US Military Capability against a near-peer competitor

Don't forget their "baby" carriers, which still clock in at 45,000 tons.
I haven't forgotten that our Coast Guard has more ships than any other country's Navy. Or that the US Army has more boats than our own Navy. But not really necessary to the discussion.

In my previous post #7. eh... I really couldn't be bothered to expound further on things such as the only fear from Russian subs would be pollution/contamination of the waters they might be floating in if they ever get out of dock again, # 8. blah... the fact that China's current best tech rockets are basically stolen tech replicas from 30 years ago down to the rivets... #9. hmm... and awesomely awkward animations that are on par with 90's tv shows "demonstrating" non-existent hyper rockets, hidden SICBMs (80s concept here, dropped in 90s and very "Spies Like Us") in container trucks, giant drone mega guns assembled from multiple container trucks (longer time to assemble in the open within sight of target than the time it could sustain flight or even attack)...

Much too long of a list of yawn to stay awake to complete.
 
You are either deluded, or liars.

Give 1 valid, concrete, definition of socialism. Then provide 1 real example of it functioning as labelled, without causing mass shortages, and mass death.

Venezuela is drowning in petrol and can't afford water.
You are a very confused man. I have not claimed any support for international Socialism (BIG S) - it's a proven failure of a system that not only does not work, but can not work.

However, unlike you, I don't think that any and every hint of socialism (small s) within a capitalist society is evil.

Until you learn that the world is neither black nor white, you will come across as a bit of a mad bigot.
 
You are a very confused man. I have not claimed any support for international Socialism (BIG S) - it's a proven failure of a system that not only does not work, but can not work.

However, unlike you, I don't think that any and every hint of socialism (small s) within a capitalist society is evil.

Until you learn that the world is neither black nor white, you will come across as a bit of a mad bigot.
I have not claimed any hint of socialism is evil. I have claimed that purveyors of socialism get to claim every good as it's own whilst denying it's every failure, because what failed isn't "real" socialism.

Your interpretation of my generally broad, hence grey, statements as simple black and white reveals a limitation (perhaps intentional) of your own perception.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Yes it was safer then trying to kill the bison, and a more reliable method to feed people. Instead of getting eaten by the Saber Tooth, you just worked yourself to death growing crops!!
Look at Middle Paleolithic kitchen garbage bones - almost all of them are remains of human-size animals - deers, hogs, bizons. No birds, rats and rabbits, no mamonths, rhinos and hippos. Only in the Upper Paleolith were added small and big mamals, birds and fish in the significan quantity.
General idea is simple - if you can hunt men, you will have your land and your food. If you can't - soil digging (and rabbit hunting) ability will not help you anyway. Self-defending (and human-hunting) was first priority in hunting, gathering food - secondary.
 
"Peace behind me, war in front of me"
Its a refference to the popular Russian saying "Everything is running away in front of me, everything is burning behind me". But it i not really important, what they say to foreigners.
What is really important - it is not what they say, but about what they keep silence between themselves.
For example:

SAVE_20190313_122753.jpeg


页面没有找到

The reportage from "celebration" of 50 years after battle at Damanskiy. No one word "Russia" or USSR", even word "Damanskiy" retouched.
Very "politicaly correct" "celebration".
 
Look at Middle Paleolithic kitchen garbage bones - almost all of them are remains of human-size animals - deers, hogs, bizons. No birds, rats and rabbits, no mamonths, rhinos and hippos. Only in the Upper Paleolith were added small and big mamals, birds and fish in the significan quantity.
General idea is simple - if you can hunt men, you will have your land and your food. If you can't - soil digging (and rabbit hunting) ability will not help you anyway. Self-defending (and human-hunting) was first priority in hunting, gathering food - secondary.
Can I just say, as a former professional archaeologist - a bit 'thank you' for giving me the best laugh i've had in ages.
 
No, for two reasons. Firstly, pretty much everything you state is demonstrably wrong, even with a cursory bit of research.
For example: .....

Secondly - it's of zero direct relevance to the thread.
You can easily create another thread, if you really have anything to say.

Actually, I can suggest thought experiment.
There are two Neolithic tribes: Mumbo and Jumbo. Mumbo are pure farmers - they have hoes, and dont have spears. They dont have fights between each other, and the largest animal they eat is snail. Their usual food are bananas, yam and finics. They can throw stones to drive predators.
Jumbo are pure hunters. They can hunt anything from rabbit to mamonth (including humans), they have arrows and spears, many types of traps, they understand idea of collective hunting.
What will be result of contact of those cultures?
 
For example: .....

You can easily create another thread, if you really have anything to say.

Actually, I can suggest thought experiment.
There are two Neolithic tribes: Mumbo and Jumbo. Mumbo are pure farmers - they have hoes, and dont have spears. They dont have fights between each other, and the largest animal they eat is snail. Their usual food are bananas, yam and finics. They can throw stones to drive predators.
Jumbo are pure hunters. They can hunt anything from rabbit to mamonth (including humans), they have arrows and spears, many types of traps, they understand idea of collective hunting.
What will be result of contact of those cultures?
That you are an unarmed Russian, makes this icing on the cake.
 
