U.S. aircraft carrier sunk by French submarine

[GoranZ]

News that should not have been published...

http://theaviationist.com/2015/03/05/us ... k-by-subs/

Since everyone knows what most military strategist think about French military strength, I can conclude... If French can do it, everyone else can do it

[betiko]

Like a Fyr macedonian with a stick right?
You guys invented the stick yet? Sorry

[waauw]

Unfortunately submarines are one of Russia's most advanced weapontechnologies.

[Keefie]

Unfortunately submarines are one of Russia's most advanced weapontechnologies.

Except the ones that go down and don't come up again

[GoranZ]

Like a Fyr macedonian with a stick right?
You guys invented the stick yet? Sorry

I think I pierced you enough but if you like I can do it again

Unfortunately submarines are one of Russia's most advanced weapontechnologies.

Except the ones that go down and don't come up again

So the only way for Russian sub to be sunk is to have an accident... Good odds for the Russians

I think Germans demonstrated how to sunk British aircraft carrier on multiple occasions in WW2. But wait, British are safe, they have no Aircraft criers

[Keefie]

It won't be long mate

and she looks sweet.

[betiko]

It won't be long mate

and she looks sweet.

wow it looks cool indeed!

[waauw]

It won't be long mate

and she looks sweet.

aaah, another prime example of floating democracy

[betiko]

Unfortunately submarines are one of Russia's most advanced weapontechnologies.

fun facts. there are 6 countries with nuclear powered subs.

nuclear powered/nuclear weapon launcher subs:
-USA has 14 (1983-97)
-Russia has 11 (1980-11)
-France has 4 (1997-10)
-UK has 4 (1993-99)
-China has 4 (????)
-India has 1 (2009)

nuclear powered/cruiser missile launchers:
-Russia 13 (1980 to 2007)
-USA 4 (1980 to 83)

nuclear powered/ attack submarines:
-USA 55 (1981-13)
-Russia 17 (1984-09)
-France 6 (1983-93)
-UK 6 (1984-91)
-China 6 (1984-14)

Funny to see how the UK and france are basically a military copy paste of each other. We only have 1 aircraft carrier left (recent from the 200s, curently in the arabian gulf bombing daesh) the 2 older ones we had in the 80s are in the junkyard by now.

[betiko]

Like a Fyr macedonian with a stick right?
You guys invented the stick yet? Sorry

I think I pierced you enough but if you like I can do it again

you guys have row boats in your country? can you guys sail or is it too hard with your massive uni-eyebrows to see anything? You guys manage to gather food with your sticks? how does it work, you can only pick up berries but you've never tried the flesh of a squirrel?

[waauw]

Funny to see how the UK and france are basically a military copy paste of each other. We only have 1 aircraft carrier left (recent from the 200s, curently in the arabian gulf bombing daesh) the 2 older ones we had in the 80s are in the junkyard by now.

The EU should just work on 1 grand european army. All those fractured underequiped little armies are kind of embarassing.

[betiko]

Funny to see how the UK and france are basically a military copy paste of each other. We only have 1 aircraft carrier left (recent from the 200s, curently in the arabian gulf bombing daesh) the 2 older ones we had in the 80s are in the junkyard by now.

The EU should just work on 1 grand european army. All those fractured underequiped little armies are kind of embarassing.

well this way we are all independent and can take our own decisions or just make coalitions together. I think it's rather the US and russia that are over equiped. I think there's better things to do with our tax money than to over-finance military forces.

[mrswdk]

I think it's rather the US and russia that are over equiped. I think there's better things to do with our tax money than to over-finance military forces.

Your military forces are hardly 'over-financed' if they are still significantly smaller than your nearest regional rival's military forces.

[2dimes]

This reminds me of banging SI swimsuit models in a simulated exercise I participated in in the 1990s.

[betiko]

I think it's rather the US and russia that are over equiped. I think there's better things to do with our tax money than to over-finance military forces.

