5 ms·

> since sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war. Nice to know the US mentality hasn't budged an inch in 75 years. Please don't nuke the rest o

> since sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war. Nice to know the US mentality hasn't budged an inch in 75 years. Please don't nuke the rest of us because you lost a dick waiving contest.

reducesuffering 5y ago
Have you forgotten why a US military was necessary just 75 years ago to save the UK from destruction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion
- Cymrukicks 5y ago
  Terrible choice of battle, One that the UK won handily of its own ingenuity and cunning as stated in the wikipedia.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Check your timeline. The US wasn’t even in the war then. Though American help was instrumental later in the war, the UK actually saved itself from invasion (with help from fellow Commonwealth nations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement. Like you said, the UK saved itself (for now), but "American help was instrumental later."
    - mthoms 5y ago
      After the Battle of Britain ended, and Operation Barbarossa started, it was impossible for Germany to invade the UK. That was 6 months before the US entered the war. I get the point you're making, but American military involvement had almost nothing to do with the UK repelling German invasion specifically.
      - reducesuffering 5y ago
        Not specifically. Imagine the war without US involvement. No more Western and Eastern front. Germany still wouldn't have captured Moscow but they would have secured large swaths of eastern territory and thus economic might. They would've had stable control over most of Europe and been further bolstered economically and militarily to eventually take the UK.
        mthoms 5y ago
        >No more Western and Eastern front. Germany still wouldn't have captured Moscow but they would have secured large swaths of eastern territory I don't understand, in your made-up hypothetical, is there an Eastern Front or not? Or, are you mis-using "Eastern Front" to refer to the war with Japan perhaps? As soon as Germany lost the Battle of Britain and then failed to immediately take Russia, their fate was sealed. The war was lost, period. The next question was - would Russia overrun all of Europe (including Western Europe)? Without US involvement, that may have actually happened. Thankfully, it did not.
nexuist 5y ago
An Nimitz class aircraft carrier has around 6,000 crew members on board. Sinking an aircraft carrier would be an attack worse than 9/11 and elicit a similar response. Maybe some crew members would escape or get rescued, but a bomb large enough to blow up an aircraft carrier is also going to be large enough to kill everyone on or below the deck. The space race was a dick waving contest and nobody was intentionally killed for that. Bombing naval vessels is not a dick waving contest.
- swarnie_ 5y ago
  > and elicit a similar response You mean your going to invade a totally unrelated country and fight another 20 year unwinnable war? Sign me up, that'll do wonders for my options scheme.

reducesuffering 5y ago

Have you forgotten why a US military was necessary just 75 years ago to save the UK from destruction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

Cymrukicks 5y ago
Terrible choice of battle, One that the UK won handily of its own ingenuity and cunning as stated in the wikipedia.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement.
mthoms 5y ago
Check your timeline. The US wasn’t even in the war then. Though American help was instrumental later in the war, the UK actually saved itself from invasion (with help from fellow Commonwealth nations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement. Like you said, the UK saved itself (for now), but "American help was instrumental later."
  - mthoms 5y ago
    After the Battle of Britain ended, and Operation Barbarossa started, it was impossible for Germany to invade the UK. That was 6 months before the US entered the war. I get the point you're making, but American military involvement had almost nothing to do with the UK repelling German invasion specifically.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      Not specifically. Imagine the war without US involvement. No more Western and Eastern front. Germany still wouldn't have captured Moscow but they would have secured large swaths of eastern territory and thus economic might. They would've had stable control over most of Europe and been further bolstered economically and militarily to eventually take the UK.
      - mthoms 5y ago
        >No more Western and Eastern front. Germany still wouldn't have captured Moscow but they would have secured large swaths of eastern territory I don't understand, in your made-up hypothetical, is there an Eastern Front or not? Or, are you mis-using "Eastern Front" to refer to the war with Japan perhaps? As soon as Germany lost the Battle of Britain and then failed to immediately take Russia, their fate was sealed. The war was lost, period. The next question was - would Russia overrun all of Europe (including Western Europe)? Without US involvement, that may have actually happened. Thankfully, it did not.

nexuist 5y ago

An Nimitz class aircraft carrier has around 6,000 crew members on board. Sinking an aircraft carrier would be an attack worse than 9/11 and elicit a similar response. Maybe some crew members would escape or get rescued, but a bomb large enough to blow up an aircraft carrier is also going to be large enough to kill everyone on or below the deck. The space race was a dick waving contest and nobody was intentionally killed for that. Bombing naval vessels is not a dick waving contest.

swarnie_ 5y ago
> and elicit a similar response You mean your going to invade a totally unrelated country and fight another 20 year unwinnable war? Sign me up, that'll do wonders for my options scheme.