Radioactive Ass: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean and elsewhere for 'observation' purposesI would. Getting there undetected from the pacific would be a huge biatch, even for a nuke. The route one way is more than halfway around the equator no matter how you cut it (submarines can't get through the Suez submerged even if they wanted to). Food would be the first major concern. I've done lextended patrols and when we were done the freeze locker and the canned food lockers were empty. There actually is a limit on how long a boat can stay out. It's much longer than say WWII standards for certain but it is all about how much food that you can carry in the end. If you can't fuel the crew then the mission fails. The maximum length is somewhere in the 120 day range. In your scenario about half of that would be spent just transiting to the Syrian coast which means a week or so there and then transiting back. Unless China has somewhere around 60 nuke boats (they don't IIRC it's closer to less than a dozen including SSBN;s which not only are unsuited for this type of mission but are also strategic assets that never will be placed somewhere where detection is likely) fully dedicated to patrolling off of the Syrian coast you have no idea what you are talking about.
cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean*snrt*Sigh, always contributing with your insightful comments.
Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?[i.imgur.com image 450x290][i.imgur.com image 600x300]
DamnYankees: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.The part where we somehow manage to do so much damage to Assad that he won't ever think about using weapons he thinks he needs to win, but somehow at the exact same time not do enough damage to reduce his odds of actually winning.
HotIgneous Intruder: A-holery?
vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?
coeyagi: Facepalm. Whatever gets your ire up, pal. I guess it would be too much to ask to give proof of his supposed messiah status. No, wait, don't bother. I know your answer: just read around Fark! It's everywhere! Ok, thanks for wasting our time.My answer: projection. The amount of Bush defending is somehow exactly how the Libs are playing Obama, in your mind. Couldn't it just be, perhaps / maybe, that while we don't support everything or maybe even a lot of what he does, the other side - the theofascist, chickenhawk hypocrites of the right - are so god damn frightening that perhaps we give him a little more benefit of the doubt since he's not an obviously craven, delusional self-righteous f*ckface like his Republican counterparts?
DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...
HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.Brilliant.
imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now. Decisively. Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 25 2017 10:08:16
Runtime: 0.419 sec (419 ms)