America Where Are Your Won Tons?

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,692
Reaction score
12,344
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,747
Reaction score
1,540
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
View attachment 337660

If it goes that far we're all screwed.

*****SMILE*****


:)
That was one of the most requested songs on AFRTS. If you don't know that station, you had to be there. I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 attacked the Saigon Palace with a Red Star painted on it.
That was the "Good Morning Saigon" station?? The one that Robin Williams got fired from? JKidding..
It's okay to kid about it. Yes, "Good Morning Vietnam" was loosely based on a real person and it used a real Radio Station that we were all tuned into.

Here is something I listened to every night. It was surprising that years later, I was driving just outside Chicago and a news reporter was reporting the news. It was Chickenman doing the news. Not as Chickenman but as himself. He went on as chickenman from about 1967 to 1969 but the AFRTS replayed his clips until the early 80s. I first heard him in 1969 on my first tour. Funny how we remember the silliest things that made a terrible situation bearable.


Here is a piece of history. Hope you recognize the announcer.
 
OP
Jake Winker Frogen

Jake Winker Frogen

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
449
Reaction score
232
Points
158
Not wise idea to ignore the real warriors.

Better learn Mandarin now.
 

Mushroom

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
834
Reaction score
171
Points
78
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
It's okay to kid about it. Yes, "Good Morning Vietnam" was loosely based on a real person and it used a real Radio Station that we were all tuned into.

Here is something I listened to every night. It was surprising that years later, I was driving just outside Chicago and a news reporter was reporting the news. It was Chickenman doing the news. Not as Chickenman but as himself. He went on as chickenman from about 1967 to 1969 but the AFRTS replayed his clips until the early 80s. I first heard him in 1969 on my first tour. Funny how we remember the silliest things that made a terrible situation bearable.
Adrian Crounauer himself said that the movie was loosely based on a TV pilot he once made, that had almost nothing to do with how he was in Vietnam. I remember an interview of him, and like Pappy Boeington, he said if he had done just a fraction of the things "he" did in the movie, he would have been in the brig.

He also said he did not invent the "Goodmorning Vietnam" phrase, it was already in use when he got there, he only used it daily as opposed to occasionally. He was simply the first to try and bring a style which later became known as "morning zoo" to AFN. Already gaining popularity in the US since the early 1960's, which was different from the style which still pervades AFN to this day. Even a decade ago, AFRTS had the most boring hosts imaginable.

Another one to use that phrase when he was on AFN Vietnam was future Wheel of Fortune star Pat Sajak. I read at least one book years ago where the forward was to Sajak, as he was the DJ the author experienced when he was over there.
 

Mushroom

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
834
Reaction score
171
Points
78
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Not wise idea to ignore the real warriors.

Better learn Mandarin now.
*laugh*

This coming from somebody that believes an idiotic article that thinks the Navy uses "tankers" to refuel their aircraft in flight.

Here is a clue. The "real warriors" actually know something about how the military operates. They do not just make things up then dish it out to the idiots that will believe anything they say without any knowledge or thought.

But please tell us about your vast experience as "a real warrior". And playing CoD does not count.
 

Mushroom

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
834
Reaction score
171
Points
78
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
For a laugh, I decided to read through this pile of nonsense.

First off, realize it is an opinion piece. Therefore, it is not "news", it is the opinion of somebody, nothing else.

To begin with, the writer of this is primarily a writer of spy novels.

THen let's fast forward to a paragraph I already discussed:

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.
I already discussed the fact that the Navy does not use "tankers". They use other fighters with "buddy tanks". And he also talked about China attacking Japan. Well my friends, that is no longer a war. That has instantly turned it into WWIII, as most of the world will jump in on the side of the US. And unprovoked attack upon Japan will surely bring in the UK and most of NATO, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Russia would likely remain neutral, but depending on the severity of a Chinese attack they might well join the US. They would have nothing to gain and everything to loose if China was to win such a conflict.

And launching ballistic missiles at Guam is one of the fastest ways to guarantee that such a conflict went nuclear right away. There is no way to tell if an ICBM approaching a US island was conventional or nuclear, and we might very well have a nuclear response even if the missile is conventional.

