The sooner our allies accept that America can no longer be trusted with global leadership, the better prepared they'll be for the turbulent times ahead.
You’re out of your mind, and seriously overestimating the defensive powers of a carrier and its screen. There is no way even several carrier groups could blockade just the Indian ocean for a few weeks, even if the only nation that fought back was China. Even if they managed to shoot down everything thrown at it, there is absolutely no chance any several carrier groups combined could stand up to the many thousands of ship killing cruise missiles and drones, let alone traditional aircraft and naval vessels, that China alone could toss at them. They simply do not have the ammunition onboard to support that kind of mission, and no way for supply ships to resupply them fast enough to beat attrition.
Which is why the US is currently refurbishing old bases in the western pacific, so that we might have that ability in the future. The US military is saying we don’t have the ability to fight an offensive war against China at this time, but what do they know? Obviously, some random person on Lemmy who has a hard-on for the US knows better, right?
I was willing to entertain your views before you resorted to ad-hominem attacks. I’m a former Captain of the USN that is still well respected. Looking at the data that I have had available to me, you are giving Russia and China far too much credit. We are done here.
No, an ad hominem is an argument that uses a personal attack to attempt to refute an opposing argument. So, if I say that your argument is invalid because you’re a bootlicker, that’s an ad hominem.
But if I say your argument is absurd, it has no merit whatsoever and it is nothing more than propagandist fantasy derived from nationalist zeal and a belief in American exceptionalism, and you’re deranged for believing in such lunacy, then that’s not an ad hominem.
Furthermore, there’s the Fallacy fallacy, which states that just because an argument is fallacious, that it doesn’t mean that it’s a bad argument. There are plenty of ad hominems that are good arguments. For example, saying that nothing that comes out of Trump’s mouth is worth listening to because he’s a nazi is technically an ad hominem. It’s also a good argument, because Trump is a nazi, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.
You’re out of your mind, and seriously overestimating the defensive powers of a carrier and its screen. There is no way even several carrier groups could blockade just the Indian ocean for a few weeks, even if the only nation that fought back was China. Even if they managed to shoot down everything thrown at it, there is absolutely no chance any several carrier groups combined could stand up to the many thousands of ship killing cruise missiles and drones, let alone traditional aircraft and naval vessels, that China alone could toss at them. They simply do not have the ammunition onboard to support that kind of mission, and no way for supply ships to resupply them fast enough to beat attrition.
Which is why the US is currently refurbishing old bases in the western pacific, so that we might have that ability in the future. The US military is saying we don’t have the ability to fight an offensive war against China at this time, but what do they know? Obviously, some random person on Lemmy who has a hard-on for the US knows better, right?
I was willing to entertain your views before you resorted to ad-hominem attacks. I’m a former Captain of the USN that is still well respected. Looking at the data that I have had available to me, you are giving Russia and China far too much credit. We are done here.
That’s not what an ad hominem is. You should learn what words mean before you use them.
No, an ad hominem is an argument that uses a personal attack to attempt to refute an opposing argument. So, if I say that your argument is invalid because you’re a bootlicker, that’s an ad hominem.
But if I say your argument is absurd, it has no merit whatsoever and it is nothing more than propagandist fantasy derived from nationalist zeal and a belief in American exceptionalism, and you’re deranged for believing in such lunacy, then that’s not an ad hominem.
Furthermore, there’s the Fallacy fallacy, which states that just because an argument is fallacious, that it doesn’t mean that it’s a bad argument. There are plenty of ad hominems that are good arguments. For example, saying that nothing that comes out of Trump’s mouth is worth listening to because he’s a nazi is technically an ad hominem. It’s also a good argument, because Trump is a nazi, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.