As Russia's only aircraft carrier falls apart

Dutch Uncle said:
What were the targets in Hanoi? Apartment complexes like Putin is doing in Ukraine or ports, anti-aircraft positions, railroads and industrial complexes?
Click to expand...

I was in Hanoi. They don’t really have apt. complexes. The targets were a railroad area that had adjacent civilian housing . They still had photos of the destruction of the surrounding neighborhoods posted there. They have not forgotten.
 
anonymoose said:
I was in Hanoi. They don’t really have apt. complexes. The targets were a railroad area that had adjacent civilian housing . They still had photos of the destruction of the surrounding neighborhoods posted there. They have not forgotten.
Click to expand...

Sure. The North attacks the South, but you side with the North when it comes to attacking Americans.

I was at the "Peace Museum" in Hiroshima. They hadn't "forgotten" either. I should have worn my "Remember Pearl Harbor" T-shirt when I visited.

BTW, I find it interesting that the only time you side with the Lefties is when you're attacking the United States of America. Funny, eh? LOL

https://hpmmuseum.jp/modules/info/index.php?action=PageView&page_id=76&lang=eng
logo_sitetop_pc.png




WWII-Remember-Pearl-Harbor-Memorial-Day-December-7th-1941-T-Shirt.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Sure. The North attacks the South, but you side with the North when it comes to attacking Americans.


BTW, I find it interesting that the only time you side with the Lefties is when you're attacking the United States of America. Funny, eh? LOL
Click to expand...
You probably don’t realize Ho approached Washington for help in decolonizing the French who treated the Vietnamese like slaves. before turning to Moscow.
Very disturbing ^
We were the bad guys in that war supporting a corrupt Thieu.
Eugene McCarthy was right.
Couldn’t blame the rioting in Chicago during the DNC who selected HHH , a pro war non-candidate.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
BTW, I find it interesting that the only time you side with the Lefties is when you're attacking the United States of America. Funny, eh? LOL
Click to expand...
What’s funny is you only notice what you want to notice about me.
I’ve been very consistent on:
Abortion - pro-death
Advocate repeal of the second amendment
For universal healthcare if given a choice as to a variety of systems. (Moosecare)

In fact I’m probably the only true liberal on this board.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism/Classical-liberalism
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You're missing the point, Terry. There's a difference between destroying means of production and attacking civilians, as the Germans did in both WWI and WWII when began losing. Putin is following suit.

The Allied bombing of Dresden in February 1945 was controversial because it firebombed a city along with the strategic railroad hub. The US firebombing of Tokyo was more justified since the Japanese practiced cottage industrial production. Regardless, after WWII, the civilized nations agreed that such attacks were war crimes.
Click to expand...

The whole RAF bomber campaign was predicated on destruction of cities and simply killing people. It didn't target industry or specific locations like the US campaign did. The British aiming point was usually the city center and any bomb that landed within the boundaries of the city was considered 'on target.' The USAAF aiming point was a particular building or feature and hits were measured by how close they came to that aiming point.

Putin appears to be targeting a mix of the two. In any case, it is classic total war sans nukes. It isn't what the US or most of the West would practice today.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
What were the targets in Hanoi? Apartment complexes like Putin is doing in Ukraine or ports, anti-aircraft positions, railroads and industrial complexes?
Click to expand...

Targets were specific buildings or military locations within the city. Using nothing but dumb bombs meant some would hit the surrounding area. It was the same basis for bombing the USAAF used in WW 2. You have to note, that in some cases the N Vietnamese deliberately built things that they knew would be targeted in locations where they would be near or adjacent to things, say like a school or hospital, where if bombed the adjacent buildings would be hit and the resulting destruction and causalities would be used for propaganda purposes.
Don't believe for a moment that the N. Vietnamese government was always acting benignly.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong. In a total war destruction of the enemy's means of production, to include energy, is something a warring party does. We did it in WW 2, and we did it in the Gulf wars.
Click to expand...

