Trump did threaten to recommission Iowa during that speech he gave from her decks. Maybe he'll bring back gunship diplomacy too.
I remember in 2007 when Iran's "Navy" tried to blockade a US ship from passing. Several shots by US forces and 2 destroyers sunk quickly turned Iran's response from sovereignty to becoming escort ships for the US. lol I can't wait for the Trump/Iowa works if she is brought back.
I remember in 2007 when Iran's "Navy" tried to blockade a US ship from passing. Several shots by US forces and 2 destroyers sunk quickly turned Iran's response from sovereignty to becoming escort ships for the US. lol I can't wait for the Trump/Iowa works if she is brought back.
they reseve another reminder why they're america's bitch.
Trump did threaten to recommission Iowa during that speech he gave from her decks.
While an interesting thought and a nice dream; unfortunately, the last single man that actually knew how to reactivate the Iowa-class' engineering spaces, Cpt (ret) Michael Eagen, died suddenly on November 10, 2015 of unknown causes.
While it most certainly is possible, it would be extremely... difficult.
While an interesting thought and a nice dream; unfortunately, the last single man that actually knew how to reactivate the Iowa-class' engineering spaces, Cpt (ret) Michael Eagen, died suddenly on November 10, 2015 of unknown causes.
While it most certainly is possible, it would be extremely... difficult.
I'm amazed people are actually taking this seriously...
That is putting the cart before the horse. You first have to presume that Trump would actually follow through on something he said pretty much in the heat of the moment after actually being presented with the costs of his actions... and congress would have to approve it, and congress doesn't approve of anything, these days. (The same congress that, two years into the Flint lead poisoning disaster, just passed a budget that STILL fails to allocate any money to replace the poisoned water system because, you know, black people live in Flint.)
This is the same guy who spent a year talking about how Mexico would pay for the wall, but chickened out about even trying to mention it as soon as he was actually in the same room as the President of Mexico until he left the country. Instead, he talked about how he wanted to improve US/Mexico relations until he got back to the US in front of an anti-immigration crowd and gave a big speech about how all Mexicans were evil... A life-long salesman/con artist who bald-facedly changes everything he says he believes in depending on what audience he's trying to sell something to that day...
But sure, believe him when he says he's bringing back the days of battleships.
Nothing personal, at all, but perhaps you would do better talking to a psychiatrist? You seem to be hallucinating reasons to dive into rants and tangents about people you hate on largely unrelated topics, which is a sign of extreme stress and quite possibly a bad diet. This is not politics, it is the 'romance' of the battleship/gunboat-diplomacy and the concept of reviving them, however fleeting. Other than that, it is humor, not politics. Lighten up, you're liable to get an ulcer. I'm sure you have people that want you in this world still, and healthy.
Aside, I won't chain anymore to that because it's politics, I just happen to have it on a good source that he actually did put out feelers on that concept and found out exactly what I said, that it was nearly impossible.
The construction of new 'battleships' upon new principles, however, is more interesting. If we were to find, in this process, a cost-savings measure in reactivating what we already have, there it is.
The construction of new 'battleships' upon new principles, however, is more interesting.
For the most part, this is actually quite true. However, the thing is, there is really no reason to radically change the principle concepts of the battleship, nor the original Concept of Operations. In fact, modern technologies may have actually allowed theoretical modern-battleships back into the role of 'gods of the sea'.
At present, we live in a world with hyper-sonic Battleship shells that have a range of 500+ nautical miles (this outranges carrier strike groups, mind you, for less cost than a cruise missile) and Armor that, if pushed to its reasonable limits, could stop even the harshest of threats.
kibehisa said: unfortunately, the last single man that actually knew how to reactivate the Iowa-class' engineering spaces, Cpt (ret) Michael Eagen, died...
Aw, that is too bad. Although I care more about if we adopt the Big Stick concept behind the gunship diplomacy than anything else.
NWSiaCB said: ...
Warning! Political rant/response below!
