37 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's true China has 12 nuclear-powered submarines. However, these cannot project power the way an aircraft carrier can.

 

China has three conventional aircraft carriers, dependent on refuelling at friendly ports. The USA has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which do not need refuelling for years.

 

If you have information which contradicts what I am posting, please post it.

 

Oh look, a Chinese Aircraft carrier refueling at sea.

 

 

31 minutes ago, sungod said:

The Armchair Admirals always forget that nuclear powered aircraft carriers need food, fuel for aircraft etc.

Do you know how our USN gets their food supply and fuel?

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

Do you know how our USN gets their food supply and fuel?

Yes, RAS and port visits.

 

Next question?

 

Just now, sungod said:

Yes, RAS and port visits.

 

Next question?

 

hahahaha Didn't see your pic. Yeah Unreps. 

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

hahahaha Didn't see your pic. Yeah Unreps. 

 

No worries 🙂

Just now, sungod said:

 

Oh look, a Chinese Aircraft carrier fueling at sea.

 

 

Where did the refueling take place?

 

Where did the tanker supplying the fuel get its fuel from?

 

The hypothetical scenario of a Chinese aircraft carrier refueling in the North Atlantic, with both carrier and tanker being unmolested in time of war - that's about as fanciful as it gets.

 

America or India could interdict passage through the Straits of Malacca without breaking a sweat. Why do you think Diego Garcia bans civilians? Nearly all China's raw materials come via that route.

 

Simple logistics.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Aircraft carriers do not sail alone. They have a flotilla of accompanying ships with the sole purpose of protecting them.

 

Admittedly drone warfare in Ukraine has many military strategists hastily revising some assumptions.

 

Then, you believe that aircraft carriers can survive a Chinese missile attack?

If you are confident, then welcome aboard....!!!!

 

 

In fact, these ships are sitting ducks.

Even if they do not travel alone, they are still sitting ducks.

Everybody knows this.

 

 

 

 

 

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Then, you believe that aircraft carriers can survive a Chinese missile attack?

If you are confident, then welcome aboard....!!!!

 

 

In fact, these ships are sitting ducks.

Even if they do not travel alone, they are still sitting ducks.

Everybody knows this.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know, and neither do you.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I don't know, and neither do you.

 

Yes.

Uncertainty always presents a grave risk when so much is at stake.

 

So, far better to buy Greenland....ASAP.

 

And, enjoy the extra buffer, as well as the EEZ, and exclusion of Chinese boats from the area.

 

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Where did the refueling take place?

 

Where did the tanker supplying the fuel get its fuel from?

 

The hypothetical scenario of a Chinese aircraft carrier refueling in the North Atlantic, with both carrier and tanker being unmolested in time of war - that's about as fanciful as it gets.

 

America or India could interdict passage through the Straits of Malacca without breaking a sweat. Why do you think Diego Garcia bans civilians? Nearly all China's raw materials come via that route.

 

Simple logistics.

 

 

 

US Aircraft carriers RAS also, where does its supply ships get their fuel from? How about escort ships?

 

What would a Chinese Aircraft carrier be doing in the north Atlantic in times of war, their territorial claims are in the South China Sea and Pacific.

 

Now you are rambling on....

4 minutes ago, sungod said:

 

US Aircraft carriers RAS also, where does its supply ships get their fuel from? How about escort ships?

 

What would a Chinese Aircraft carrier be doing in the north Atlantic in times of war, their territorial claims are in the South China Sea and Pacific.

 

Now you are rambling on....

IIRC GG was rambling on about the choice between the USA and China taking over Greenland.

 

Greenland is the thread subject, yes?

Just now, Lacessit said:

IIRC GG was rambling on about the choice between the USA and China taking over Greenland.

 

Greenland is the thread subject, yes?

 

It was until you took it off topic.

 

Anyway, moving on.....

15 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Yes.

Uncertainty always presents a grave risk when so much is at stake.

 

So, far better to buy Greenland....ASAP.

 

And, enjoy the extra buffer, as well as the EEZ, and exclusion of Chinese boats from the area.

 

I suppose America could always print more dollars to buy it.

 

What do you do if the Greenlanders don't want to be bought?

Just now, Lacessit said:

I suppose America could always print more dollars to buy it.

 

What do you do if the Greenlanders don't want to be bought?

 

They do.

They are dying to be bought by the USA.

 

If you don't believe me...

Let's just take a Poll on TV.

 

 

2 minutes ago, sungod said:

 

It was until you took it off topic.

 

Anyway, moving on.....

IIRC you followed closely.

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

 

They do.

They are dying to be bought by the USA.

 

If you don't believe me...

Let's just take a Poll on TV.

 

 

How many Greenlanders do we have on TV, and what makes you think they will be representative?

 

Geez, talk about rambling on.....

16 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Either the US will get Greenland, or....

China and XiJinPing will get Greenland.

 

Your choice.

