Remember me
▼ Content

Is climate China's key to global domination?


Is climate China's key to global domination?01-05-2019 02:35
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.
Edited on 01-05-2019 02:35
01-05-2019 03:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 03:20
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


You don't even know why the US Navy won the battle of the Leyte Gulf. Americans like us Brits used to identify problems and then come up with solutions. World War II is full of such examples.
01-05-2019 04:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


You don't even know why the US Navy won the battle of the Leyte Gulf. Americans like us Brits used to identify problems and then come up with solutions. World War II is full of such examples.

WTF are you bringing up this irrelevant topic for?


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 04:14
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Boats are sort of outdated these days, have there use for sure, but most of the major damage a destruction comes from the air. The ships are great for announcing intent to get serious, minimal damage operations.
01-05-2019 04:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Boats are sort of outdated these days, have there use for sure, but most of the major damage a destruction comes from the air. The ships are great for announcing intent to get serious, minimal damage operations.


Because of that, aircraft carriers are pretty important ships. Today, each carrier in the U.S. has a whole task force assigned to protect it and support it.

Land based aircraft are getting much longer range too. In many cases, ships are unnecessary.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 19:58
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Boats are sort of outdated these days, have there use for sure, but most of the major damage a destruction comes from the air. The ships are great for announcing intent to get serious, minimal damage operations.
These days ships are largely used as support for carriers and to be able to put boots on the ground in a hurry. You can carry a lot of troops via aircraft but getting a beachhead with air alone is rather difficult.
01-05-2019 20:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4021)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


The US could destroy ANY aircraft carrier of any country in minutes. How is classified. But believe me, there isn't one single government that could hide from this capacity.

So let China spend all they want to.
01-05-2019 20:13
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
What I find funny is how china and Russia often brag about how they are the first to come out with something brand new and the US had it decades ago.
01-05-2019 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Boats are sort of outdated these days, have there use for sure, but most of the major damage a destruction comes from the air. The ships are great for announcing intent to get serious, minimal damage operations.
These days ships are largely used as support for carriers and to be able to put boots on the ground in a hurry. You can carry a lot of troops via aircraft but getting a beachhead with air alone is rather difficult.


You really don't have to worry about beachheads anymore.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 01:32
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


Incorrect. In December 1941 the US had 7 carriers to Japan's 6.
03-05-2019 02:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4021)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


Incorrect. In December 1941 the US had 7 carriers to Japan's 6.


But the US only had 4 carriers in the Pacific.
03-05-2019 03:17
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Boats are sort of outdated these days, have there use for sure, but most of the major damage a destruction comes from the air. The ships are great for announcing intent to get serious, minimal damage operations.
These days ships are largely used as support for carriers and to be able to put boots on the ground in a hurry. You can carry a lot of troops via aircraft but getting a beachhead with air alone is rather difficult.


You really don't have to worry about beachheads anymore.
beachhead doesn't necessary mean its on the beach. It means going into an enemies area and forcing an open area. In ww2, they used paratroopers to create a "beachhead" several miles in land.
03-05-2019 03:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


Incorrect. In December 1941 the US had 7 carriers to Japan's 6.


No, 3 Enterprise class carriers. The Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet.
Japan had 6 major (Kaga class) carriers: The Akagi, the Hiryu, the Kaga, the Shinano, the Shinyo, and the Soryu.

Once WW2 in the Pacific started, we built a LOT of carriers. So did the Japanese.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 03:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Boats are sort of outdated these days, have there use for sure, but most of the major damage a destruction comes from the air. The ships are great for announcing intent to get serious, minimal damage operations.
These days ships are largely used as support for carriers and to be able to put boots on the ground in a hurry. You can carry a lot of troops via aircraft but getting a beachhead with air alone is rather difficult.


You really don't have to worry about beachheads anymore.
beachhead doesn't necessary mean its on the beach.
Yes it does. That's why it's called a 'beachhead'.
dehammer wrote:
It means going into an enemies area and forcing an open area.
Nope. That's an invasion.
dehammer wrote:
In ww2, they used paratroopers to create a "beachhead" several miles in land.
Nope. paratroopers and glider battalions were used to as advance units behind enemy lines. They could not survive for long on their own. They were typically used to reduce enemy presence on key bridges and roads and disrupt enemy communications. That is not a beachhead. It is an invasion, though, even though they would not survive long without the main body of troops coming to link up with them.

Any other words you want to redefine?


[/quote]


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 03:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
IF I did, I would go to someone that had a clue what they were talking about. Im a vet, and we talked about beachheads from aircraft all the time.
03-05-2019 04:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


Incorrect. In December 1941 the US had 7 carriers to Japan's 6.


No, 3 Enterprise class carriers. The Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet.
Japan had 6 major (Kaga class) carriers: The Akagi, the Hiryu, the Kaga, the Shinano, the Shinyo, and the Soryu.

Once WW2 in the Pacific started, we built a LOT of carriers. So did the Japanese.


In December 1941 the US Pacific fleet had 3 carriers. The US navy had 7 carriers.
03-05-2019 04:21
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


Incorrect. In December 1941 the US had 7 carriers to Japan's 6.


No, 3 Enterprise class carriers. The Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet.
Japan had 6 major (Kaga class) carriers: The Akagi, the Hiryu, the Kaga, the Shinano, the Shinyo, and the Soryu.

Once WW2 in the Pacific started, we built a LOT of carriers. So did the Japanese.


In December 1941 the US navy had 7 carriers.

https://ww2-weapons.com/us-navy-in-late-1941/
03-05-2019 05:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


Incorrect. In December 1941 the US had 7 carriers to Japan's 6.


No, 3 Enterprise class carriers. The Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet.
Japan had 6 major (Kaga class) carriers: The Akagi, the Hiryu, the Kaga, the Shinano, the Shinyo, and the Soryu.

