners who will be too demoralized to fight back. Problem is, that idea is moronic.
For one, it's been tried before. The Japanese were the only ones who came anywhere close to succeeding, and all it earned them was two nukes to the face and being permanently occupied by the US military. As for the best case scenario, look at the 9/11 attacks. All that does is get you killed, tens of thousands of your own countrymen killed, and your nation occupied for two decades. That's only a fair trade if you value the lives of Americans at twenty times the value of your own (which, to be fair, we do too), but in that case you've lost before you even started.
Second, it just doesn't make sense on its face. Even if you did succeed in a massive attack, you'll never be able to get more than a tiny fraction of the US's military power. Are you going to take out all of their allies too? Why would the US with its literal trillions of dollars worth of military equipment say "These broke brown people are just too strong! We'll never be able to beat them after this one-off surprise attack that they definitely can't do again! Better just let them get away with it I guess"? Why wouldn't they immediately respond with an overwhelming retaliation like they've done literally every time this has been tried in the past?
Basically, the Big Sucker Punch only makes sense if you're a low IQ thirdie with no knowledge of the past and no concept of the future. They'll keep doing it too because they don't learn. Even now they still talk about it like it'll work. Hypersonic meme missiles, these surprise spicy shipping containers, or what have you. They're all just the next Big Sucker Punch that will totally break the will of the west and not just get several thousand tons of high explosive shoved up your ass.
You have to consider at first only those nations who have an ability to make tactical nukes and then subsequently install such devices in either small ballistic missiles or cruise missiles.
All of those nations with such a capability have absolutely tested and tried out that kind of option. Come on, it's just a simple engineering project with a budget of, say 2 million USD, if coming from national defense funding.
The launcher is already there, the missile is already there, control and command is already there. Now fit it all in a standard 40' foot ocean container.
Absolutely they all tried it. I would have tried it if I was in that position.
Deploying this would immediately legitimize targeting civilian infrastructure so I certainly hope nothing came of it.
As if the US doesn't already engage in total war.
God, i fricking wish
god damn this
america hamstrings its self so fricking hard not to look mean on the global scale.
we should total war or nothing so we can be the sleeping giant
Imagine believing this. Say what you will about our conventional military, but we have completely lost the propaganda war, and the proof is the fact that there are Americans that belive this.
>we
You got a mouse in your pocket?
*The* mouse.
>propaganda war
Echo chambers form easily and places like this attract stunted, primarily white/mixed/indian/anglosphere, primarily male, primarily mid 20s, primarily single or in unstable relationships individuals. I wouldn't take anything here seriously. The people from /misc/ (who are at best fricking weird) coming here to raid make it even harder to discern real posters as half of them are fake.
Motherfricker if you knew anything you'd know that a 5 inch gun can blow straight through the hull of a modern US warship. You do not need cruise missiles, just pack an artillery piece (say a ex-soviet D-20) in a container and fire when the ship comes alongside.
That being said, you're moronic because US ships don't fricking do that. You are being called stupid for a reason.
>a 5 inch gun can blow straight through the hull of a modern US warship
Try a fiberglass drone.
I mean it makes sense, making ships giga-armored would make them slow as frick. How the drone managed to get there in the first place is another question.
>Echo chambers
Go ask your average college student what they think of America's war policies right now. Echo chambers are everywhere, and almost everyone is in one. That's how we lost - defeat in detail.
>we have completely lost the propaganda war
Propaganda was best during the ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’ era.
how is it propaganda when the US routinely targets civilians just to lower morale?
Targetting civilians != total war. No industrial nation engaged in total war since WW2
>american education
>ROE in GWOT
>"Dont fire unless fired upon."
>As if the US doesnt already engage in total war.
Get checked for brain amoebas.
You think? Let me check. Seems that chinkland and vatnikistan still exist, huh. I guess not yet.
you're still able to connect to the internet with a computer powered by your local electric grid so I don't think we're at that stage yet moron-kun
When the US decides its time for total war you're going to know in about 30 minutes or less.
I wish
The ones weve seen are probably real, but theyre also probably the only ones that existed. Honestly its a smart idea, people meme on the pallets thing but having your missile systems straight up built into containers is logistically sold and will probably be copied.
