Ratcliffe declassified Russian intelligence assessment that claims Hillary was setting up a plan to connect Trump campaign to Russian hacking

[lil devils x]

One is worse for removing the requirement for civilian casualties caused by the other. Your level of logic is incredible!

Obama CREATED the requirement to make him be accountable for civilian casualties and put in place a number of measure to actually try to reduce civilian causalities. Obama even had some patrols in Afghanistan in heavy civilian areas unchamber weapons so they would have to think before firing and not just accidently shoot a civilian. You ignoring the measures Obama took, does not mean they didn't exist.

Trump OTOH has rolled all that back, He took away the requirement to report civilian causalities as well as make them a non priority. DID you read the linked articles above? If you had, you would not have made the statement you just did. Trump is causing more civilian casualties than Obama did. Trump doesn't think either he or Obama should be accountable for civilian casualties at all here. I am not sure why that is that hard for you to understand.
Obama:
1) Made civilian casualties a priority and took active measures to reduce the number of civilian deaths.
2)Made mandatory reporting of civilian casualties and made them available to the public for the public to be able to hold him accountable.

Trump:
1)Ignored Obama policies on civilian casualties and removed them from consideration
2) Reverse Obama policy on reporting and transparency, so if they don't report them Trump can't be held accountable for them.
3)Told his military to disregard all Obama policies on trying to reduce civilian casualties.
4)Trump specifically told them to TARGET civilians to punish his enemies. Trump told them to target their families and friends, not just the combatants themselves.
5)Civilian deaths have been skyrocketing under Trump. Those are not Obama's number's those are a direct result of Trump's policies.
6)Trump's administration brags about their body count, which included civilians, not just the Taliban.

Even if you just read the first link here, you will understand how bad this really is..
This was already linked in the thread, if you had read hem, you would have known this already:

Don’t Forget: Civilian Casualties Are Skyrocketing Under Trump

Amid the impeachment inquiry, it’s important to remember that Donald Trump has committed other moral crimes — like the slaughter of civilians abroad.

theintercept.com

Column: Trump's brand of war is killing more civilians than before

A new U.N. report on Afghanistan shows that U.S. and Afghan government forces have killed more civilians than the Taliban this year.

www.latimes.com

Trump Revokes Obama-Era Rule on Disclosing Civilian Casualties From U.S. Airstrikes Outside War Zones (Published 2019)

In an executive order, President Trump rolled back a transparency rule that his administration had already been ignoring.

www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families'

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would kill the families of terrorists in order to win the fight against ISIS.

www.cnn.com

At least 40 civilians at wedding party killed during nearby U.S.-backed Afghan army raid

At least 40 civilians attending a wedding party were killed by explosions and gunfire during a raid by U.S.-backed Afghan government forces on a nearby Islamist militant hideout, officials in Helmand province said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

Letter detailing civilian presence failed to prevent deadly Afghan drone strike

Twelve days ahead of the pine-nut harvest season, the governor of Afghanistan's eastern Nangarhar province received a letter from village elders in the Wazir Tangi area about their plans to recruit 200 laborers and children to pluck the dry fruit.

www.reuters.com

White House says it has killed ‘1,000 Taliban’ in last 10 days, hours after Trump called off talks over death of one US soldier

The secretary of state described gruesome progress for America after news that Camp David conference was cancelled

www.independent.co.uk

Afghan and U.S. Forces Blamed for Killing More Civilians This Year Than Taliban Have (Published 2019)

Nearly 1,400 Afghan civilians were killed in the first six months of the year, with Afghan forces and their allies accountable for 52 percent of the deaths, according to a United Nations report.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/middle-east-civilian-deaths-have-soared-under-trump-and-the-media-mostly-shrug/2018/03/16/fc344968-2932-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html

Your statement doesn't make sense.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Hypersonics are an expensive batch, and ICBMS are already hypersonic, they all can be countered in theory by DEWs or directed energy weapons.

Also, a lot of the Han Chinese populace who make up about 90% of the population are quite nationalistic.

