Posted on 05/26/2024 9:15:20 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Then let’s break it down. Per post #2: “They need it more than we do.”
Who did you mean by “they”?
What does “it” refer to?
Who do you think?
I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. (Because you’ve already indicated DesertRhino’s interpretation of your statement is incorrect.)
I may have early oneset Alzheimers but you lost me.
It’s not that difficult. In response to the article, you wrote “They need it more than we do.”
Who did you mean by “they”?
What did you mean by “it”?
You wrote those words, so I presume you know what you meant.
Ok this stuff is not really worth getting into but the ‘it’ refers to the technology the Russians seem to be better at. They need it because like the Stasi they need to control communications more.
The truth will set you free.
Right now? No.
Iran sent drones to Israel that flew a whole lot further than a hundred miles.
We can still use our aircraft carriers for the time being. But they'll be no longer the "lead ships".
Carriers are never the lead ships, i.e. out front. They travel with a large number of escort ships surrounding the carrier. There may be a submarine as well.
Y’all, just FYI: my reply 31 was SARCASM. ;-)
???
So when it comes to electronic warfare (which is only going to become more prominent with the passage of time), after an article displays how our weapons-jamming technology is notably inferior to a country that is a geopolitical rival (and an outright enemy according to some on this forum), what kind of take is it to say "they need [weapons jamming technology] more than we do"?
Of course America needs more effective electronic warfare technology and methods; and if you believe the American military needs to be on the cutting edge against her peers, the default answer should be "America needs [insert technology] more than [her allies/rivals/enemies] do".
(Also, I hope you didn't just insinuate that we live in a society without information control. The military effectiveness of one's electronic warfare technology is an entirely separate question from political control of domestic communications.)
“Well, that’s reassuring.”
Maybe not, but it’s accurate. The cold war was nothing but posturing. Each side had no more power to do their work following their agenda than the other. The discovery of technology was both a God send and a curse as it provided each path. But it was, and still is, a path chosen by man. Hopefully man will go down the right one. One direction is understanding and the other is destruction. And that in its way is an understanding for those that give it some thought. But God left evil in the world and it always seems to need its agenda filled also. Thus man mustn’t always take the right path to reach the right destination. And the chaos in the wake is the measurement.
wy69
“Well, that’s reassuring.”
Maybe not, but it’s accurate. The cold war was nothing but posturing. Each side had no more power to do their work following their agenda than the other. The discovery of technology was both a God send and a curse as it provided each path. But it was, and still is, a path chosen by man. Hopefully man will go down the right one. One direction is understanding and the other is destruction. And that in its way is an understanding for those that give it some thought. But God left evil in the world and it always seems to need its agenda filled also. Thus man mustn’t always take the right path to reach the right destination. And the chaos in the wake is the measurement.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.