Palletized missile boxes are a smart idea, concealing them as civilian shipping containers is moronic turdie mentality
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/Mk70_Product_Card.pdf
This would probably cause even more justification on destroying enemy shipping.
Would be neat to see one that can launch horizontally when they are broadside a US Navy ship attempting to world police stuff.
what a massively moronic idea
Try and CWIS a volley of ASMs at close range.
You're massively moronic.
A dhow could probably launch a torpedo or two and would make the navy a lot more paranoid about getting anywhere near congested waters.
Is this the designated shitskin fantasy thread or something?
>glug glug glug
>Aiieeeeeee
>females
>the most destructive force in the known universe
Shitskins are really into the whole "Attack you while I'm dressed as a civilian" thing.
>Sean Naylor has entered the chat
Yes they are subhumans with no morals who think that international laws or treaties are signs of weakness
Boarding actions are done by helicopters or small boats you dumbass.
I hope they try. Not this bullshit one ballistic missile at a time stuff, a proper attack.
Bro half of the people here are not American and American politics, despite being the majority of online discussion, do not actually matter that much. Some college kid in the US discovering that Yemen has a insurgent problem and Iran likes to fund said insurgents is not a big event. It happens, and has happened, continuously for all of history.
>helicopters
Ok, you've shot at the helicopter and attracted the attention of US navy. What now, genius?
You're so fricking stupid even inbred shitskin IQ doesn't cut it.
Impossible. American helicopters are invisible.
>more moronic ESL babble
>American politics, despite being the majority of online discussion, do not actually matter that much
Domestic opinion matters a LOT to military effectiveness. The next foreign war the U.S. is involved in, like all wars fought by democracies, is going to be won or lost by the public's desire to fight it.
Since it falls on the shoulders of the U.S. to deal with the Houthi problem and protect the global economy (and all those national economies that depend on it), and because combat effectiveness was never in question and the only questionable factor is the aforementioned public will, American public opinion is in fact THE deciding factor in how this conflict plays out.
>protect the global economy
Shipping companies were asked not to pass if they are in transit to Israel.
What does this have to do with indiscriminate attacks on commercial shipping?
>indiscriminate
Yes. Now seethe, shitskin.
Bro you didn't have a fricking clue what was going on in this region or the various factors at play before this became a major news topic. The US has been murdering terrorists in this area for the last 2 decades, more if you include the stuff before 2001. This is not something that can be changed by the angry tweets of some people, and you need to seriously reexamine your thinking if you believe this is the case.
>This is not something that can be changed by the angry tweets of some people
Angry tweets are a symptom of public opinion, which politicians take into account when deciding on policy, especially when a major election is coming up. Once a topic becomes a talking point, it does in fact start to influence policy. I don't see the Houthi issue specifically there yet, but general topics like non-interventionism are hugely popular right now and stand to make a difference in our handling of that conflict.
>Bro you didn't have a fricking clue what was going on in this region or the various factors at play before this became a major news topic.
Correct. See above.
>Angry tweets are a symptom of public opinion, which politicians take into account when deciding on policy
Holy frick no.
>I don't see the Houthi issue specifically there yet, but general topics like non-interventionism are hugely popular right now and stand to make a difference in our handling of that conflict.
This is straying dangerously into political shit.
>Correct.
Thank you. You should research what CENTCOM and AFRICOM have been doing for years. These types of attacks on various insurgent groups are handled by the military and lower levels of government and are apolitical, they aren't something (with a few exceptions) that the President is actively involved in. A serious change in this would involve political frickery so extreme that cries of treason would begin to be thrown around. Even Trump would be unable to do it.
You're thinking too short term. The lower-level day-to-day low-intensity shit that goes on right now is a result of a long-term policy implemented by previous administrations, based on longstanding political and military realities. If this kind of shit starts happening in a new region, or if the conflict in this region escalates further, the president may at some point need to approve whatever new action is taken, and those political and military realities may have changed in the preceding decades.
It's the job of the democratic government to set overarching strategic goals for the military, and in the future those goals may no longer include "protect global shipping" or "stabilize the middle east."