Were they on our borders? My geography must be pretty bad. Putin created millions of future enemies, some not yet born. They are in proximity and they will find a myriad of ways to make Russia suffer. He will never know peace again.
 
anonymoose said:
You probably don’t realize Ho approached Washington for help in decolonizing the French who treated the Vietnamese like slaves. before turning to Moscow.
[video=youtube_share;tixOyiR8B-8]https://youtu.be/tixOyiR8B-8[/video\]
Very disturbing ^
We were the bad guys in that war supporting a corrupt Thieu.
Eugene McCarthy was right.
Couldn’t blame the rioting in Chicago during the DNC who selected HHH , a pro war non-candidate.
Click to expand...

That's their excuse for invading the South? Sounds like Putin's logic for invading Ukraine.

Thanks for the standard LW hatred for the US and blaming the world's problems on America.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The whole RAF bomber campaign was predicated on destruction of cities and simply killing people. It didn't target industry or specific locations like the US campaign did. The British aiming point was usually the city center and any bomb that landed within the boundaries of the city was considered 'on target.' The USAAF aiming point was a particular building or feature and hits were measured by how close they came to that aiming point.

Putin appears to be targeting a mix of the two. In any case, it is classic total war sans nukes. It isn't what the US or most of the West would practice today.
Click to expand...

Which is why the US was against the British strategy.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Targets were specific buildings or military locations within the city. Using nothing but dumb bombs meant some would hit the surrounding area. It was the same basis for bombing the USAAF used in WW 2. You have to note, that in some cases the N Vietnamese deliberately built things that they knew would be targeted in locations where they would be near or adjacent to things, say like a school or hospital, where if bombed the adjacent buildings would be hit and the resulting destruction and causalities would be used for propaganda purposes.
Don't believe for a moment that the N. Vietnamese government was always acting benignly.
Click to expand...
Tell that to anymouse. He's the Hanoi supporter. I see the NVA as the aggressors in the war. They're the ones who crossed south of the DMZ just like the North Koreans.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Targets were specific buildings or military locations within the city. Using nothing but dumb bombs meant some would hit the surrounding area. It was the same basis for bombing the USAAF used in WW 2. You have to note, that in some cases the N Vietnamese deliberately built things that they knew would be targeted in locations where they would be near or adjacent to things, say like a school or hospital, where if bombed the adjacent buildings would be hit and the resulting destruction and causalities would be used for propaganda purposes.
Don't believe for a moment that the N. Vietnamese government was always acting benignly.
Click to expand...

They were trying to win their independence. It worked.
 
guno said:
Russia's sole aircraft carrier has been sidelined for years and may not see action again.
A Russian lawmaker has proposed trying buying China's Liaoning aircraft carrier as a replacement.
Liaoning began life as a Soviet carrier, but China acquired it in a shady sale in the late 1990s.
Russia's only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is in such bad shape that it may easier to buy a replacement than to fix it.

In a sign of how low Russia's military has sunk, a Russian politician has suggested doing so by buying a Soviet-designed carrier that was sold to China 25 years ago.

Admiral Kuznetsov has never been lucky. Launched in 1985, the 60,000-ton vessel has suffered engine breakdowns, multiple fires, and bizarre shipyard accidents. In 2012, it had to be towed to port by a tugboat after losing propulsion off the French coast.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...A16pHbU?cvid=cfc97eea3d1649778c18cb5adf5f4192
Click to expand...

As Stephen Colbert often says: "Aircraft carrier - is potato" :)
 
guno said:
Do tell
A Russian lawmaker has proposed trying buying China's Liaoning aircraft carrier as a replacement.
Liaoning began life as a Soviet carrier, but China acquired it in a shady sale in the late 1990s.
Russia's only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is in such bad shape that it may easier to buy a replacement than to fix it
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt China will risk backlash by selling or giving arms to Russia. They need WalMart to keep buying their stuff.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
A hyper educated thus right a high percentage of the time person gifts you with what reality looks like to me.

Do with this gift what you will, I did my part to make the world a better place.
Click to expand...

You're hyper "something". That's for sure.

Champ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top