How Bad Will it Get?

[TLK Valentine]

Trump cancels Iran nuclear deal. One of the best things he could do.

Right -- because Iran should have nukes in two years instead of ten.

Trump orders a drone attack on an American citizen. Hillary already tried that, and on a non citizen - they said no

Lock her up! Lock her up! sorry, you said the H-word.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that Trump fires people who say no to him.

Obamacare is repealed without a real replacement. Doubtful - but if so, the worst thing is that I could get better coverage again and at half the current costs

Obamacare's repeal is pretty much a given, as is the lack of replacement -- as for "the worst thing"... well, that's just adorable!

Trump orders a nuclear bomb attack. It's the hopes and dreams of many on the left, but will not happen.

The man has no knowledge of, and therefore, no respect for, nukes, so ordering it is a possibility... one can only hope that the soldiers follow their conscience.

At least half of the undocumented immigrants are ordered deported. The deportation of people who came into the country illegally is part of the laws currently on the books - they are laws just not enforced. And yet people have issue with enforcing the laws.

Ordering it is easy -- he'll probably order all them out -- getting it done is the trick.

The national deficit soars to over double the current deficit. Obama already did that

Have some faith in Trump's ability to make bad things worse. It can double again.

Trade wars occur, and international trade is reduced over 50%. fake news would have a hey day, but it's not based in reality.

We're talking about the future, not "fake news." save the buzzword for when it's applicable. Meanwhile, Trump's America First, Last, and Only policies certainly make this plausible.

The Dow loses over 50% of its value. Like the DOW was going to crash if Trump won the Presidency? Or it was going to crash after the inauguration?

This one I have to side with you on -- Trump's obviously the most business-friendly president we've ever had; he's certainly not going to do anything to sabotage his own interests.

Terrorist attacks rise significantly in America. Rise? the left doesn't recognize terrorist attacks - does that mean they will now?

They probably won't -- But of course, Trump will define anything against him as a Terrorist attack.

He's already used the Quebec Mosque attack -- perpetrated by a white Trump supporter -- as "evidence" of the need for his anti-Muslim policies.

Trump is impeached. The hopes and dreams of millions on the left.

A given, at this point. A conviction... place your bets. Considering that anyone in the GOP who's even willing to work with him would probably much rather work with "President" Pence...

 

[TLK Valentine]

He wants to fight WWII again. Technology and international realities are different now. We could not have smashed ISIS if we had depended on that technology.

The really crushing blows came in the form of small, precise special forces operations that decapitated their leadership, and in precise air strikes on their ground forces.

The last major tank battles took place when we invaded Iraq, and showed the vulnerability of armor in today's battlefield.

It's what I've said before -- previous wars were once fought with the chainsaw; today's wars require a scalpel.

 

[Aryeh]

How's that again?

Your prediction is about as concrete as the predictions of Nostradamus.

Good, because I am not prophecying. Did you notice the conditional statement(s)?

Prophets don't use conditions concerning judgment or events. People who don't know the future do that in opinion and presumed fact - like what I did.

And, it really isn't that vague - at all. It did its job as a contribution filter. The people who understand will respond, and those who don't will accuse, or complain about nebulousness.

The who could care less don't even reply.

 

[The Barbarian]

I was going to hit agree until this. But this is simply not true. What was shown was the vulnerability of 2nd generation armour to 3rd gen... but 3rd gen armour is where it's at.

(Barbarian checks)

I knew composite armor made it harder to kill tanks. The technology is still with armor, as opposed to whatever our potential enemies have to strike at it?

I read with some interest where a home-grown terrorist managed to make his own composite armor for a bulldozer rampage:
Marvin Heemeyer - Wikipedia

Apparently, it worked remarkably well, although a damaged radiator ultimately did him in.

 

[Armoured]

(Barbarian checks)

I knew composite armor made it harder to kill tanks. The technology is still with armor, as opposed to whatever our potential enemies have to strike at it?