Also the F-22 was already used in Syria to provide air cover to defend US special forces from Russian Mercs, and Assad's Shia thugs.

Ok, but in theory the U-2 spy plane should have been able to operate at such an altitude that it would be unable to be intercepted by Soviet planes or air defense systems and, well... This is the thing with war that I don't think you appreciate, is just how much of a dirty, horrible cluster fuck it would be to engage in a shooting war these days with another superpower. On of the worst things to come out of our recent forays into the Middle East (well, outside of all the war crimes, suffering of the civilian population, and the fact that it is in a constant state of civil war now) is that it instilled in us Americans the idea of an "easy war". One where we swoop in with our awesome tech and show them what's for and the (main bulk of) fighting is over in a couple of months.

I...honestly don't know why the 90% are nationalists thing came up. I can hazard a guess, but I think you may need to let in on why.

As for F-22's already doing bombing missions in Syria, I very much doubt they are the first word in air defense systems, especially in the case of the Russians it's more beneficial for them to study it than shoot one down during a proxy war and get a stern talking too about it over the telephone with us.

 

[Thaluikhain]

On of the worst things to come out of our recent forays into the Middle East (well, outside of all the war crimes, suffering of the civilian population, and the fact that it is in a constant state of civil war now) is that it instilled in us Americans the idea of an "easy war". One where we swoop in with our awesome tech and show them what's for and the (main bulk of) fighting is over in a couple of months.

It did? People didn't notice the several years of occupation that didn't really stick?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

It did? People didn't notice the several years of occupation that didn't really stick?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

To be fair, when I said that I mostly meant the first Gulf War, and the opening invasions in Iraq/Afghanistan rather than the conflicts on the whole.

 

[ralfy]

Only if stating the one is worse is dismissing the problems of the other, which might well be the case, but I don't think lil devil x meant that.

It actually makes Trump WORSE than Obama because he removed the requirement to report civilian casualties at all, so they are not a priority at all now.

 

[lil devils x]

snip

That isn't dismissing the problems of the other, In fact, I am the one who BROUGHT UP Obama's terror Tuesdays. Trump being MUCH WORSE does not mean Obama isn't at fault for his own actions. i just pointed out HOW Trump was worse, that is not the same as saying Obama did no wrong.

 

[ralfy]

Obama CREATED the requirement to make him be accountable for civilian casualties and put in place a number of measure to actually try to reduce civilian causalities. Obama even had some patrols in Afghanistan in heavy civilian areas unchamber weapons so they would have to think before firing and not just accidently shoot a civilian. You ignoring the measures Obama took, does not mean they didn't exist.

Trump OTOH has rolled all that back, He took away the requirement to report civilian causalities as well as make them a non priority. DID you read the linked articles above? If you had, you would not have made the statement you just did. Trump is causing more civilian casualties than Obama did. Trump doesn't think either he or Obama should be accountable for civilian casualties at all here. I am not sure why that is that hard for you to understand.
Obama:
1) Made civilian casualties a priority and took active measures to reduce the number of civilian deaths.
2)Made mandatory reporting of civilian casualties and made them available to the public for the public to be able to hold him accountable.

Trump:
1)Ignored Obama policies on civilian casualties and removed them from consideration
2) Reverse Obama policy on reporting and transparency, so if they don't report them Trump can't be held accountable for them.
3)Told his military to disregard all Obama policies on trying to reduce civilian casualties.
4)Trump specifically told them to TARGET civilians to punish his enemies. Trump told them to target their families and friends, not just the combatants themselves.
5)Civilian deaths have been skyrocketing under Trump. Those are not Obama's number's those are a direct result of Trump's policies.
6)Trump's administration brags about their body count, which included civilians, not just the Taliban.