Ha! There is thefull Russian production of tank thermal imagers (better than French) made by NPO Orion and Shvabe since September of 2018

Россия полностью заместила комплектующие для танковых прицелов из Франции

So, Abramses, without automatical load, without active defence and reactive armour, with bad thermal imagers , overweighted (with limited strategic mobility)are just an easy meat even for T-90, say nothing about T-14.
Haven’t Russians been telling everybody how great their tanks are previously ? T80, T72 etc, only to discover that they morally end up getting used for target practice?
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Haven’t Russians been telling everybody how great their tanks are previously ? T80, T72 etc, only to discover that they morally end up getting used for target practice?
He-he-he.. Russians tanks are really great, much better than Septic and Underseptic ones. Russian can use West or East feateres (and then improve it) and Septics can't copy Russian ones.
 
For example: .....

You can easily create another thread, if you really have anything to say.

Actually, I can suggest thought experiment.
There are two Neolithic tribes: Mumbo and Jumbo. Mumbo are pure farmers - they have hoes, and dont have spears. They dont have fights between each other, and the largest animal they eat is snail. Their usual food are bananas, yam and finics. They can throw stones to drive predators.
Jumbo are pure hunters. They can hunt anything from rabbit to mamonth (including humans), they have arrows and spears, many types of traps, they understand idea of collective hunting.
What will be result of contact of those cultures?
Okay - in the spirit of sharing and caring, i'll respond. But apologies to other readers for the fairly whopping & indulgent thread drift. Hopefully, it may be of interest to some of you. If not, feel free to jump straight past it.

@Grey Fox To respond to your hypothesis. Here's a very potted history of human existence through prehistory and the evidence for and against conflict between human groups.

In the Paleolithic - obviously Mumbo won't be farming. They'll either be sedentary hunter gatherers, or nomadic using seasonal patterns to exploit every useful bit of flora and fauna in their environment (accordingly to the archaeological record and also, if you support the methodology, the extrapolation of anthropological observation of primitive tribes in Oceana, Australia, Africa and South America since the 1840s).

Jumbo won't bump into Mumbo, because population density makes it incredibly unlikely. If they did, they'd probably be known to each other for generations and familial splinters of the same original ancestor group - and therefore massively unlikely to have followed two very different technological and cultural pathways. Such things took many millennia to evolve. It's why you see similar lifestyles, cave art, tools etc in isolation, but thousands of miles apart.

In short, there is next-to-zero forensic evidence of intra-human conflict from those eras. Nor cave art to support it. That which does exist, is statistically miniscule in comparison to the weight of evidence to the contrary - most small groups lived relatively short, peaceful lives in isolation and died from injury, illness or unknown causes.

As an aside, quite often they were then ritually defleshed by their families, and often dismembered. Prehistory funerals were...different.

This lack of conflict is most likely because of the overwhelming abundance of natural resources vs the size of the human population meant there was far less drive to violently compete. Even the absorption of Neanderthal DNA shows that, through the majority of the existence of the human race - even when faced with a different sub-species - people were more likely to hump strangers than kill them.

What is also overwhelming is the evidence from hundreds of archaeological sites, plus chemical bone analysis, that contrary to what you said, people did eat fish, shell fish (google shellfish middens) and a massive variety of small mammals, as opposed to just 'big meaty things' as per your first post. You only have to do a Google image search for fishing tools from those era. There are mountains of artefacts globally to support coastal and riverine hunter-gatherers eating whatever they could lay their hands on.

The emergence of farming is another subject entirely - and is a constant-evolving picture - but the overall pattern is now largely accepted.

The early adoption from Africa > The Levant > Loess soil areas in the southern and central European areas is MUCH later into the mesolithic, and generally seen - as already mentioned here - down to it being a more reliable source of sustenance. But, crucially, it was also in conjunction with animal domestication/husbandry and ad hoc hunting. Hence the emergence of small enclosures, round houses etc into the Mesolithic and through the Neolithic.

It is only by the latter when you start to see two unexpected by-products of farming which triggered 'society' that is closer to our definition - and when the competition / conflict you refered to starts to emerge.

Firstly, the ability to create a surplus which could then be traded. It also meant that some individuals could specialise in industrial output - for instance flint knapping/mining and early metallurgy - rather than just existing to source food in order to survive.

Secondly, the control of the surplus (and industrial output). This is the game changer. Low and behold, you get appearance of what Anthropology calls 'The Big Man' - i.e. the coordinated coalescence of farming communities and the sudden erection of defensible communities as we swing into the very Early Bronze Age. For example, hill forts in Europe and near-Asia.

But even then - at the first real point in time when archaeological record gives widespread evidence of lots of people trying to protect themselves from an outside human threat - excavations show that inside those walls, palisades and earth works - there are countless burial pits full of charred, butchered remains of not people killed in conflict...but cows and goats. Because people loved a party more than a scrap - and the calculated food amounts are massive multiples of the population within the settlements.