And exactly what missiles would they use against Guam? The only 2 IRBM missiles they had with that range was the DF-25 (cancelled in 1996), and the DF-26. They are primarily believed to be nuclear, but also capable of lofting a conventional payload of around 1 ton. They have 16 launchers, and around 100 missiles.

Yea, that is all that they have that can reach Guam. So unless they are launching nukes, that will hardly "inundate" Guam. Especially considering they will have to split those missiles between both Guam and Japan.

And really, take out all of our satellites? All of them? Even those that are not over their country? Considering a lot of birds the US uses are not even owned by the US that is only going to bring in more countries. Some of the major communication birds in that area of the world are actually owned by India. I do not think they will be happy with China shooting them down.

And the US also uses the Russian GPS system. So is China going to shoot those down also? That is almost guaranteed to cause Russia to jump in against China. But somehow they are magically going to shoot all of them down, leaving us "deaf, dumb and blind".

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them.
Uhhh, radio will still work, or are they going to magically stop that also? Troposophere communication? Are all of our subs going to suddenly vanish? Our AWAC birds? Sources on the ground? Are they going to somehow completely knock out our terrestrial based radio relation systems?

Does this moron writing this and the original author actually think we only communicate through satellites? That none of the other 100+ years of communication systems are not also still used? That China can snap its fingers, all communication birds die, and we are reduced to using smoke signals?

China’s military isn’t focused on projecting power, as ours is, but instead on preventing U.S. domination. Rather than match our fleets of carriers and squadrons of jets around the world, Beijing developed precision weapons to prevent the United States from mobilizing these forces. An example is the DF-21, the world’s first ballistic anti-ship missile, which Brose says is known as “the carrier killer.”
Ahh, I was waiting for this. The DF-21D is the correct name, the DF-21 alone is a nuclear missile. The DF-21D is an untested weapon, which by their own admittance will require technologies that require satellites, and unknown technology that most believe does not exist (like precise over the horizon RADAR able to detect targets at over 2,000km with accuracy of less than 50 meters). It is a fantasy, and is a leap, considering we can also use Chinese GPS (which this system requires). So unless they shoot down their own GPS birds, we will still have GPS. If they shoot their own down, this system never works.

These are just some of the huge logic flaws in this piece of garbage. In almost every paragraph I am finding real gems. Like the next one.

Brose argues that it’s time for a radical rethink. Rather than building weapons for an outmoded strategy of projecting power, we should instead be arming ourselves in an effort to “deny China military dominance.” That means many cheap, autonomous weapons at the edge of the perimeter, rather than a few exquisite ones that are vulnerable to attack.
Ohhh, he is a drone lover. The only problem is, even Russia and Iran have proven their ability to interdict and neutralize our drones. Does anybody think that China does not have this capability also? Especially since he also claimed that China will knock out all our satellites.

A system of communication that our drones require! So here is an even bigger logic problem. He wants us to dump manned aircraft (which do not rely on satellites), and instead use drones. A technology that requires satellites, which he claims China will knock out immediately.

Does anybody else see the problem here?

No, this entire "editorial" is pure garbage. And the Post should be embarrassed for even publishing it, and reconsidering the employment of the monkey that wrote it. The logic flaws in it are huge, an almost complete misunderstanding of how any systems work, and the capabilities of China. This is why I tell everybody to think about something before they post it, and do not just suck up all they read with a straw. In this case, the OP appears to have sucked up sewer water.
 
Last edited:

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,747
Reaction score
1,540
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Not wise idea to ignore the real warriors.

Better learn Mandarin now.
*laugh*

This coming from somebody that believes an idiotic article that thinks the Navy uses "tankers" to refuel their aircraft in flight.

Here is a clue. The "real warriors" actually know something about how the military operates. They do not just make things up then dish it out to the idiots that will believe anything they say without any knowledge or thought.

But please tell us about your vast experience as "a real warrior". And playing CoD does not count.
The Navy does use tankers but it's special equipped F-18s with lots of drop tanks and a drogue.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,747
Reaction score
1,540
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
For a laugh, I decided to read through this pile of nonsense.