Even if you just read the first link here, you will understand how bad this really is..
This was already linked in the thread, if you had read hem, you would have known this already:

Don’t Forget: Civilian Casualties Are Skyrocketing Under Trump

Amid the impeachment inquiry, it’s important to remember that Donald Trump has committed other moral crimes — like the slaughter of civilians abroad.

theintercept.com

Column: Trump's brand of war is killing more civilians than before

A new U.N. report on Afghanistan shows that U.S. and Afghan government forces have killed more civilians than the Taliban this year.

www.latimes.com

Trump Revokes Obama-Era Rule on Disclosing Civilian Casualties From U.S. Airstrikes Outside War Zones (Published 2019)

In an executive order, President Trump rolled back a transparency rule that his administration had already been ignoring.

www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families'

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would kill the families of terrorists in order to win the fight against ISIS.

www.cnn.com

At least 40 civilians at wedding party killed during nearby U.S.-backed Afghan army raid

At least 40 civilians attending a wedding party were killed by explosions and gunfire during a raid by U.S.-backed Afghan government forces on a nearby Islamist militant hideout, officials in Helmand province said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

Letter detailing civilian presence failed to prevent deadly Afghan drone strike

Twelve days ahead of the pine-nut harvest season, the governor of Afghanistan's eastern Nangarhar province received a letter from village elders in the Wazir Tangi area about their plans to recruit 200 laborers and children to pluck the dry fruit.

www.reuters.com

White House says it has killed ‘1,000 Taliban’ in last 10 days, hours after Trump called off talks over death of one US soldier

The secretary of state described gruesome progress for America after news that Camp David conference was cancelled

www.independent.co.uk

Afghan and U.S. Forces Blamed for Killing More Civilians This Year Than Taliban Have (Published 2019)

Nearly 1,400 Afghan civilians were killed in the first six months of the year, with Afghan forces and their allies accountable for 52 percent of the deaths, according to a United Nations report.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/middle-east-civilian-deaths-have-soared-under-trump-and-the-media-mostly-shrug/2018/03/16/fc344968-2932-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html

Your statement doesn't make sense.

Your arguments makes no sense at all. Political leaders make themselves accountable for war crimes not by lessening casualties but by admitting that they committed such.

This applies to Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, and others.

 

[lil devils x]

Your arguments makes no sense at all. Political leaders make themselves accountable for war crimes not by lessening casualties but by admitting that they committed such.

This applies to Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, and others.

Obama reduced Casualties by TAKING ACTIVE MEASURES to prevent them. DID you not read the post at all here? You are like not reading anything you are provided, like at all. Trump told US troops to TARGET CIVILIANS. This isn't hard, it is all there in front of you, just read it.

"Obama Taking active measures" = Lessening casualties
Trump removing all those measures, encouraging the targeting of civilians= INCREASING CASUALTIES.

Trump literally said US should kill their families and friends intentionally and bragged about killing civilians.

 

[ralfy]

Obama reduced Casualties by TAKING ACTIVE MEASURES to prevent them. DID you not read the post at all here? You are like not reading anything you are provided, like at all. Trump told US troops to TARGET CIVILIANS. This isn't hard, it is all there in front of you, just read it.

"Obama Taking active measures" = Lessening casualties
Trump removing all those measures, encouraging the targeting of civilians= INCREASING CASUALTIES.

Trump literally said US should kill their families and friends intentionally and bragged about killing civilians.

As I said, it's like a rapist taking steps in order to be gentler.

You prevent casualties by NOT committing war crimes!

What Trump brags about Obama achieves easily.

President Obama's Legacy Is Endless War

The next president will enjoy near-limitless war powers

time.com

 

[lil devils x]

As I said, it's like a rapist taking steps in order to be gentler.

You prevent casualties by NOT committing war crimes!

What Trump brags about Obama achieves easily.

President Obama's Legacy Is Endless War

The next president will enjoy near-limitless war powers

time.com

So you just ignore all data you are shown and change the subject. Mhmm. Makes sense.

Civilian casualties INCREASED under Trump. They INCREASED from Obama's number. GO look at the information here. I linked it above. Not difficult to figure out if you actually bothered to read ANY of it.