The same pits are often found at/near ceremonial sites from the Neolithic onwards. People from miles apart would come together for some reason, and stuff their faces.

My long and meandering point here being - there are only tiny fragments of hints of human conflict even by in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. The middle and late Bronze Age is when things get a bit fighty.

So characterising the Paleolithic as some sort of early-human free-for-all warzone is just not supported by any of the evidence we have.

Again, apologies for going O/T.
 
Okay - in the spirit of sharing and caring, i'll respond. But apologies to other readers for the fairly whopping & indulgent thread drift. Hopefully, it may be of interest to some of you. If not, feel free to jump straight past it.

@Grey Fox To respond to your hypothesis. Here's a very potted history of human existence through prehistory and the evidence for and against conflict between human groups.

In the Paleolithic - obviously Mumbo won't be farming. They'll either be sedentary hunter gatherers, or nomadic using seasonal patterns to exploit every useful bit of flora and fauna in their environment (accordingly to the archaeological record and also, if you support the methodology, the extrapolation of anthropological observation of primitive tribes in Oceana, Australia, Africa and South America since the 1840s).

Jumbo won't bump into Mumbo, because population density makes it incredibly unlikely. If they did, they'd probably be known to each other for generations and familial splinters of the same original ancestor group - and therefore massively unlikely to have followed two very different technological and cultural pathways. Such things took many millennia to evolve. It's why you see similar lifestyles, cave art, tools etc in isolation, but thousands of miles apart.

In short, there is next-to-zero forensic evidence of intra-human conflict from those eras. Nor cave art to support it. That which does exist, is statistically miniscule in comparison to the weight of evidence to the contrary - most small groups lived relatively short, peaceful lives in isolation and died from injury, illness or unknown causes.

As an aside, quite often they were then ritually defleshed by their families, and often dismembered. Prehistory funerals were...different.

This lack of conflict is most likely because of the overwhelming abundance of natural resources vs the size of the human population meant there was far less drive to violently compete. Even the absorption of Neanderthal DNA shows that, through the majority of the existence of the human race - even when faced with a different sub-species - people were more likely to hump strangers than kill them.

What is also overwhelming is the evidence from hundreds of archaeological sites, plus chemical bone analysis, that contrary to what you said, people did eat fish, shell fish (google shellfish middens) and a massive variety of small mammals, as opposed to just 'big meaty things' as per your first post. You only have to do a Google image search for fishing tools from those era. There are mountains of artefacts globally to support coastal and riverine hunter-gatherers eating whatever they could lay their hands on.

The emergence of farming is another subject entirely - and is a constant-evolving picture - but the overall pattern is now largely accepted.

The early adoption from Africa > The Levant > Loess soil areas in the southern and central European areas is MUCH later into the mesolithic, and generally seen - as already mentioned here - down to it being a more reliable source of sustenance. But, crucially, it was also in conjunction with animal domestication/husbandry and ad hoc hunting. Hence the emergence of small enclosures, round houses etc into the Mesolithic and through the Neolithic.

It is only by the latter when you start to see two unexpected by-products of farming which triggered 'society' that is closer to our definition - and when the competition / conflict you refered to starts to emerge.

Firstly, the ability to create a surplus which could then be traded. It also meant that some individuals could specialise in industrial output - for instance flint knapping/mining and early metallurgy - rather than just existing to source food in order to survive.

Secondly, the control of the surplus (and industrial output). This is the game changer. Low and behold, you get appearance of what Anthropology calls 'The Big Man' - i.e. the coordinated coalescence of farming communities and the sudden erection of defensible communities as we swing into the very Early Bronze Age. For example, hill forts in Europe and near-Asia.

But even then - at the first real point in time when archaeological record gives widespread evidence of lots of people trying to protect themselves from an outside human threat - excavations show that inside those walls, palisades and earth works - there are countless burial pits full of charred, butchered remains of not people killed in conflict...but cows and goats. Because people loved a party more than a scrap - and the calculated food amounts are massive multiples of the population within the settlements.

The same pits are often found at/near ceremonial sites from the Neolithic onwards. People from miles apart would come together for some reason, and stuff their faces.

My long and meandering point here being - there are only tiny fragments of hints of human conflict even by in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. The middle and late Bronze Age is when things get a bit fighty.

So characterising the Paleolithic as some sort of early-human free-for-all warzone is just not supported by any of the evidence we have.

Again, apologies for going O/T.
There's you coming in and spoiling it by stating facts and making it look as though you know what you're talking about.

You mean to say that there weren't just two prehistoric tribes, one of blondes with wimmin looking like Raquel Welch, the other all dark haired, who were violent and didn't wash?
 
There's you coming in and spoiling it by stating facts and making it look as though you know what you're talking about.

You mean to say that there weren't just two prehistoric tribes, one of blondes with wimmin looking like Raquel Welch, the other all dark haired, who were violent and didn't wash?
Only at the centre of the Earth, and in certain parts of the internet - which I don't frequent*.

(*when the wife is in)
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top