I read with some interest where a home-grown terrorist managed to make his own composite armor for a bulldozer rampage:
Marvin Heemeyer - Wikipedia

Apparently, it worked remarkably well, although a damaged radiator ultimately did him in.

CHOBHAM armour is the armour used on Abrams, Challenger, and Merkava. IIRC, the only crewman to be killed in any of these vehicles in combat is a guy who had an LRP actually pass through him. It's really fantastically effective. Old style RPG 7s just bounce off

The current generation Russian tanks tend to favour reactive armour over spaced/composite, so getting a clear read on which is "better" is largely hypothetical, unless the Fulda Gap becomes a point of contention in the near future, (maybe I shouldn't have said anything). There are some next generation weapons designed to defeat advanced armour, things with double and even triple shaped charges to counter spacing and reactives, and ground hugging missiles that pop up over the target and have a side facing warhead to target the weaker armour on top. But this stuff is very advanced, and tends to only be found in the armouries of first order militaries, none of whom, luckily, we're likely to throw down with in the near future. Then there's silly airfarce toys like J-SOWs, but decent people don't talk about things like that.

My personal experience is with aggressive patrolling in ASLAV, which has old fashioned dumb steel armour, but it was sufficient for everything we had thrown at us. Wouldn't have liked to try our luck with a modern HEAT round or a decent size mine, but when we got hit by small arms and shrapnel, it sounded like rain on the hull, and was about as threatening.

The thing many people don't realise about armour is that survivability and effectiveness are as much about tactics and cooperation as it is hardware.

Sorry. Kind of my pet topic. I tend to ramble.

edit: I've heard of Heemeyer before. He sort of has an amateur anti-hero status in armoured circles. Amateur armoured vehicles are fun. There was an example on Bougainville of a repurposed bulldozer. It was used quite effectively, except for one small design error... they welded their plate steel armour over the fuel cap.

 

[The Barbarian]

I heard that the Germans were prepared to make an armored run through the Fulda gap very expensive, using reservists in the many small communities in the area, armed with hand-held anti-tank missiles.

Is that technology no longer effective?

 

[Belk]

CHOBHAM armour is the armour used on Abrams, Challenger, and Merkava. IIRC, the only crewman to be killed in any of these vehicles in combat is a guy who had an LRP actually pass through him. It's really fantastically effective. Old style RPG 7s just bounce off

The current generation Russian tanks tend to favour reactive armour over spaced/composite, so getting a clear read on which is "better" is largely hypothetical, unless the Fulda Gap becomes a point of contention in the near future, (maybe I shouldn't have said anything). There are some next generation weapons designed to defeat advanced armour, things with double and even triple shaped charges to counter spacing and reactives, and ground hugging missiles that pop up over the target and have a side facing warhead to target the weaker armour on top. But this stuff is very advanced, and tends to only be found in the armouries of first order militaries, none of whom, luckily, we're likely to throw down with in the near future. Then there's silly airfarce toys like J-SOWs, but decent people don't talk about things like that.

My personal experience is with aggressive patrolling in ASLAV, which has old fashioned dumb steel armour, but it was sufficient for everything we had thrown at us. Wouldn't have liked to try our luck with a modern HEAT round or a decent size mine, but when we got hit by small arms and shrapnel, it sounded like rain on the hull, and was about as threatening.

The thing many people don't realise about armour is that survivability and effectiveness are as much about tactics and cooperation as it is hardware.

Sorry. Kind of my pet topic. I tend to ramble.

edit: I've heard of Heemeyer before. He sort of has an amateur anti-hero status in armoured circles. Amateur armoured vehicles are fun. There was an example on Bougainville of a repurposed bulldozer. It was used quite effectively, except for one small design error... they welded their plate steel armour over the fuel cap.

Let's hope it doesn't since the 11th ACR moved out in 94 and is now OPFOR at Ft Irwin training center.