First off, realize it is an opinion piece. Therefore, it is not "news", it is the opinion of somebody, nothing else.

To begin with, the writer of this is primarily a writer of spy novels.

THen let's fast forward to a paragraph I already discussed:

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.
I already discussed the fact that the Navy does not use "tankers". They use other fighters with "buddy tanks". And he also talked about China attacking Japan. Well my friends, that is no longer a war. That has instantly turned it into WWIII, as most of the world will jump in on the side of the US. And unprovoked attack upon Japan will surely bring in the UK and most of NATO, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Russia would likely remain neutral, but depending on the severity of a Chinese attack they might well join the US. They would have nothing to gain and everything to loose if China was to win such a conflict.

And launching ballistic missiles at Guam is one of the fastest ways to guarantee that such a conflict went nuclear right away. There is no way to tell if an ICBM approaching a US island was conventional or nuclear, and we might very well have a nuclear response even if the missile is conventional.

And exactly what missiles would they use against Guam? The only 2 IRBM missiles they had with that range was the DF-25 (cancelled in 1996), and the DF-26. They are primarily believed to be nuclear, but also capable of lofting a conventional payload of around 1 ton. They have 16 launchers, and around 100 missiles.

Yea, that is all that they have that can reach Guam. So unless they are launching nukes, that will hardly "inundate" Guam. Especially considering they will have to split those missiles between both Guam and Japan.

And really, take out all of our satellites? All of them? Even those that are not over their country? Considering a lot of birds the US uses are not even owned by the US that is only going to bring in more countries. Some of the major communication birds in that area of the world are actually owned by India. I do not think they will be happy with China shooting them down.

And the US also uses the Russian GPS system. So is China going to shoot those down also? That is almost guaranteed to cause Russia to jump in against China. But somehow they are magically going to shoot all of them down, leaving us "deaf, dumb and blind".

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them.
Uhhh, radio will still work, or are they going to magically stop that also? Troposophere communication? Are all of our subs going to suddenly vanish? Our AWAC birds? Sources on the ground? Are they going to somehow completely knock out our terrestrial based radio relation systems?

Does this moron writing this and the original author actually think we only communicate through satellites? That none of the other 100+ years of communication systems are not also still used? That China can snap its fingers, all communication birds die, and we are reduced to using smoke signals?

China’s military isn’t focused on projecting power, as ours is, but instead on preventing U.S. domination. Rather than match our fleets of carriers and squadrons of jets around the world, Beijing developed precision weapons to prevent the United States from mobilizing these forces. An example is the DF-21, the world’s first ballistic anti-ship missile, which Brose says is known as “the carrier killer.”
Ahh, I was waiting for this. The DF-21D is the correct name, the DF-21 alone is a nuclear missile. The DF-21D is an untested weapon, which by their own admittance will require technologies that require satellites, and unknown technology that most believe does not exist (like precise over the horizon RADAR able to detect targets at over 2,000km with accuracy of less than 50 meters). It is a fantasy, and is a leap, considering we can also use Chinese GPS (which this system requires). So unless they shoot down their own GPS birds, we will still have GPS. If they shoot their own down, this system never works.

These are just some of the huge logic flaws in this piece of garbage. In almost every paragraph I am finding real gems. Like the next one.

Brose argues that it’s time for a radical rethink. Rather than building weapons for an outmoded strategy of projecting power, we should instead be arming ourselves in an effort to “deny China military dominance.” That means many cheap, autonomous weapons at the edge of the perimeter, rather than a few exquisite ones that are vulnerable to attack.
Ohhh, he is a drone lover. The only problem is, even Russia and Iran have proven their ability to interdict and neutralize our drones. Does anybody think that China does not have this capability also? Especially since he also claimed that China will knock out all our satellites.

A system of communication that our drones require! So here is an even bigger logic problem. He wants us to dump manned aircraft (which do not rely on satellites), and instead use drones. A technology that requires satellites, which he claims China will knock out immediately.

Does anybody else see the problem here?