Your military forces are hardly 'over-financed' if they are still significantly smaller than your nearest regional rival's military forces.

who is that regional rival? UK? I'm pretty sure they are just o par in every corpse. France has been cutting budget from the military year after year for decades now, and it's a good thing. there are other priorities, such as education, justice, social security... i'd rather see that money go to the police too. What do you need a big ass army for.... if you start stacking military weapons just to be on par with X or Y that is just plain stupid as you are encouraging an amrs race that makes no sense in today's geopolitics.

[mrswdk]

How is a maintaining a sufficiently large army irrelevant in today's European geopolitics? As far as I was aware Russia is currently arming a small revolution in Ukraine and in the face of EU objections has been sending submarines, warships and bombers to go and rattle the cages of countries such as Sweden and the UK.

If Europe doesn't take its neighbors seriously then it's going to end up in a situation where European countries have all cut their militaries down to worthless levels* and their only hope in a crisis is that someone like America rolls in and saves the day. That's a pretty poor hand to be playing when you go to the negotiating table.

*which, to be honest, most of them already have anyway

[waauw]

I think it's rather the US and russia that are over equiped. I think there's better things to do with our tax money than to over-finance military forces.

Your military forces are hardly 'over-financed' if they are still significantly smaller than your nearest regional rival's military forces.

who is that regional rival? UK? I'm pretty sure they are just o par in every corpse. France has been cutting budget from the military year after year for decades now, and it's a good thing. there are other priorities, such as education, justice, social security... i'd rather see that money go to the police too. What do you need a big ass army for.... if you start stacking military weapons just to be on par with X or Y that is just plain stupid as you are encouraging an amrs race that makes no sense in today's geopolitics.

The only reason a small military has been advantageous for so long is because there was a US hegemony with nobody to contend. That is rapidly changing and its fall is inevitable. Europe shold hold a grand army, not for the purposes of war, but to withold others from considering war. It is the balance of power that maintains peace. Historically imbalances led to wars or to willful submissions.

Europe should prepare for a future whithout the US to aid us so vastly.

[Dukasaur]

I think it's rather the US and russia that are over equiped. I think there's better things to do with our tax money than to over-finance military forces.

Your military forces are hardly 'over-financed' if they are still significantly smaller than your nearest regional rival's military forces.

who is that regional rival? UK? I'm pretty sure they are just o par in every corpse. France has been cutting budget from the military year after year for decades now, and it's a good thing. there are other priorities, such as education, justice, social security... i'd rather see that money go to the police too. What do you need a big ass army for.... if you start stacking military weapons just to be on par with X or Y that is just plain stupid as you are encouraging an amrs race that makes no sense in today's geopolitics.

The only reason a small military has been advantageous for so long is because there was a US hegemony with nobody to contend. That is rapidly changing and its fall is inevitable. Europe shold hold a grand army, not for the purposes of war, but to withold others from considering war. It is the balance of power that maintains peace. Historically imbalances led to wars or to willful submissions.

Europe should prepare for a future whithout the US to aid us so vastly.

+1

[Keefie]

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

George Washington

[betiko]

well for the time being we can always count on the US's help in global conflicts. And let's face it... throughout history, the real threat to european nations were european nations themselves. I don't see anything happening between us ever again, we've all learned our lesson.
Concerning Russia... to be honnest, this isn't like a real cold war situation or anything. We don't agree with the way they handle stuff but this is still dealt with at a diplomatic level. It involves third parties, it's not direct conflict and I don't see this ever happening. Russia is not a direct threat, and they are allies in many ways. we just have our disagreements for the time being.

If one thing we should all invest on... secret services, information and counter information, cyber attacks and all that crap. let's keep the wars digital.

by the way... anyone has watched house of cards season 3? Lars Mikkelsen plays the russian president (obviously Putin although they changed the name). he's just awesome in it.