Obama trying to prevent deaths is like trying to prevent rapes, not be gentler, it is stupid to suggest such. The military being able to act without needing presidential consent though also means they are allowed to kill people without presidential consent as well.

Don’t Forget: Civilian Casualties Are Skyrocketing Under Trump

Amid the impeachment inquiry, it’s important to remember that Donald Trump has committed other moral crimes — like the slaughter of civilians abroad.

theintercept.com

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Gordon_4]

It is much, much easier then this. No enemy of the USA's, in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, has had an air force or air defense worth their name. The F-22 is a good fighter aircraft, quite possibly the best in existence right now, but it will suffer horrendous casualties if forced into a fighting war with the 2nd largest air force in the world and one of the largest and most modernized air defense forces. Modern air defenses are ridiculously effective, to the point that Sweden (using old 70's US Hawk missiles) could effectively deter both US air force and marines attempts from invading our air space in recent combined exercises. In the case of offensive operations into Chinese air space the USA would either have to modernize its almost dormant SEAD-program (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, basically aircraft that fire radar-homing missiles or use electronic counter measures to disable ADs ability to target lock) or just suck it up that modern Chinese AA systems will decimate the attacking force.

Air forces are very, very potent force multipliers, which is why armies everywhere that can afford to will invest massively in air defenses. Going up against a superpower and thinking that your air force will do the job is a pipe dream, because superpowers have invested a lot of time and money into equipment (and soldiers) designed solely to prevent hostile aircraft from operating in whatever air space they designate as a no fly zone.

I presume this is also parallel to naval build up for more effective force projection - carrier groups and the like that are able to bring this air power to bear on the enemy’s doorstep rather than waiting for them to come to you. Although this is probably more relevant to some countries than others.

 

[Trunkage]

As I said, it's like a rapist taking steps in order to be gentler.

You prevent casualties by NOT committing war crimes!

What Trump brags about Obama achieves easily.

President Obama's Legacy Is Endless War

The next president will enjoy near-limitless war powers

time.com

Just gotta point out that the whole time you agreed with lil devils. You copied exactly what she said and spat it back out at her.

Anyway, I don’t think there has ever been a US president that hasn’t committed war crimes in office. A lot of them did many war crimes before they even were nominated for office. Even if Sanders became president, I’m very confident that he would end up a war criminal. Very confident.

Pretending a president isn’t going to do lots of war crimes is like pretending Santa Clause is real. To have no war crimes, you’d need to completely remove the DNC and GOP from existence. Even then I don’t have much faith. You’d have to completely change the fabric of US society, mainly their shoot first and ask question nature

 

[Thaluikhain]

Anyway, I don’t think there has ever been a US president that hasn’t committed war crimes in office. A lot of them did many war crimes before they even were nominated for office. Even if Sanders became president, I’m very confident that he would end up a war criminal. Very confident.

Pretending a president isn’t going to do lots of war crimes is like pretending Santa Clause is real. To have no war crimes, you’d need to completely remove the DNC and GOP from existence. Even then I don’t have much faith. You’d have to completely change the fabric of US society, mainly their shoot first and ask question nature

I suppose dying very soon into the office like Harrison did doesn't count. Otherwise, yeah, the PotUS is going to be a war criminal.

Though, would be interesting to list all the nations of the world by population, gdp, military expenditure or something and see how far you go down before you get one that isn't led by a war criminal.

 

[Trunkage]

I suppose dying very soon into the office like Harrison did doesn't count. Otherwise, yeah, the PotUS is going to be a war criminal.

Though, would be interesting to list all the nations of the world by population, gdp, military expenditure or something and see how far you go down before you get one that isn't led by a war criminal.

Having 5 PMs in 5 years might have Harrisoned Australia out of that claim

 

[Agema]

I presume this is also parallel to naval build up for more effective force projection - carrier groups and the like that are able to bring this air power to bear on the enemy’s doorstep rather than waiting for them to come to you. Although this is probably more relevant to some countries than others.

