Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[Bacle]

There's the thing. All your politicians did business with China or did business with corporations that moved into China. The reports your FBI and Homeland Security made public showed a large number of politicians on both parties with funds that eventually led to known and many unknown CCP owned shell companies or agents.

Singling out a single candidate and scapegoating them for something everyone in your government was encouraged to do as part of the democratization efforts in China is dirty pool amigo. It's also highly transparent attempt to shift blame to individuals rather than taking responsibility for what both parties did in concert. Welcome to Soviet politics America. Now you can fuck yourselves over while appearing united publicly. Except you guys forgot the appearance of unity part of the plan.

Your government believed until Xi's second term that you could destroy Communism in China through free enterprise. What did Xi do? He broke his promises and started aggressive expansion and regression to Mao era policies. China is now closed. And yet Wallstreet is now funneling money into bailing out China's crumbling economy once again.

I hope Putin loses bad and Russia fractures. I'd rather deal with the 100 ethnic nations than one gigantic asshole Russia. Although for that to work China has to be broken as well. Or they'd move into those successor states.

You assume I have a problem with rooting out all those with backroom CCP links that they shouldn't have, regardless of party, or approve of the elites in DC's uniparty selling the future of the US youth out to the CCP.

Biden is just particularly bad because of the way the CCP and friends have funneled bribes into large parts of his family, and facilitated a lot of Hunter Biden's excesses/crimes.

Trying to open the CCP up in the first place was a mistake; we should have listened to MacArthur and hit the CCP while we still had nukes and they didn't. Just like we should have listened to Patton about Russia.

Edit: Also, the Biden have acted as effective CCP intel agents, and we just got more evidence.

Hunter Biden used FBI mole named ‘One-Eye’ to tip him off to China probes: tipster

Hunter Biden had an FBI mole named “One-Eye” who tipped off his Chinese business partners that they were under investigation, according to an Israeli energy expert arrested in Cyprus last month on …

nypost.com

 

[AmosTrask]

You assume I have a problem with rooting out all those with backroom CCP links that they shouldn't have, regardless of party, or approve of the elites in DC's uniparty selling the future of the US youth out to the CCP.

Biden is just particularly bad because of the way the CCP and friends have funneled bribes into large parts of his family, and facilitated a lot of Hunter Biden's excesses/crimes.

Trying to open the CCP up in the first place was a mistake; we should have listened to MacArthur and hit the CCP while we still had nukes and they didn't. Just like we should have listened to Patton about Russia.

Edit: Also, the Biden have acted as effective CCP intel agents, and we just got more evidence.

Hunter Biden used FBI mole named ‘One-Eye’ to tip him off to China probes: tipster

Hunter Biden had an FBI mole named “One-Eye” who tipped off his Chinese business partners that they were under investigation, according to an Israeli energy expert arrested in Cyprus last month on …

nypost.com

Amigo. I'm Pinoy. MacArthur is a hero back home along with the soldiers of his old unit. The old folks all hoped you Americans would listen to MacArthur as well. The way they fucked MacArthur over was a black mark against the American government in our eyes.

I'll take the Times with a shovel of salt and wait for an official announcement from the investigation. This is the same papers that praised Xi and encourages investment in China.

 

[Bacle]

Amigo. I'm Pinoy. MacArthur is a hero back home along with the soldiers of his old unit. The old folks all hoped you Americans would listen to MacArthur as well. The way they fucked MacArthur over was a black mark against the American government in our eyes.

Well, fair enough, you folks would definitely understand what MacArthur was about and the fact that the way the US gov treated him is a black mark against it is a good thing, it means some people are not blind to how close we came to ending the threat of the CCP back in Korea.

 

[Typhonis]

The problem with nuking China was...we had nothing to fight with. From 1945 to 1950 Truman did fuck all to help the US Army. It was all Airforce and nukes. We were pulling m-4 Shermans from museums and off monuments to send to Korea. We had m-1 Garands that were Redlined being used in the conflict. We were using BARS and m1919 machine guns fer crying out loud.

A limited war in Korea benefited us.

 

[AmosTrask]

Well, fair enough, you folks would definitely understand what MacArthur was about and the fact that the way the US gov treated him is a black mark against it is a good thing, it means some people are not blind to how close we came to ending the threat of the CCP back in Korea.