[waauw]

well for the time being we can always count on the US's help in global conflicts. And let's face it... throughout history, the real threat to european nations were european nations themselves. I don't see anything happening between us ever again, we've all learned our lesson.

Well that's actually the problem. It takes time ro prepare for when that 'time being' is over. And it is always better to be ready too early rather than too late.

And Russia isn't the only danger for europe, there is a growing movement within turkey for islamist politics and with it neo-ottomanism. Let's not forget there is still hatred between turks and greeks over domestic waters, islands and Cyprus.

[Dukasaur]

well for the time being we can always count on the US's help in global conflicts.

Are you so sure of that? It was with a considerable amount of difficulty that the U.S. was persuaded to intervene in WW I and WW II, and in both cases American liberation came only after Europe was already smashed to pieces.

This was what France looked like in 1917:

show: credit

This is what Poland looked like in 1944:

show: credit

Do not be so sure that American help will come next time. And if it does come, it may arrive only after Europe again looks like the pictures above.

throughout history, the real threat to european nations were european nations themselves. I don't see anything happening between us ever again, we've all learned our lesson.

No. European nations fight amongst themselves, of course, but with the sole exception of the Thirty Years War, none of the strictly internal wars ever threatened the basic underlying fabric of European civilization. The really great threats, the ones that may have extinguished our way of life, have always come from the East. Genghis, Tamurlane, Attila, Suleiman, Xerxes even, these were the big threats.

Concerning Russia... to be honnest, this isn't like a real cold war situation or anything. We don't agree with the way they handle stuff but this is still dealt with at a diplomatic level. It involves third parties, it's not direct conflict and I don't see this ever happening. Russia is not a direct threat, and they are allies in many ways. we just have our disagreements for the time being.

Well, this is partially true. Russia is a part of Europe, and it is better for the rest of Europe to let Russia sit at the table than to treat it like an enemy. However, good relationships are based on mutual respect. Alexander I dealt with Castlereagh and Talleyrand with a sense of hard-won respect for their power. There is no reason for Putin to respect the West. He knows that, short of American intervention, the Russian army would have a picnic driving from the Baltic to the Bay of Biscay. It doesn't bode well for negotiations if one party knows he could beat the shit out of all the others.

[betiko]

I just don t see any possibilty to ever witness a war against other nations on western country soil in the next century. People have been working hard for peace after ww2.
The only real threat are crazy fundamentalists. Perhaps we ll witness some hard core shit in the next few years that will make september 11 look like a joke.
But nation to nation? I trust that all major powers are ruled by cynics but not mad men. Diplomacy and economical threats will always prevail. The brits and french still have a powerful army, if anyone needs to get stronger it s the germans. No one fears the germans anymore in europe.
Their economy is in much better shape. They are the economical leader, they should be the major military power of europe.

[patches70]

I just don t see any possibilty to ever witness a war against other nations on western country soil in the next century. People have been working hard for peace after ww2.
The only real threat are crazy fundamentalists. Perhaps we ll witness some hard core shit in the next few years that will make september 11 look like a joke.
But nation to nation? I trust that all major powers are ruled by cynics but not mad men. Diplomacy and economical threats will always prevail. The brits and french still have a powerful army, if anyone needs to get stronger it s the germans. No one fears the germans anymore in europe.
Their economy is in much better shape. They are the economical leader, they should be the major military power of europe.

Sheesh, Germany needs to get more powerful? They are the third most powerful nation militarily in Europe right behind England and France. In gross terms the three are about equal. For instance, Germany has more active military personnel than England and only 21,000 fewer troops than France. France and England outpower Germany in aircraft but air power is the only category that Germany lags behind the other two. They all have virtually the same number of tanks. Germany even has more naval power than England. England only has 66 active naval units where as Germany has 81. Germany also beats both France and England in terms of number of citizens who are fit for active duty by 6 million+ over England and 8 million+ over France. Not only could Germany hold her own against any European nation, she could quickly turn it around and kick the shit out of either France or England in a stand up one on one fight.