 

 

Under NATO agreement, China grabbing Greenland will trigger war. Personally I cannot see any advantage to PRC to trigger such destablisation. Also highly unlikely Denmark will cede Greenland to USA. for what purpose would Denmark give up future wealth from Greenland's resources?

Classic bully. Attacks a small country, an ally with reasonable people and a reasonable government.

 

Why does he not demand Chukotka (very close to Alaska) or Tibet (great mountains, lots of land).

 

The guy is a complete joke. The sad thing is his moronic supporters a) have no idea where Greenland is, b) actually get excited when he comes out with this complete garbage.

 

 

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Under NATO agreement, China grabbing Greenland will trigger war. Personally I cannot see any advantage to PRC to trigger such destablisation. Also highly unlikely Denmark will cede Greenland to USA. for what purpose would Denmark give up future wealth from Greenland's resources?

 

In order to placate Trump, and to get into his good graces.

This is why Denmark will bend, and bend soon.

The Greenlanders will be far better off under USA's protection, anyway.

The USA can invest mucho denaro to improve Greenland infrastructure.

 

For example:

Given a choice, do you think Puerto Ricans would choose to be ruled by Denmark or by the USA?

No contest, really.

 

Same goes for the Greenlanders.

 

And, CUBA will be next.

Mark my words.

 

 

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

In order to placate Trump, and to get into his good graces.

This is why Denmark will bend, and bend soon.

The Greenlanders will be far better off under USA's protection, anyway.

The USA can invest mucho denaro to improve Greenland infrastructure.

 

For example:

Given a choice, do you think Puerto Ricans would choose to be ruled by Denmark or by the USA?

No contest, really.

 

Same goes for the Greenlanders.

 

And, CUBA will be next.

Mark my words.

 

 

 

Greenland is already under US protection by way of NATO's article 5.

This man is not only semi insane and semi senile, he's wholly delusional. He truly thinks that he's king of the world, and he truly thinks that the world will bow down to his every whim.

 

There are probably a dozen strong and valid reasons why these people would not want Greenland to be part of the US, starting with healthcare and including having a bonkers leader. Who would want that? 

 

 

I can't wait to see the look on the faces of the people in the impoverished Southern States when the find out that the people in Greenland get the right to have universal healthcare and free education while they go bankrupt paying insurance companies. There will be a stampede.

29 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Greenland is already under US protection by way of NATO's article 5.

 

That may be.

However, we really need to OWN Greenland now that land-cover is changing so rapidly.

Greenland has BIG potential for economic development, such as resorts, and much more.

Denmark doesn't know how to develop the place the way it deserves.

 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-52124-1

 

What about a condo on Greenland, for example?

I would buy one.

 

Denmark doesn't really care, anyway....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

That may be.

However, we really need to OWN Greenland now that land-cover is changing so rapidly.

Greenland has BIG potential for economic development, such as resorts, and much more.

Denmark doesn't know how to develop the place the way it deserves.

 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-52124-1

 

What about a condo on Greenland, for example?

I would buy one.

 

Denmark doesn't really care, anyway....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no law forbidding U.S. investment in Greenland and Denmark. No need to invade it.

 

Actually, Greenland and the U.S. have been cooperating for 20 years and U.S. investment is welcomed. It's just that no many investors have shown interest in Greenland so far, apart from mining companies.

https://dk.usembassy.gov/u-s-greenland-joint-committee-statement-october-25-2024/

 

Same on the military aspect. Greenland is part of NATO and there is already a U.S. base, and as far as I know, Greenland and Denmark have not rejected any offer to create more bases.

24 minutes ago, candide said:

There is no law forbidding U.S. investment in Greenland and Denmark. No need to invade it.

 

Actually, Greenland and the U.S. have been cooperating for 20 years and U.S. investment is welcomed. It's just that no many investors have shown interest in Greenland so far, apart from mining companies.

https://dk.usembassy.gov/u-s-greenland-joint-committee-statement-october-25-2024/

 

Same on the military aspect. Greenland is part of NATO and there is already a U.S. base, and as far as I know, Greenland and Denmark have not rejected any offer to create more bases.

 

No worries.

After Greenland becomes a part of the USA....

All this will change for the better.

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

No worries.

After Greenland becomes a part of the USA....

All this will change for the better.

 

Canada, Greenland, and now Cuba.

 

Are you a closet neo-imperialist?

 

The USA is completely polarised - 50% for Trump, 50% against.

 

Why do you want to put more monkey blood in the duck soup?

 

 

19 hours ago, Prubangboy said:

-And who doesn't love smoked fish?

"please sir. Can I have some more." 

 

Oliver Twist

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Who would want that?

The Proud Boys? Just guessing here. 

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

The standard on this fora continue to impress me.

 

Proud to be a member when I see healthy intellectual conversations.

 

Prime examples of the best of the best expats of Thailand and Cambodia.

 

 

And surely half sexpats

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I suppose America could always print more dollars to buy it.

 

What do you do if the Greenlanders don't want to be bought?

Ask Putin