Godholio posted:

The joke is that the air war was completely irrelevant. You're right that without air superiority it would've been more difficult to say the least.

gfanikf posted:

Australia too is considered a turn key nuclear power.

iyaayas01 posted:

It's NZ, in the '80s they refused to let US warships make port calls unless they declared themselves to be nuclear free. Since stated US govt policy is not to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any US warship, the practical result of this was to eliminate US vessels from being allowed to visit New Zealand, something that put a serious strain on US-NZ relations as well as the ANZUS Alliance, to the point of the US suspending its treaty obligations to NZ. Relations have improved since, although up until last year NZ naval vessels were still prohibited from docking or visiting US military facilities.

But politics has zero impact on being a "turn key" nuclear power. It is simply talking about having the technical ability and infrastructure to rapidly produce a nuclear weapon, given the political go ahead. This is why a country like Japan that is still at least publicly extremely anti-nuclear can be referred to as a turn key power.

e: Although as the others pointed out there are varying degrees of readiness, depending on whether we are just talking about having the technical ability, or the infrastructure, or ready access to the required raw materials.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Yeah but since the only viable historical alternative is Dick Nixon, you pretty much have to measure JFK against the alternative. I mean I think Nixon has been overly demonized in contemporary politicalc discourse (not without reason, of course!) but holy poo poo I wouldn't want him in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Mike-o posted:

It still runs like poo poo, even after going through all the spells and incantations and third party software to eke out a bit better performance.

Koesj posted:

why the Su-47 was built I'll never quite understand

Snowdens Secret posted:

Presumably the best way to knock down an errant F6F drone is the old technique against V-1s, get your wingtip under its wingtip and pull up and flip it over till it crashes.

Also sub-launched Harpoons suck, old-rear end American torps were probably a better kill solution for whatever fantasy foe an ancient diesel-electric Canadian submarine would ever go up against

iyaayas01 posted:

I would make a LCS joke here about small unarmored ships being seen by the Navy as a good/effective way to increase ship numbers on the cheap as long as they were fast, except the Pegasuses actually packed a punch, unlike the Little Crappy Ship.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Why bother? What does hauling around your own helo provide, other than a maintenance nightmare and the need for a full time pilot killing time below decks? Anyplace someone like that needs a helicopter he can charter one, be it to fly out and pick him up off his boat or to fly him out to his boat.

Cyrano4747 posted:

I've always wondered what the life span of those mega-yachts are. I mean, are they the sort of thing that gets gently used (at least on boat scales - they're note exactly running 24/7/365 for years on end like a USN ship or a container vessel) and passed around among the super-filthy-wealthy, or do they just sort of make a statement by spending the GDP of Portugal on a toy, get bored with it, and it ends up scrapped or at the breakers in five years.

Do these things go out of style? Does the Hojillionare look at his giant loving floating doom cock one day and decide he needs a new one because THIS one is just sooooooooo 2013 and passe as gently caress? Does he want to see some other dude floating around in his old ride? Does he scrap it or sell it to someone who's merely a bazillionare and willing to buy used?

Is there a bottom end used mega-yacht market for the poor, penniless millionare? Some kind of ghetto fab floating hooptie with computers and guidance from the early 90s and fixtures that are just brass, rather than solid loving gold? Do you get a used yacht recarpeted, or does having a stateroom that still carries battle scars from an orgy featuring Reza Pahlavi and a dozen Playboy bunnies give you a certain amount of rich guy street cred?

Cyrano4747 posted:

I've always wondered what the life span of those mega-yachts are. I mean, are they the sort of thing that gets gently used (at least on boat scales - they're note exactly running 24/7/365 for years on end like a USN ship or a container vessel) and passed around among the super-filthy-wealthy, or do they just sort of make a statement by spending the GDP of Portugal on a toy, get bored with it, and it ends up scrapped or at the breakers in five years.

quote:

Kingdom 5KR is a 86m (282'1"ft) motor yacht, custom built in 1980 by Benetti. The yacht's interior has been designed by LUIGI STURCHIO and has exterior styling by Jon Bannenberg. She was last refitted in 1993.

FrozenVent posted:

Dude, did you even watch the video?

hepatizon posted:

Since when does cost not count as important? 3-4 Gripens for the cost of one F-35 sounds like a drat good deal.

Godholio posted:

Swedish government's fixed cost is $105M apiece and operations costs around $21,000 per hour?

Every "cheap" alternative out there seems to be trying to get into F-22 territory cost-wise.

Alaan posted:

You ARE aware of the type of people the US installed/tried to install in South America, right?

falen55 posted:

Snowdens Secret posted:

Counterpoint: F-102/106, F-111

mlmp08 posted:

I'm 5'11" and not fat and could literally not fit in various Russian tanks/APCs I played around with and still close the hatch, wearing no gear at all.

Snowdens Secret posted:

I thought the F-117's designator was intended as another throwoff, part of keeping it secret, so that if anyone came on the name they'd be looking in the wrong places for what it was. Everything else F-112+ is some variant of missile.