Lots of good info here on military power in the world as of 2015-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 7j6Xfze3Ww

I trust that all major powers are ruled by cynics but not mad men.

Your trust is misplaced. Sociopaths gravitate toward politics, it's one of the most desired jobs by sociopaths. There is a greater than 50/50 chance that any given politicians is a sociopath and most world leaders have at a minimum many sociopathic tendencies if not outright sociopaths proper.

Diplomacy and economical threats will always prevail.

And that's not even remotely true.
Economic threats are acts of war. The US as the holder of the world reserve currency has shown how badly that power can be misused. The US instead of viewing such power as a privilege and a responsibility instead uses it as a weapon. Our use of this power of being the sole issuer of the world reserve currency can be traced to virtually every modern conflict since 1948. Economic threats often turn into shooting wars because nations get hemmed into a corner and have no other choice. See Japan in the 1930's for instance.

Their economy is in much better shape. They are the economical leader, they should be the major military power of europe.

Oh I agree with you here, and Germany already is a powerhouse in terms of European military power. The thing I'd point out is that the European powers have no ability to project power without the help of the US. That shit has to end. The EU is as big as the US is. It's well past time that Europe stands up on her own feet without relying on the US to project the power needed to secure European interests. Libya for instance, had not a damn thing to do with the US. It was in Europe's interest to intervene in Libya but Europe couldn't project the power needed without the US getting involved. Now look at the mess there, the US should never have had to dirty her hands in that debacle.

You poor Europeans, you have no idea. Machiavelli spelled it out all so long ago. A nation isn't a nation if it can't defend itself on it's own merits and power. Europe is dependent on the US for protection, thus, Europe is not in charge of her own destiny. You may think you are, you may trick yourself into believing you are, but in reality you have no choice but to ultimately do what the US tells you to do. That ain't freedom, man. History is replete with example after example of nations, kingdoms and civilizations who relied on someone else and ended up regretting the misjudgment.

Europe should be strong enough to beat back at a minimum the Russians without need of the US having to get involved. Russia wouldn't have a chance of beating the US in a conventional war, that is Russia could never take over the US and occupy her militarily. And the US doesn't need any help at all from Europe in this regard. The same cannot be said of the Europeans though. Russia would roll right through Europe if it weren't for the fact that the US would get into the fight and beat the Russians back. Until the day comes when Europe can stand on her own without help from anyone else, she'll always just be a satellite of the US.

Europe is our bitch and she fetches when we say fetch because you are too weak to even defend yourselves against a real enemy and lack the power to take the fight to your enemies if ever the need arises.


You are also short sighted in your belief that strong economic ties keep the peace. It certainly helps but there is a small problem. Europeans are good at cutting each other's throats, always have been, always will be. So in the good times and even mediocre times, those economic bonds are probably good enough to stave off major conflicts between European powers. The problem is, you are deluding yourself that the economic status quo will never change. Those economic ties that bind are also the rope that will hang you if a thing such a major currency collapse, major depression and other such economic events. It is not a question of if such things will happen, but it is a question of when those events will happen. There is absolutely no logical basis in believing that currencies can't collapse completely or economies can't die sudden deaths, because those events always happen eventually. Europe isn't even a hundred years out from her last major conflict, but enough time has passed to delude yourselves into thinking what happened before (over and over and over and over again) won't ever happen again.

It will. It's just a question of when and what will trigger the shift in paradigm.

[mrswdk]

The only real threat are crazy fundamentalists. Perhaps we ll witness some hard core shit in the next few years that will make september 11 look like a joke.
But nation to nation? I trust that all major powers are ruled by cynics but not mad men. Diplomacy and economical threats will always prevail.

Prior to WWI everyone said Europe would never go to war because European countries were too economically inter-dependent. Then prior to WW2 people said Europe would not descend into total war because Hitler was too much of a pragmatist for that.