No, this entire "editorial" is pure garbage. And the Post should be embarrassed for even publishing it, and reconsidering the employment of the monkey that wrote it. The logic flaws in it are huge, an almost complete misunderstanding of how any systems work, and the capabilities of China. This is why I tell everybody to think about something before they post it, and do not just suck up all they read with a straw. In this case, the OP appears to have sucked up sewer water.
The DF-21 has about 10 steps it must have to actually hit a target. Disrupt anyone of those and the missile goes terminal. It's a bust.
 
OP
Jake Winker Frogen

Jake Winker Frogen

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
449
Reaction score
232
Points
158
You guys crack me up, you no more about US military capabilities in the future concerning the West Pacific than the Pentagon.

If you lot were in control China would be invading Taiwan right now.
 

Silver Cat

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
862
Reaction score
174
Points
45
Location
Absaroka
And yes, Russia (and may be other countries, too) will join the side who suggest more. China can suggest them Hokkaido.
And what can we suggest them? More sanctions?
 

Mushroom

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
834
Reaction score
171
Points
78
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
You guys crack me up, you no more about US military capabilities in the future concerning the West Pacific than the Pentagon.

If you lot were in control China would be invading Taiwan right now.
This nonsense did not come from the DoD.

And I find it interesting that you can not dispute anything I or others said, so instead you simply resort to insults.
 

Mushroom

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
834
Reaction score
171
Points
78
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
But has it really been tested? Yes, we know the missile the DF-21 works, that is not in question. However, has it ever once fired and hit a target moving in a random direction that is located and tracked from over the horizon? No, it has not.

In fact, it requires a large chain of things to happen, and all happen precisely. Including things that are just not possible. Such as being able to build an over-the-horizon RADAR system that can locate an object over a thousand kilometers away to within 50 meters of accuracy. And it then must be able to constantly update the course of the missile, which is traveling at MACH 8+. And be able to adjust it's course to an accuracy of 50 meters.

Oh, and do this against a target that is constantly moving and changing course, at 30+ knots. ANd still get through all of the defenses (both physical and ECM) to actually hit the target.

This thing has as of yet only been used against stationary targets on land. They have it a "carrier sized" target in the Gobi desert with it, but once again that is not a surprise because it is possible even with the original DF-21 missile. The target was not moving, and in their own missile range.

And yes, I know about that NOTAM. Once again, so what? It shows they did a missile test, that is all. Most speculation is that they fired it at one of the small islands that are scattered in that area, what does that prove? Once again, that they could hit a static target inside of an area that has tons of conventional RADAR coverage.

Not a moving target, not a target over the horizon.

This is why it has not been "tested". This is a "weapon system", and until the entire system is tested it is "untested". The DF-21 series of missiles is over 35 years old, nobody questions that the missile itself actually works. The big doubt is that the system itself will never work.

And until they can prove they can locate, target, then hit a moving target from over the horizon it will remain nothing more than a magic trick.

Not to mention the even bigger problem with this system. In flight, this is no different than the DF-21A/C missile. And those are armed with 500kt nuclear warheads. A great many believe that this weapon may not even exist at all, and simply be a cover to slow the reaction of the US for when it may decide to launch a nuke at one of our fleets. And even worse, if a group has already been given freedom to use it's own nukes they might respond with a nuke, no matter which variant of DF-21 has been launched at them.

But why you are taking a simple NOTAM and trying to scream it proves the weapon system works I have no idea.
 

Mushroom

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
834
Reaction score
171
Points
78
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Some pretty pics of China missiles:
DF-16G, DF-21D, DF-26, DF-31AG.
Big deal, everybody knows they have missiles. Marching them in a parade does not mean they work as advertised.

Hell, we all know now that both the R-5 SHYSTER and GR-1 SCRAG missiles that the Soviets paraded through the streets of Moscow never even worked! It is a fact that both of these were failures, but they continued to use them in parades for years, and even included them in later missile treaties.

And the North Koreans have been caught using multiple fake missiles in parades. One thing that a great many experts have noticed is that whenever North Korea parades around their Hwasong-15 missiles is that they are all very different from each other! The missiles are not even a little bit different, it is almost as if they are completely different lines of missiles sometimes, yet they claim they are all "the Hwasong-15".

So as you can see, just because some missiles can look pretty rolling down the street, that does not mean that they actually work.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top