>It's the job of the democratic government to set overarching strategic goals for the military, and in the future those goals may no longer include "protect global shipping" or "stabilize the middle east."
Oh, I wasn't aware I was talking with a /misc/ poster. No anon the US government is not going to stop protecting international shipping. Stop coping. I assume your claims that the "public opinion" in the US is turning towards non-interventionism comes from /misc/ also?
It took me under a minute to google this and make this graphic. Please don't be so confidently wrong about things that are so easily verifiable.
I see you failed statistics.
Care to elaborate?
NTA but data is trash and series too short.
>implying they wouldn't just do that anyway
K-club? who knows.
Mk-70 VLS? yes.
Okay, you've achieved absolutely nothing and your sailors are meeting mohammed in hell, what's your next move?
Sorry would you like me to condense it into a tiktok with a black girl twerking you disgusting zoomer frick?
no cap fr
With Russia it's always a meme.
No women are still just hypothetical technology.
it was misunderstood by morons. intermodal transport is convenient, it was never about
>oh ehm gee were gonna super sneaky a
>FRICKING UNARMED MERCHANTMAN INTO COMBAT
it was about being able to buy 5 53' intermodal containers and have an anti-ship battery that you can move around with shit you already have and people you already have trained.
the problem is that nobody online has a fricking brain.
You know what's even more convenient than a shipping container? A traditional TEL with wheels and an engine so you can just drive it around. Those caught on half a century ago, and the anti-shipping container exists only in promotional material. Huh.
the turdies that Russia advertises to don't have TELs you fricking stupid monkey moron.
Denmark has a couple of smaller versions on paper. They also have a vorking minelayer container which if anything is even sneakier.
Wasn't this part of the plot in Ace Combat 7?
>heh what if we disguise our military personnel as civilians
China brags about doing the same shit too. And the entire middle east of course. Theres a reason everyone else considers its a war crime, all it does is force your enemy to slaughter civilians to survive, and no nation that actually cares about its people would intentionally make them targets. Though i guess the loss of face they'd suffer in exchange for a few meaningless civilian lives would be an acceptable exchange for Russians, Chinks, and muslims.
>justifies getting your entire trade fleet clapped
5d chess wizard move
Thirdies are obsessed with the idea of The Big Sucker Punch. They think that if they can just do one big surprise attack, then they will completely break the will of these soft, decadent westerners who will be too demoralized to fight back. Problem is, that idea is moronic.
For one, it's been tried before. The Japanese were the only ones who came anywhere close to succeeding, and all it earned them was two nukes to the face and being permanently occupied by the US military. As for the best case scenario, look at the 9/11 attacks. All that does is get you killed, tens of thousands of your own countrymen killed, and your nation occupied for two decades. That's only a fair trade if you value the lives of Americans at twenty times the value of your own (which, to be fair, we do too), but in that case you've lost before you even started.
Second, it just doesn't make sense on its face. Even if you did succeed in a massive attack, you'll never be able to get more than a tiny fraction of the US's military power. Are you going to take out all of their allies too? Why would the US with its literal trillions of dollars worth of military equipment say "These broke brown people are just too strong! We'll never be able to beat them after this one-off surprise attack that they definitely can't do again! Better just let them get away with it I guess"? Why wouldn't they immediately respond with an overwhelming retaliation like they've done literally every time this has been tried in the past?
Basically, the Big Sucker Punch only makes sense if you're a low IQ thirdie with no knowledge of the past and no concept of the future. They'll keep doing it too because they don't learn. Even now they still talk about it like it'll work. Hypersonic meme missiles, these surprise spicy shipping containers, or what have you. They're all just the next Big Sucker Punch that will totally break the will of the west and not just get several thousand tons of high explosive shoved up your ass.
You have to consider at first only those nations who have an ability to make tactical nukes and then subsequently install such devices in either small ballistic missiles or cruise missiles.
All of those nations with such a capability have absolutely tested and tried out that kind of option. Come on, it's just a simple engineering project with a budget of, say 2 million USD, if coming from national defense funding.
The launcher is already there, the missile is already there, control and command is already there. Now fit it all in a standard 40' foot ocean container.
Absolutely they all tried it. I would have tried it if I was in that position.