Ownership of Greenland is Essential to Our Security

[SLD]

And note that running quiet at high speed isn't really something that will happen

So you disagree with actual experts.

Trust an expert in submarine sonar. You can’t go fast without making significant noise. It might be very quiet below certain speeds, but nothing is quiet above 25 knots. And you can’t hear shit either. The sea itself will create the noise around you.

And the risk of cavitation is also significant. The faster you can go, the lighter you are. That means less depth. And less depth means a greater risk of cavitation. You have to know where that cavitation curve is.

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

 

[barbos]

On what basis?

On the basis of you parroting MSM propaganda pretty much verbatim and ignoring and not even aware of alternative (and actually correct) viewpoints.

 

[barbos]

Trust an expert in submarine sonar. You can’t go fast without making significant noise.

I don't need to trust here, I know that. And this is not what LP said. He implied that russian subs simply can't go that fast.

 

[barbos]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

 

[Toni]

On what basis?

On the basis of you parroting MSM propaganda pretty much verbatim and ignoring and not even aware of alternative (and actually correct) viewpoints.

Really now. AFAIK you are incapable of anything other than parroting what Putin or China says to parrot.

 

[barbos]

On what basis?

On the basis of you parroting MSM propaganda pretty much verbatim and ignoring and not even aware of alternative (and actually correct) viewpoints.

Really now. AFAIK you are incapable of anything other than parroting what Putin or China says to parrot.

For millionth time, I parrot western observers.
Of course, they do listen to what Putin says and you and your stupid MSM should too.
After all, he is a leader of the second nuclear power. I listen to MSM too, and so do observers I listen too.

 

[bilby]

So you are calling me a liar.

I am calling you uninformed (or even misinformed) and unaware of it.

On what basis?

Because that's what his script says he should do, to keep you engaged, and (most importantly) to sow doubt and division.

It's probably not a very rewarding job, but if it keeps him away from dangerous high windows...

 

[barbos]

So you are calling me a liar.

I am calling you uninformed (or even misinformed) and unaware of it.

On what basis?

Because that's what his script says he should do, to keep you engaged, and (most importantly) to sow doubt and division.

It's probably not a very rewarding job, but if it keeps him away from dangerous high windows...

I don't think Jeffrey Sachs afraid of windows.

 

[SLD]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

No. Just Russian subs. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes past the GIUK gap.

 

[barbos]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

No. Just Russian subs. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes past the GIUK gap.

Well, MSM kinda disagrees. They say russian subs are as good as the best most expensive american subs and better than majority.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On what basis?

On the basis of you parroting MSM propaganda pretty much verbatim and ignoring and not even aware of alternative (and actually correct) viewpoints.

Really now. AFAIK you are incapable of anything other than parroting what Putin or China says to parrot.

For millionth time, I parrot western observers.

FYI, we are western observers. Well, the ones not in Australia are.

Of course, they do listen to what Putin says and you and your stupid MSM should too.

Says about what? The passenger plane you shot down?

After all, he is a leader of the second "nuclear" power.

FIFY.

I listen to MSM too, and so do observers I listen too.

I'm curious what you think is the "MSM". In the US, MSM means most of the printed press (magazine/newspaper), MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, CBC, national news on the national broadcasts.

 

[SLD]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

No. Just Russian subs. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes past the GIUK gap.

Well, MSM kinda disagrees. They say russian subs are as good as the best most expensive american subs and better than majority.

So what? It has nothing to do with sub v. Sub. Except under the ice.

 

[Elixir]

I'm curious what you think is the "MSM".

Let me help you out:

* Thinking is not in babs’ job description

* ALL media not controlled by Pootey are “MSM” and therefore, liars.

* Truth is the exclusive province of Putler and his minions like Trump.

Now you know. Give it up. Resistance is futile!

 

[barbos]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

No. Just Russian subs. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes past the GIUK gap.

Well, MSM kinda disagrees. They say russian subs are as good as the best most expensive american subs and better than majority.

So what? It has nothing to do with sub v. Sub. Except under the ice.

So that!
Russians subs got better, whereas yours did not,

 

[barbos]

FYI, we are western observers. Well, the ones not in Australia are.

Yes, I listen to you too. Even though you merely repeat MSM garbage.

I'm curious what you think is the "MSM". In the US, MSM means most of the printed press (magazine/newspaper), MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, CBC, national news on the national broadcasts.

Yes, and it's all garbage.

 

[barbos]

FIFY.

Not following. Are you implying that Russia does not have nuclear weapons?

 

[bilby]

Russia almost certainly doesn't have working nuclear weapons, nor working delivery systems for them that could reach the continental US.

Those things are expensive, and contain hugely valuable components that require frequent replacement and maintenance, while being managed by a small group of Russians who know they will never be called to task if they don't work - they aren't allowed to test them, and if called upon to use them for real, they will be dead thirty minutes later whether they work or not.

We see in Ukraine just how incompetent the Russian military is in maintaining even comparatively low-tech equipment, that is easy to regularly test.

A corrupt kleptocracy like Russia cannot have a large nuclear force, or even an effective large conventional force. It's structurally incapable of maintaining either, even if it inherits one from a previous, more disciplined, regime.

The current Russian administration has far more in common with the 1930s Chicago mob, than with the 1980s Soviet Union. Including in terms of the nuclear weapons status of those two regimes.

Of course the flip-side of the nuclear test bans is that it's very easy for a former nuclear weapons state, like Russia, to bluff. They don't need nuclear weapons, just the uncertainty of their opponents. And uncertainty is a major Russian export these days.

 

[Elixir]

A corrupt kleptocracy like Russia cannot have a large nuclear force, or even an effective large conventional force. It's structurally incapable of maintaining either, even if it inherits one from a previous, more disciplined, regime.

In a few short years, the US will be a corrupt kleptocracy like Russia. A few years after that, the American nuclear arsenal will be just as much a paper tiger as Russia’s is today. Let the world rejoice.

 

[SLD]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

No. Just Russian subs. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes past the GIUK gap.

Well, MSM kinda disagrees. They say russian subs are as good as the best most expensive american subs and better than majority.

So what? It has nothing to do with sub v. Sub. Except under the ice.

So that!
Russians subs got better, whereas yours did not,

No comment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that running quiet at high speed isn't really something that will happen

So you disagree with actual experts.

Trust an expert in submarine sonar. You can’t go fast without making significant noise. It might be very quiet below certain speeds, but nothing is quiet above 25 knots. And you can’t hear shit either. The sea itself will create the noise around you.

If you could actually make it quiet there would be some advantage--you could go farther in each sprint of a sprint-and-drift.

But it would be a major breakthrough, we would have seen and copied it and our subs would look different.

And the risk of cavitation is also significant. The faster you can go, the lighter you are. That means less depth. And less depth means a greater risk of cavitation. You have to know where that cavitation curve is.

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

There are reports of the Russians putting a SAM on a sub. Pretty shitty SAM that has to do all it's own acquisition but a sub-hunting helo is an awfully easy target. We've seen a successful engagement from one of the Ukranian drone boats--and a gunship hunting the sea drones is pretty much an equal target to a sub-hunter. Some of our subs would actually be easier to equip--the VLS Tomahawk tubes.