You fell to the Chinese and Soviet bluff. It looked like a solid front but internally the Soviets and CCP were fighting over borders and who would be the senior partner in their little club. Mao considered Stalin an illiterate, backwoods, peasant hick. And Stalin considered Mao an upjumped Asian dictator with delusions.

Mao's opinions were hilarious because that is exactly what he himself was and hated his enemies bringing his peasant background up.

Stalin is hilarious because he is from the Asian side of Rusdia and an umjumped Asian dictator with delusions.

Unfortunately according to the records at the same time the US was not capable of supporting a war. Your industry was not ready for war unless you wanted WW2 equipment.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Dude, no one wants to genocide you, Russia has plenty of leibensraum and there is nothing they want from Polish territory.

How naive do you think people are? Russia has wanted to conquer Poland since the late Middle Ages and has literally not been willing to leave Poland in peace at any point in the centuries since then.

Just last month, Medvedev was openly declaring that Russia's goal in the present war is "To push back the borders that threaten our country as far as possible, even if they are the borders of Poland."

 

[Marduk]

The problem with nuking China was...we had nothing to fight with. From 1945 to 1950 Truman did fuck all to help the US Army. It was all Airforce and nukes. We were pulling m-4 Shermans from museums and off monuments to send to Korea. We had m-1 Garands that were Redlined being used in the conflict. We were using BARS and m1919 machine guns fer crying out loud.

A limited war in Korea benefited us.

TBH there wasn't much better equipment for early 1950's than late WW2 equipment. It's not like North Korea had anything better. IDF used this stuff for much longer.
FFS you have various WW2 rifles and machineguns being used in Ukraine now, that's how slow and gradual firearms tech progress is, and US military itself is still using M2's.

 

[Zachowon]

Thr M26 and the E8 Sherman's were more then enough for Korea.

 

[Agent23]

How naive do you think people are? Russia has wanted to conquer Poland since the late Middle Ages and has literally not been willing to leave Poland in peace at any point in the centuries since then.

Just last month, Medvedev was openly declaring that Russia's goal in the present war is "To push back the borders that threaten our country as far as possible, even if they are the borders of Poland."

Oh, boy, this again..

Well, it is not like the Poles weren't trying to conquer parts of Kievan Rus and it's successor states and Russia proper whenever they got the chance or anything.

So, are the Germans and British still trying to conquer the French?

Are the French trying to take over Italy and are the British attempting to subjugate Ireland and:
<Insert long list of Englander climate refugees running amok here>

Now, do you mond not dodging my question and telling me how Russia's interests would be served by taking or trying to take Poland?

What resources would they gain vs. the problems they will have, namely dealing with the Polish people and military who will show their displeasure in a variety of ways?

 

[Agent23]

TBH there wasn't much better equipment for early 1950's than late WW2 equipment. It's not like North Korea had anything better. IDF used this stuff for much longer.
FFS you have various WW2 rifles and machineguns being used in Ukraine now, that's how slow and gradual firearms tech progress is, and US military itself is still using M2's.

Yeah, we really haven't developed much in the field of small arms since the first assault rifles were developed in WWI.

In some fields, like explosive bullets we are even prohibited from developing due to various conventions.

And it figures thet all of the massive investment in better weapons during the war would not be marched in 5-6 years of peace.

 

[Jormungandr]

Yeah, we really haven't developed much in the field of small arms since the first assault rifles were developed in WWI.

In some fields, like explosive bullets we are even prohibited from developing due to various conventions.

And it figures thet all of the massive investment in better weapons during the war would not be marched in 5-6 years of peace.

That's slowly changing, though -- an attempt in the 00's was the Metal Storm system (electric charge propelling a fuck ton of metal at ludicrous speeds), but they couldn't work out the design flaws.

Another more recent attempt is creating hand-held coilguns -- you can buy the (relatively crappy) examples now, but they're like the muskets of coilguns.

There are also shotguns that use shells with a solid propellant than gunpowder and a hammer (I think they use an electric charge).

GIve it another twenty years and I think we'll start seeing more results. But until then and since late WW1? Yeah, you're right -- firearms have been refined but they haven't changed much at their core.

I mean, the US still uses pistol designs and heavy machine guns that are over a century old now.

 

[Agent23]

That's slowly changing, though -- an attempt in the 00's was the Metal Storm system (electric charge propelling a fuck ton of metal at ludicrous speeds), but they couldn't work out the design flaws.