I'm not sure what the power of aircraft carriers really is against a major opponent: they're awfully vulnerable to submarines, missiles, etc., with the added risk of losing the planes on them, too. For any major operation like invading a medium-size country, it'll need a land-based air force.

I wouldn't be surprised if it has got to the stage where they are on the verge of obsolescence for full intensity naval warfare - they'll only be used for air support in relatively minor ops overseas.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not sure what the power of aircraft carriers really is against a major opponent: they're awfully vulnerable to submarines, missiles, etc., with the added risk of losing the planes on them, too. For any major operation like invading a medium-size country, it'll need a land-based air force.

I wouldn't be surprised if it has got to the stage where they are on the verge of obsolescence for full intensity naval warfare - they'll only be used for air support in relatively minor ops overseas.

Any number of things may be on the verge of obsolescence for full intensity warfare, we've not had any for quite a while. OTOH, they said something similar before Korea.

 

[Gordon_4]

I'm not sure what the power of aircraft carriers really is against a major opponent: they're awfully vulnerable to submarines, missiles, etc., with the added risk of losing the planes on them, too. For any major operation like invading a medium-size country, it'll need a land-based air force.

I wouldn't be surprised if it has got to the stage where they are on the verge of obsolescence for full intensity naval warfare - they'll only be used for air support in relatively minor ops overseas.

I disagree about obsolete; that is not yet proven in any meaningful way for blue water navies. Its is probable that their role will be rethought if a full scale conflict between two more or less evenly keeled - excuse the pun - powers occurs. Then again every war causes/forces a change in strategic and logistical thinking. And even still, a carrier provides a friendly airstrip you can park along any coast to run bombing campaigns, recon and fighter interdiction until such time that a land based force can capture a suitable airstrip or build one in suitably secured territory. They also have other funky uses like being able to act as temporary power stations by running cabling to their reactors. That does of course make them highly vulnerable, but they can do it.

 

[Agema]

I disagree about obsolete; that is not yet proven in any meaningful way for blue water navies. Its is probable that their role will be rethought if a full scale conflict between two more or less evenly keeled - excuse the pun - powers occurs. Then again every war causes/forces a change in strategic and logistical thinking. And even still, a carrier provides a friendly airstrip you can park along any coast to run bombing campaigns, recon and fighter interdiction until such time that a land based force can capture a suitable airstrip or build one in suitably secured territory. They also have other funky uses like being able to act as temporary power stations by running cabling to their reactors. That does of course make them highly vulnerable, but they can do it.

I'm thinking that planes rendered battleships obsolete because of the vastly greater range and that there was little effective way to stop planes without other planes. As the planes will also happily take anything else out too, there's no point in 40,000+ tonnes of ship if it doesn't have planes. However, seeing as missiles are such a big thing now, there's something that the carriers' planes probably can't defend against. That leaves ship-borne anti-missile defences, and my guess is that beating them is just a case of throwing enough mud at the wall.

Submarines... hard to know. If someone's stealth tech is well advance of their opponents' detection capabilities, that's incredibly bad news for the surface fleet.

Carriers would be more useful far from land bases - so in a hypothetical Pacfic war between the Far East and North America. In a hypothetical war between China and Japan, far less so. They could add some force, but you'd want them only where attacking them would have to go through too much interference. And you could just have the same number of planes on an airfield anyway.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm thinking that planes rendered battleships obsolete because of the vastly greater range and that there was little effective way to stop planes without other planes. As the planes will also happily take anything else out too, there's no point in 40,000+ tonnes of ship if it doesn't have planes. However, seeing as missiles are such a big thing now, there's something that the carriers' planes probably can't defend against. That leaves ship-borne anti-missile defences, and my guess is that beating them is just a case of throwing enough mud at the wall.

Apparently one of the big problems with anti-ship missiles is the limitation of identifying the target. If you're not worried that it might be a random civilian (which would be the case in a big war), you can engage from much further away.

(Another big problem being that they are expensive and nations don't usually buy many of them, so captains aren't always that keen to fire them at long range, but that wouldn't apply to big nations building their own weapons)