 

[Armoured]

I heard that the Germans were prepared to make an armored run through the Fulda gap very expensive, using reservists in the many small communities in the area, armed with hand-held anti-tank missiles.

Is that technology no longer effective?

The truth is, dumb hand held anti-armour weapons are extremely difficult to use. I have no doubt that had the 3rd Shock Army ever rolled through Fulda, the Reservists would have fought bravely, and laid down a staggering amount of fire. However, actually managing to hit anything with a 66 or 84 is as much down to dumb luck as anything. Guided weapons are a different proposition, but they tend not to make their way to reserve units.

Another thing many people don't realise, or think about, at least, is that anti-armour drills tend to be conducted on a range, shooting from a fixed position at a stationary target, that isn't shooting back, and more importantly, doesn't have friends watching him to see where the shot that takes him out came from.

Appreciate a lot of this is speculative, because it was never put into practice. The Western doctrine was to rely on it's technological and professional edge, Soviet doctrine was more about weight of numbers. It's hard to definitively decide a winner in a conventional set piece battle between Western and Soviet second generation technology.

Today? Like I mentioned, there ARE some very advanced weapons systems out there. However, the counterpoints to that is that the more technical a weapons system is, the more difficult it is to deploy effectively, and that any A-veh crew worth their salt will be making all possible use of screening and covering ground. Milan and Javelin would be devastating in a direct hit, but the have to be able to hit you. About half the work commanding an armoured vehicle is picking the best route. A good armoured troop moving across anything but the flattest terrain should be almost invisible from more than a few hundred metres, with everyone as close to hull down or even turret down regarding the axis of advance, and another thing people forget, armour travels in groups. If we were talking about one jeep load of anti-armour rocketeers against a single tank, that would be one thing, but tanks and other A-vehicles work in groups of 4 or 5 usually, for the express purpose of watching out for each other. It's much harder to put a kill shot into a tank when his mates are watching his back.

if you're interested, I have a declassed report on all this stuff

 

[Armoured]

Let's hope it doesn't since the 11th ACR moved out in 94 and is now OPFOR at Ft Irwin training center.

I was positing renewed buildup on both sides

 

[Armoured]

For anyone interested in the professional projections on how a full scale set piece in Central Europe would have played out
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000624298.pdf

 

[Belk]

I was positing renewed buildup on both sides

Gotcha.

 

[evoeth]

It's what I've said before -- previous wars were once fought with the chainsaw; today's wars require a scalpel.

Good thing DJT is known for his surgical tact!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Good thing DJT is known for his surgical tact!

Indeed -- surely the man who couldn't even get a Springsteen cover band at his inauguration (or much of anyone else, judging from the photographs) can deftly avoid conflict through shrewd and subtle negotiation...

 

[Ed1wolf]

If you were a betting men, which of the bets above would you place?

Oh, and have a happy new year, everyone.

Obama actually did no. 2 and he more than quadrupled the debt.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Obama actually did no. 2 and he more than quadrupled the debt.

No sir, he did not. The total debt doubled, yes. But this point was not about the total debt. It was about the annual deficit. And the annual federal deficit decreased dramatically under Obama.

 

[DaisyDay]

One would hope that this past election put down the hopes of dynasties for at least a few elections though.

Are you referring to Jeb?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Are you referring to Jeb?

I was referring to both parties.

Both the Clinton dynasty and the Bush dynasty were deemed unworthy.

 

[Rion]

We need a new option : the permanent state successfully overthrows a sitting president, ending the Republic as we know it, while ignorant partisans cheer.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was referring to both parties.

Both the Clinton dynasty and the Bush dynasty were deemed unworthy.

And history will tell us if that was a case of very good or very bad judgement.

One has to hope that Trump has no intention of forming his own dynasty... it's off to a lackluster start.

 

[NightHawkeye]

We need a new option : the permanent state successfully overthrows a sitting president, ending the Republic as we know it, while ignorant partisans cheer.

It wouldn't be the first time ...