There is no reason to think Trump would not follow through on his promises. Unlike his competition, he made his money in the private business. He doesn't need the presidency unlike other politicians who never worked a day of their life in the private sector and are totally dependent on career politics to fund their lifesytle. Sure, any candidate possibly may back down on their word, but that applies to all politicians, and probably applies more to a certain woman who reliably lies through her teeth on every issue covering her criminal background. Also, nothing Trump proposes is in "the heat of the moment" That is media propaganda, because if you listened to his rallies he really gives the same speech over and over just adding new commentary of new events. Its just the media that doesn't listen and thinks he said something new because they are not informed on Trump's platform (note how they always start commentating on Trump before he finishes his rallies).
Most of what Trump wants to do is undo all of Obama's executive actions. He doesn't need to go through congress because Obama didn't and the EO is not law and can be undone by the current president. As far as the meeting with Mexico, Trump doesn't have to negotiate with the Mexican President. We can tank Mexico's entire economy with a wave of our hand because they are very dependent on our aid and their ability to sell exports to the US. Trump plans to use this as leverage. Mexico can say what they want, but there is a reason they extended that invitation to Trump in the first place, they would rather loose a couple billion on the wall than potentially loose almost a trillion in their exports. Again, Trump has talked about this over and over (being the only candidate who has talked about the strategy behind how he will accomplish his goals, not the tactics), but it is hard to get a message out when the media constantly makes up lies against you. If Trump is straight to the point, the media says he is bombastic and arrogant. If Trump talks politically correct, the media will say he is weak and backing down. Trump win over the corrupt media, yet despite that he has a huge following where he can go to any town in the US and pick up thousands of listeners to overfill a stadium in just a couple weeks notice while Hillary has trouble even filling a room with a couple hundred of her super donors.
79248cm/s said: I remember in 2007 when Iran's "Navy" tried to blockade a US ship from passing. Several shots by US forces and 2 destroyers sunk quickly turned Iran's response from sovereignty to becoming escort ships for the US. lol I can't wait for the Trump/Iowa works if she is brought back.
I don't get why people are surprised other nations want their sovereign waters to not become parade grounds for another country's navy whenever they feel like it
I don't get why people are surprised other nations want their sovereign waters to not become parade grounds for another country's navy whenever they feel like it
No country wants that of course. Russia wanted to conquer Japan. Japan wanted to conquer China. Nazi Germany just wanted to have an empire of it's own. ISIS wants to establish an Islamic state utilizing sharia law. Everyone want things, but the question is if their desires are worth supporting. Iran is definitely an enemy of the US, and so their sovereignty means nothing to that of USA and its allies from my perspective. You don't respect the wills of your enemy. It's a matter of choosing sides.
For example no one wants to be killed, but does that mean it is wrong to kill a drug lord in order to stop him? Actions by themselves are neutral without the context. An Iranian definitely would love to crush the US and the rest of the free world and take our wealth as their own (and they are currently doing so via Obama as their surrogate). You can't fault someone for wanting to strengthen their country. Likewise, they can't find fault in us for stopping their plans and defending ours. Anything you want in this world you have to have the strength/intelligence to be able to seize and protect it.
79248cm/s said: Iran is definitely an enemy of the US, and so their sovereignty means nothing to that of USA and its allies from my perspective. You don't respect the wills of your enemy. It's a matter of choosing sides.
Outside the dickhead ayatollah (which the US put in charge anyways thanks to lack of foresight), Iran is more willing to be allied with the US than any of its neighbors, especially Russia.
Keep in mind, lately, Iran has scaled back its support of Hamas and backed off from the clusterfuck that is Israel (which everyone outside the Ayatollah has been wanting for years) and has forced the Ayatollah to actually retract a statement he had made regarding throwing acid on women's faces, and you have less of an 'enemy' of the US as much as a population under the heels of a power that is seeking to protect its own position at the expense of the nation and its people.
I mean, the Iran-Iraq war should have ended once Iraq was forced out of its boundary, and the military was planning on overthrowing the Ayatollah at that stage since the seat of power had yet to be consolidated by anyone. Of course, instead, the revolutionary guard forced the issue and instead the military was put into a grinder.
Since the United States supported Iraq, and Iran at this stage had sizable communist supporters in its ranks, we overlooked the violation of Iran's borders at the beginning of the war and the later use of chemical weapons by Iraq.