Once WW2 in the Pacific started, we built a LOT of carriers. So did the Japanese.


In December 1941 the US navy had 7 carriers.

https://ww2-weapons.com/us-navy-in-late-1941/


No, we had 3 in the Pacific. I listed them.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 05:20
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
In December 1941, the (pacific) fleet consisted of nine battleships, three aircraft carriers, 12 heavy cruisers, eight light cruisers, 50 destroyers, 33 submarines, and 100 patrol bombers. This was approximately the fleet's strength at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
03-05-2019 05:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
In December 1941, the (pacific) fleet consisted of nine battleships, three aircraft carriers, 12 heavy cruisers, eight light cruisers, 50 destroyers, 33 submarines, and 100 patrol bombers. This was approximately the fleet's strength at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.


One of the few things Wikipedia actually got right.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 08:11
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In about 10 years China will have about 12 aircraft carriers and 80 destroyers. Democrats will spend 600 trillion USD on useless carbon dioxide and therefore bankrupt US military reducing aircraft carriers to about 1 and destroyers to about 4.


We smacked Japan around pretty good with only 11 major ships to Japan's 40 during WW2.
We had only 3 Enterprise class carriers to Japan's 6 Kaga class carriers as well.

The entire U.S. federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. No one is spending $600 trillion on creating or reducing carbon dioxide.


Incorrect. In December 1941 the US had 7 carriers to Japan's 6.


No, 3 Enterprise class carriers. The Enterprise, the Yorktown, and the Hornet.
Japan had 6 major (Kaga class) carriers: The Akagi, the Hiryu, the Kaga, the Shinano, the Shinyo, and the Soryu.

Once WW2 in the Pacific started, we built a LOT of carriers. So did the Japanese.


In December 1941 the US navy had 7 carriers.

https://ww2-weapons.com/us-navy-in-late-1941/


No, we had 3 in the Pacific. I listed them.


That's irrelevant. The US navy had 7 carriers. All of which could be deployed in the Pacific.
03-05-2019 10:45
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
I'd like to think a single Cruise missile would have a very good chance of striking any target. Extremely accurate, fast, and fairly long range. Multiple Cruise missiles at the same target is pretty much guaranteed success. Defense would rely heavily on luck, and divine intervention. People and electronics, can only respond so fast, once detected. There is some necessary delay, to avoid response to false alerts, and whether a target is an enemy, and not one of your own. Sending troops in on foot is costly, in lives, and not necessary anymore. Most initial death and destruction is done remotely.
03-05-2019 19:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to think a single Cruise missile would have a very good chance of striking any target. Extremely accurate, fast, and fairly long range. Multiple Cruise missiles at the same target is pretty much guaranteed success. Defense would rely heavily on luck, and divine intervention. People and electronics, can only respond so fast, once detected. There is some necessary delay, to avoid response to false alerts, and whether a target is an enemy, and not one of your own. Sending troops in on foot is costly, in lives, and not necessary anymore. Most initial death and destruction is done remotely.


Cruise and other missiles are great for softening up targets, it still takes walking in and completing the job.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 19:46
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Depends on the target. It doubt it would be necessary to walk on to a Chinese carrier after it was hit by several cruise missiles. You might not even be able to find anything to walk on. Land targets, yes, it does take boots on the ground.
03-05-2019 20:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
Depends on the target. It doubt it would be necessary to walk on to a Chinese carrier after it was hit by several cruise missiles. You might not even be able to find anything to walk on. Land targets, yes, it does take boots on the ground.


Nations...they're on land. Did you know that?


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 23:34
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
He only said "targets" which can include ships.

Or did you not know that they can hit ships with missiles these days?
04-05-2019 00:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
He only said "targets" which can include ships.

Or did you not know that they can hit ships with missiles these days?

Off topic. You have lost context. Done here.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 00:27
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to think a single Cruise missile would have a very good chance of striking any target. Extremely accurate, fast, and fairly long range. Multiple Cruise missiles at the same target is pretty much guaranteed success. Defense would rely heavily on luck, and divine intervention. People and electronics, can only respond so fast, once detected. There is some necessary delay, to avoid response to false alerts, and whether a target is an enemy, and not one of your own. Sending troops in on foot is costly, in lives, and not necessary anymore. Most initial death and destruction is done remotely.


Cruise and other missiles are great for softening up targets, it still takes walking in and completing the job.


When was the last time we finished the job... WWII? Mostly, we join in other peoples conflicts, so we usually have an airbase handy, or take on, if we don't damage it too badly.
04-05-2019 02:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to think a single Cruise missile would have a very good chance of striking any target. Extremely accurate, fast, and fairly long range. Multiple Cruise missiles at the same target is pretty much guaranteed success. Defense would rely heavily on luck, and divine intervention. People and electronics, can only respond so fast, once detected. There is some necessary delay, to avoid response to false alerts, and whether a target is an enemy, and not one of your own. Sending troops in on foot is costly, in lives, and not necessary anymore. Most initial death and destruction is done remotely.


Cruise and other missiles are great for softening up targets, it still takes walking in and completing the job.


When was the last time we finished the job... WWII? Mostly, we join in other peoples conflicts, so we usually have an airbase handy, or take on, if we don't damage it too badly.


You might study the history of warfare and of conflicts the United States became involved in. There has been a lot of action since WW2.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Is climate China's key to global domination?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast218-05-2019 15:06
China is building its 4th aircraft carrier for world domination. So why Americans spend101-05-2019 20:43
Western nations commit domination suicide128-04-2019 03:09
This scientist thinks she has the key to curb climate change: super plants121-04-2019 03:43
Temperature variation may be the key3627-09-2017 02:20
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact