How close are we to WWIII?

D

dlaloum

Audioholic Chief
My question was in reference to people saying that Chinese products are junk when they have been kicking the shyte out of the US in manufacturing for a long time. They made so much money that they have bought a huge number of companies that couldn't compete and that's a problem which wouldn't be allowed in the US- buying the competition is monopolistic.
In theory there are laws in the US to control such monopolistic behaviour, but in practice, there are a multitude of instances in the last few decades when these laws could have been applied (and in the interest of the public, should have been applied) - but weren't.

Yes the laws exist, but like many laws, present on the books, but never applied - these are a "dead letter".

The USA continues to be the world capital of monopolists and oligopolists....

The relevant laws against monopolistic behavious now act solely as a political fig leaf.
 
N

Nondemo01

Audioholic
Jesus a lot of people need to smoke a joint and listen to a record or twenty on this thread.

Yes, China and the U.S. will be at war within the near future - we've been planning for it for 20 years. No, we're not dependent on them for weapons manufacture and it won't be over "Taiwan". Don't worry, we have enough firepower just on Guam to affect the outcome. Yes, Iran will use weapons of mass destruction without hesitation. No, they aren't "winning" just cause we are paying what every other country has been paying for gas for decades. Yes, be worried about becoming a dictatorship but NOT because of anyone "seizing power". We'll vote them in/have already voted them in.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Jesus a lot of people need to smoke a joint and listen to a record or twenty on this thread.

Yes, China and the U.S. will be at war within the near future - we've been planning for it for 20 years. No, we're not dependent on them for weapons manufacture and it won't be over "Taiwan". Don't worry, we have enough firepower just on Guam to affect the outcome. Yes, Iran will use weapons of mass destruction without hesitation. No, they aren't "winning" just cause we are paying what every other country has been paying for gas for decades. Yes, be worried about becoming a dictatorship but NOT because of anyone "seizing power". We'll vote them in/have already voted them in.
LOL hopefully reasonable people rather than the paranoid prevail.
 
N

Nondemo01

Audioholic
I never said there were issues with your Navy. I was just explaining why an aircraft carrier battle group can't cruise at 30+ knots, regardless of what that carrier can do on its own. So, as it pertains to these formations, I couldn't be more relaxed.

Oh, and one more thing, bounding along at 30 knots degrades sonar operating conditions. So, they could easily miss detecting a meanie submarinie laying in their path.
Yeah, no.

U.S. battle groups are protected from everything but themselves. Even those "meanie submarines lying in their path".
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
Yeah, no.

U.S. battle groups are protected from everything but themselves. Even those "meanie submarines lying in their path".
Do you know how many times allied submarines have penetrated CVN battle group screens and achieved clear shots at that CVN? Too many times for any competent BG commander to be that sanguine.
 
N

Nondemo01

Audioholic
Do you know how many times allied submarines have penetrated CVN battle group screens and achieved clear shots at that CVN? Too many times for any competent BG commander to be that sanguine.
Yeah, I’m not buying that. You’re treating selective wargame outcomes like they prove a broad conclusion, and they don’t. Near-peer and peer-level wargames can produce all kinds of results depending on the scenario assumptions.

Finding areas where the U.S. can be challenged is not the same thing as proving an adversary has matched America’s ability to locate, close with, and destroy enemy forces with the most lethal military capabilities ever created. Those are not the same argument.
"Allied submarines"? You mean the 9-10 that the UK and France have each to our near SEVENTY? You should probably stick to Tom Clancy books and The Hunt for Red October for your info.
 
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
You should probably stick to Tom Clancy books and The Hunt for Red October for your info.
Awwwe, you're gonna hurt his feewings. :D

BTW, comments like that make you sound like a f^%&nut extraordinaire.
 
N

Nondemo01

Audioholic
Awwwe, you're gonna hurt his feewings. :D

BTW, comments like that make you sound like a f^%&nut extraordinaire.
Crimson Tide then?
A badge I proudly wear when audiophiles attempt to discuss something they have zero knowledge of. Worry about scratching your vinyl vice WWIII.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
Yeah, I’m not buying that. You’re treating selective wargame outcomes like they prove a broad conclusion, and they don’t. Near-peer and peer-level wargames can produce all kinds of results depending on the scenario assumptions.

Finding areas where the U.S. can be challenged is not the same thing as proving an adversary has matched America’s ability to locate, close with, and destroy enemy forces with the most lethal military capabilities ever created. Those are not the same argument.
"Allied submarines"? You mean the 9-10 that the UK and France have each to our near SEVENTY? You should probably stick to Tom Clancy books and The Hunt for Red October for your info.
That's nice, but Iran isn't winning because they have the military might of the US. That is unless you like $5 per gallon.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
Yeah, I’m not buying that. You’re treating selective wargame outcomes like they prove a broad conclusion, and they don’t. Near-peer and peer-level wargames can produce all kinds of results depending on the scenario assumptions.

Finding areas where the U.S. can be challenged is not the same thing as proving an adversary has matched America’s ability to locate, close with, and destroy enemy forces with the most lethal military capabilities ever created. Those are not the same argument.
"Allied submarines"? You mean the 9-10 that the UK and France have each to our near SEVENTY? You should probably stick to Tom Clancy books and The Hunt for Red October for your info.
Are you only counting nuclear powered submarines? There are a lot more SSK's in NATO than that. They won't chase down a CVN BG, but if intelligence is good and planners are worth their beans, they can place a boat in the path of that BG. Just lay quiet like a hole in the water, let the leading escorts pass by and wait for the big prize. I'm not suggesting that a war between any NATO countries and the US is likely - although with the current US administration, the chances are low, but not zero.

I don't need Clancy's books - I was a submariner for twenty years and was a crewmember in a boat that penetrated a CVN screen. Today's modern torpedoes rarely miss their targets, so when the boat records a firing solution, that's considered a kill. To be clear, it's not all fun and games and Jolly Rodger flags. Opposing submarines are often detected and "prosecuted". And, no submarine captain is under the illusion that he is likely to escape after such an attack, as the series of ka-booms under that CVN hull will be a giveaway. The point is, no CVN BG commander would be so hubristic as to assume that any possible opposing submarines will be detected and eliminated before it can cause any harm.
 
N

Nondemo01

Audioholic
Are you only counting nuclear powered submarines? There are a lot more SSK's in NATO than that. They won't chase down a CVN BG, but if intelligence is good and planners are worth their beans, they can place a boat in the path of that BG. Just lay quiet like a hole in the water, let the leading escorts pass by and wait for the big prize. I'm not suggesting that a war between any NATO countries and the US is likely - although with the current US administration, the chances are low, but not zero.

I don't need Clancy's books - I was a submariner for twenty years and was a crewmember in a boat that penetrated a CVN screen. Today's modern torpedoes rarely miss their targets, so when the boat records a firing solution, that's considered a kill. To be clear, it's not all fun and games and Jolly Rodger flags. Opposing submarines are often detected and "prosecuted". And, no submarine captain is under the illusion that he is likely to escape after such an attack, as the series of ka-booms under that CVN hull will be a giveaway. The point is, no CVN BG commander would be so hubristic as to assume that any possible opposing submarines will be detected and eliminated before it can cause any harm.
Mmm Kay.
 
Last edited:
N

Nondemo01

Audioholic
That's nice, but Iran isn't winning because they have the military might of the US. That is unless you like $5 per gallon.
Adorable. "$5/gallon" is less than most of the developed world has been paying for decades. "Poor me" for paying what everyone else has been paying isn't losing. Wrap yourself in audio bliss. Heck, most countries can't drink their tap water reliably. The fact we can have this discussion on an AUDIO THREAD is proof enough that life is going to be okay. WWIII isn't happening tomorrow, but if you think our military can't handle it, move to Switzerland. Why do you think we spend more on our military than the next NINE countries COMBINED?? What do you think that buys us? The inability to transit anywhere in the world unmolested? Or execute kinetic operations on multiple fronts for extended periods? We spend more on flights to GET to training than MOST of our allies spend on their military.

Smoke a joint, pop on some Miles, and chill people. Really.
 
Last edited:
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
Adorable. "$5/gallon" is less than most of the developed world has been paying for decades. "Poor me" for paying what everyone else has been paying isn't losing.
Most of the developed world doesn't primarily drive full-size pickups and large SUVs.

Wrap yourself in audio bliss. Heck, most countries can't drink their tap water reliably. The fact we can have this discussion on an AUDIO THREAD is proof enough that life is going to be okay.
To think that this discussion proves anything at all is...odd.

WWIII isn't happening tomorrow, but if you think our military can't handle it, move to Switzerland. Why do you think we spend more on our military than the next NINE countries COMBINED?? What do you think that buys us? The inability to transit anywhere in the world unmolested? Or execute kinetic operations on multiple fronts for extended periods? We spend more on flights to GET to training than MOST of our allies spend on their military.
I agree that WWIII isn't happening tomorrow. But, the Trump administration's chaotic adventurism has not helped reduce the probability. Then, there was his embarrassing self-abasement during his meeting with Xi. Signalling that the US might not come to the aid of Taiwan may encourage China to take a chance on an invasion. Who knows what that might lead to?

Germany did not expect Great Britain to declare war in 1914 and took the risk of invading Belgium, whose neutrality GB had guaranteed. And, again in 1939, Hitler did not expect GB and France to declare war over Poland. The lesson here is that leaders should not assume how any individual conflict will play out. The law of unintended consequences - currently known as 'FAFO' - can be a be-otch.

Now, the "no new wars" president is rattling sabres at Cuba.

Smoke a joint, pop on some Miles, and chill people. Really.
Nobody in this thread is expressing any sense of panic. It's simply a discussion of current world events and the possibility of conflicts worsening. It's entirely possible to do that and chill.
 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
Why do you think we spend more on our military than the next NINE countries COMBINED??
That's a good question. If Switzerland is safer in the event of WWIII, seems like they're in better shape spending only $7B on defense. What spending nearly $1T on defense suggests is the country has nothing else to offer. That's one philosophy and works to some extent, but as Vietnam showed, it didn't really matter in the end. And as the Strait of Hormuz shows, not all problems have a military solution.
 
Last edited:
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
That's a good question. If Switzerland is safer in the event of WWIII, seems like they're in better shape spending only $7B on defense. What spending nearly $1T on defense suggests is the country has nothing else to offer. That's one philosophy and works to some extent, but as Vietnam showed, it didn't really matter in the end. And as the Strait of Hormuz shows, not all problems have a military solution.
And, if we're talking about WWIII, at some point, when one side is on the verge of collapsing, it will go nuclear. Then, everyone has lost, including Switzerland.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
Sad the neocons might want this war to continue, and Israel wants to ransack the deal by bombing heavily. Pretty interesting listen with Trita Parsi.

 
P

pewternhrata

Audioholic Chief
And, if we're talking about WWIII, at some point, when one side is on the verge of collapsing, it will go nuclear. Then, everyone has lost, including Switzerland.
This thread is about ww3, a yr and half later yall are still posting about nuclear end of the world, im just sitting back enjoying my music while the nut jobs continue to pass and argue conspiracy. Btw cameron whitcomb is a fun listen, oliver anthony- rich men north; its great
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top