This type of thinking is how America became trapped in directionless conflicts in places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Forces are committed because someone is deemed to be an enemy, leading to the deaths of thousands of US citizens and the eventual abandonment of the very people the US went in to support when its clear there will be no favorable outcome. Keep in mind, the original Vietnam conflict ended with a strong US vicotry since Operation Linebacker broke the NVA and it took them years, with uninterrupted Sino-Soviet support, to move against the incompetent and under-equipped ARVN. Even then, it wasn't until Congress basically refused to provide the aid we promised the South Vietnamese that they finally overcame their defenses and took Saigon.
So back to the average Iranian. According to every pit of legit study I've seen on it, the sentiment is much more Pro-western and wanting that sort of open lifestyle. Keep in mind that Iran is persian, not arab, and was a legit democracy up until Carter undermined that due to bringing in the Ayatollah.
So I'd say its pretty naive to put an all or nothing stance when dealing with other nations, especially when the sentiment within that nation is far more mixed than what mainstream media is ever going to explore.
Edit: I'm not saying Iran didn't do nothing, only that things aren't black and white
It's not exactly impossible, though. It would take a lot of work, but they could theoretically re-engine the Iowas with Nuclear Boilers by tearing the old boilers out from the side (which means rebuilding pretty much the entire hull). Of course, it's not that simple; there are massive amounts of weight and stability issues that have to be addressed, the radiation shielding issue, and the fact that current (Surface Ship) Nuclear Boilers produce 'wet' 1200psi steam instead of the superheated 'dry' 600psi steam that the Iowas' Turbines need... but it is in no way impossible.
You would probably be better off just building a new one with the modern tech already installed however, unless time was an issue - it would cost the American Taxpayer only as much as a single Zumwalt.
No country wants that of course. Russia wanted to conquer Japan. Japan wanted to conquer China. Nazi Germany just wanted to have an empire of it's own. ISIS wants to establish an Islamic state utilizing sharia law. Everyone want things, but the question is if their desires are worth supporting. Iran is definitely an enemy of the US, and so their sovereignty means nothing to that of USA and its allies from my perspective. You don't respect the wills of your enemy. It's a matter of choosing sides.
For example no one wants to be killed, but does that mean it is wrong to kill a drug lord in order to stop him? Actions by themselves are neutral without the context. An Iranian definitely would love to crush the US and the rest of the free world and take our wealth as their own (and they are currently doing so via Obama as their surrogate). You can't fault someone for wanting to strengthen their country. Likewise, they can't find fault in us for stopping their plans and defending ours. Anything you want in this world you have to have the strength/intelligence to be able to seize and protect it.
Personally, I think it is wrong to kill a drug lord --- even if he is part of the American government --- but that's because I believe all drugs should be legal, not because I would ever be tempted to take them, but because people are already taking them without massacring us all, and because I don't care if druggies live or die. Certainly I have no desire to imprison them in hideous conditions for 20+ years to show them how precious life can be.
.
As for the US I am coming to the conclusion it is the most potent force for evil there has ever been --- mostly because of it's constitution, moralism and determination to impose it's wretched beliefs on the rest of the world: the USSR would have been in exactly the same position had it won pre-eminence; probably still with General Secretary of the Communist Party Hillary.
They also need to cultivate friendship and mutual respect not derived from overwhelming power, particularly in view of their demographic changes which will put that power in the hands of an entirely new gang, and because all empires have it rough going down.
Since when did such a harmless comment section about a post depicting an American busting through a wall Kool-Aid style became a full blown political war zone?
Since when did such a harmless comment section about a post depicting an American busting through a wall Kool-Aid style became a full blown political war zone?
Since when did such a harmless comment section about a post depicting an American busting through a wall Kool-Aid style became a full blown political war zone?
When people love guns, they take that love too literal they forget about people and the fact we aren't barbaric Romans anymore. I don't agree at all new generations get offended and sometimes behave like coward pussies, but that's just another sample of civilization evolving far away from the brute animal. Though I'm not sure how that will turn out once American empire falls down and Chinese empire arise. Like I care, I won't live enough to see that. :P
Adolf95 said: Since when did such a harmless comment section about a post depicting an American busting through a wall Kool-Aid style became a full blown political war zone?
At least for me, I'm not really too upset. People can have their opinions.
As well, Iowa is the harbinger of destruction, it is only fitting that her image drives people to madness