Yeah, same with the H&K caseless G11

Another more recent attempt is creating hand-held coilguns -- you can buy the (relatively crappy) examples now, but they're like the muskets of coilguns.

There are also shotguns that use shells with a solid propellant than gunpowder and a hammer (I think they use an electric charge).

GIve it another twenty years and I think we'll start seeing more results. But until then and since late WW1? Yeah, you're right -- firearms have been refined but they haven't changed much at their core.

I mean, the US still uses pistol designs and heavy machine guns that are over a century old now.

Dunno, we might need to see much more powerful energy sources to have any type of feasible coilgun.

Maybe something like a bolter firing mini rockets would work better, but that poses other problems.

Like ignition and making sure the ammo does not go boom in the chamber.

 

[mrttao]

Maybe something like a bolter firing mini rockets would work better, but that poses other problems.

bolters are stupidly impractical.

they waste a bunch of energy on accelerating an acceleration mechanism (the rocket fuel and nozzles)

while a normal bullet uses up all its fuel at the moment of firing to only accelerate the payload and nothing else.

coilguns try to use the entire gun to accelerate the bullet. so that one has some feasibility.
but suffers from practicality issues. each bullet is self contained combo of payload and fuel.

While a coilgun needs two magazines, one for the payload and one for the fuel. We don't have an easy efficient way to store electricity or convert fuel into electricity on the spot (compared to black powder that is).
even if we did have one, it would still be clunky to keep the fuel and payload as seperate magazines.

 

[Agent23]

bolters are stupidly impractical.

they waste a bunch of energy on accelerating an acceleration mechanism (the rocket fuel and nozzles)

while a normal bullet uses up all its fuel at the moment of firing to only accelerate the payload and nothing else.

coilguns try to use the entire gun to accelerate the bullet. so that one has some feasibility.
but suffers from practicality issues. each bullet is self contained combo of payload and fuel.

While a coilgun needs two magazines, one for the payload and one for the fuel. We don't have an easy efficient way to store electricity or convert fuel into electricity on the spot (compared to black powder that is).
even if we did have one, it would still be clunky to keep the fuel and payload as seperate magazines.

Well a mini-rocket might produce more damage once it hits max speed.

And the fuel will be a solid, rether than a liquid.

 

[mrttao]

Well a mini-rocket might produce more damage once it hits max speed.

And the fuel will be a solid, rether than a liquid.

1. solid or liquid is irrelevant. it is still fuel.

2. My whole point is that it won't.
X > X - Y
by wasting acceleration on fuel. you are getting a slower result.

3. KE=M*V*V
your mini-rocket needs to be faster or have more mass to deal more damage. And realistically it will be neither.

 

[Blasterbot]

Well a mini-rocket might produce more damage once it hits max speed.

And the fuel will be a solid, rether than a liquid.

it would probably be more about the payload then the speed.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Bolters "work" because they deliver explosive or incendiary payloads. Those are not allowed at the moment.

 

[mrttao]

Bolters "work" because they deliver explosive or incendiary payloads. Those are not allowed at the moment.

In that regards. they are competing with this

List of 40 mm grenades - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Grenade launcher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

size is similar too. (bolters are 28mm. which is a little smaller. but still huge)

1.1-inch/75-caliber gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Megadeath]

Oh, boy, this again..

Well, it is not like the Poles weren't trying to conquer parts of Kievan Rus and it's successor states and Russia proper whenever they got the chance or anything.

So, are the Germans and British still trying to conquer the French?

Are the French trying to take over Italy and are the British attempting to subjugate Ireland and:
<Insert long list of Englander climate refugees running amok here>

Now, do you mond not dodging my question and telling me how Russia's interests would be served by taking or trying to take Poland?

What resources would they gain vs. the problems they will have, namely dealing with the Polish people and military who will show their displeasure in a variety of ways?

Didn't you say much the same thing about them invading Ukraine?

 

[AmosTrask]

Didn't you say much the same thing about them invading Ukraine?

He did. First Crimea, then the self proclaimed Republic puppet provinces, then Ukraine as a whole. Now Poland. The man is a Vatnik, Putin loving Turk. I've long since learned to ignore his craziness. Never you mind that both Putin and Medvedev have proclaimed multiple times that Germany was and should be Russian again. Nor the multiple state sponsored slogans proclaiming a Great Patriotic War all the way to London and Washington D.C.