His post used to be slightly more subtle. Not anymore!
Russia great, Russia strong…mother Russia slip
America weak. On repeat.
Wonder why 
I look to see what Israel is doing in Gaza. No doubt that Hamas has gotten significantly stronger over the last few years, and the nay sayers believed Israel would suffer major losses should they be stupid enough to move into Gaza. What they fail to realize is that Israel has gotten disproportionately stronger and remains far superior in every respect. They are systematically dismantling Hamas with minimal losses.
Those who write off the US, do so at their own peril. While third world countries boisterously point to their advances, like Israel, the US is disproportionately advancing their arsenal as well. The difference is that they don’t advertise those advances.
The nay sayers latch onto third world propaganda and are proven wrong at every turn. They simply can’t help themselves, and they look silly in the process.
Just on the bolded part…
It is not the “inability” as you so stupidly claim, it is the lack of direction from Biden. If given the word, our Navy could level the launch sites within hours as they already know the locations.
RE: USS Cole, you ARE aware that the Navy has modified their rules for small vessels approaching a US Warship right??
I know for a FACT that what happened to the Cole will never happen again. My daughter is on a Arleigh Burke class DDG and she is ATTWO qualified to defend the ship. This is typically only given to Officers or Chief Petty Officers, my daughter is a 1st Class Petty Officer, I trust her word over your pathetic attempts to sound knowledgeable.
1 Like
The US has been fighting in Iraq and Syria more or less continuously since 2003, yet missiles are still coming in with more than 100 strikes since October 7.
At the same time, the US Navy is shooting down $2000 drones with $2,000,000 missiles.
I expect that the Ayatollahs may borrow a line from Lindsey Graham: “Best money we’ve ever spent”.
And your point is what??
Using a 2M dollar missile to shoot down a 2k drone to save a 2B dollar Destroyer…yea I WOULD say best money ever spent.
The US is likely to run out of expensive missiles long before Iran runs out of cheap drones to send to the Houthis. That means time is on the side of the Houthis.
US military procurement is based on making small amounts of very expensive, sophisticated weapons. That approach maximizes profits for the contractors, but it means the US is likely to lose a war of attrition.
Clueless! 
Totally, pretty sure I warned you not too long ago about the posting style.
Yes, that is an apt description of the US military policy.
Let’s put multibillion-dollar warships within range of $2000 drones so we have to use $2 million missiles shoot them down, and eventually we run out of missiles.
Like I’ve always said he’s comrade Düsseldorf, I our local neighborhood morale officer.
1 Like
You mean Zompolit, responsible for morale and correct thinking.
1 Like
Actually, you are once again demonstrating that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. 
At least 2 airborne multi-mission sensor systems are currently flying that have replaced J-Stars. I suspect some are being sent, if not already there, to our operating base in Djibouti. The players in Yemen don’t have an air force. And those systems can see way farther than those missiles and drones can engage. Commissar Bill needs to study order of battle data before commenting.
2 Likes
Explain why this statement is wrong:
Each U.S. destroyer carries an estimated 90 missiles (perhaps a few more). Their primary mission is to protect the U.S. aircraft carrier they are shielding. What happens when Yemen fires 100 drones/rockets/missiles at a U.S. carrier? The U.S. destroyer, or multiple destroyers will fire their missiles to defeat the threat. Great. Mission accomplished! Only one little problem, as described in the preceding quote — the U.S. Navy got rid of the ship tenders, i.e. those vessels capable of resupplying destroyers with new missiles to replace the expended rounds. In order to reload, that destroyer must sail to the nearest friendly port where the U.S. has stockpiled missiles for resupply.
The US Navy is Unprepared for a Prolonged War with Yemen - The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity
What you are leaving out is glaringly obvious. The moment Navy ships are targeted those launch sites are history. Do you honestly believe we do not know where the launch sites are? The moment they launch and it is determined our ships are the target (matter of a minute or two) tomahawks are launched from the Destroyers, air strikes launched from the carriers and launch sites no longer exist. Additionally, do you think there is only one single Destroyer in the strike group??
Every time you post you expose more and more your complete ignorance of the topic. You cherry pick quotes, articles, etc to what fits your delusional needs and completely ignore reality.
The Navy uses USNS vessels to provide underway replenishment now. They sling load munitions and supplies.at sea and they use cross dock operations also. Those destroyer tenders spoken of had to drop anchor and the destroyers pull up next to them at all stop to transfer supplies, including munitions, just like a port. Again, try speaking about something that you actually have knowledge of for a change.
2 Likes
If it were that easy, then the US should have ended the attacks on its bases in Iraq and Syria years ago.
The reality is that small drones can be launched from a large pickup truck. I assume that the truck can be safely away from the launch site by the time a US missile arrives, and the US is likely to run out of cruise missiles long before the Houthis run out of trucks.
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/168182/Iran-s-Army-tests-domestic-Kamikaze-drone-in-military-drill
Thanks for the explanation.
Is a stock of ~100 missiles on a warship in the right ballpark?
If so, large numbers of drones could quickly deplete the stock.
Command and control. That is the key. Take out those systems and any drones or rockets will never find their targets.
Firing rockets in the general direction of a land base, is a whole lot different than targeting a moving ship. The attacks on our land-based interest are for the most part ineffective, because they aren’t deadly accurate in their targeting and they can easily be blunted in their effectiveness.
Thus far the Red sea attacks are largely ineffective for many of the same reasons. They are scary to commercial shipping interests, and they do introduce an unacceptable element of risk for some. The coalition forces could quickly destroy command and control infrastructure at any time, should the attacks become more than just a nuisance.
1 Like
