Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
but what about the pyramids?We know that ancient civilizations had sea worthy craft. I believe that there was more contact than we know of in recorded history.
Since the Egyptians or Greeks were good record keepers, if there was contact don't you think they would have recorded it?
Don't Chant “U.S.A.!”Is it me or is the Left just getting more and more disturbing? Don't waste your time reading beyond the first two paragraphs.
I saw that picture and quickly closed it. But this has been par for the course for NBC. The NBC pages on Facebook were notorious for this but I guess enough people complained because they haven't done it the past few days.Just saw British...Scottish if you're one of those seperatists...tennis player Andy Murrray beat Federer to win a gold. That was huge. What's going on over there? They must have put some superman potion in the Thames because the UK athletes have been medalling like crazy lately. (unfortunately, the British soccer team must have missed it)And what an ending to Michael Phelps's Olympic career!Based on my viewing hours, and despite NBC's lame coverage, this has been one of the best Olympics I've ever watched.
They should be OK with that. Afterall, all they are showing it seems are Olympic basketball games.The thing that irked me most about the rowing, other than the misleading TV schedule, was that after that one televised race they went to like a Bulgaria vs Lithuania handball semifinal. Maybe it was a US team, I could understand NBC airing, but really. The track and field coverage was good though. How about that Jessicca Ennis? She didn't have to win that last race to keep the gold, but she did anyway. The British crowd went wild!
NBC Olympics webpage gives the TV shcedule for the 4 rowing finals today. Says all 4 will be televised between 3:45 and 4:45. NBC only showed one. Signed up to watch it online instead, but the feed was really slow (even the taped feed). Awesome job NBC. ::)
You are talking about the difference between a Sea Power and a Land Power.
No, I think we're debating your area of study and my area of interest. Which one has the bigger muscles? ;DBut let me answer
Question, In the modern world what is more important: naval supremacy or control of LEO? I know what I think but would love to hear your answer.
Now that I know what LEO is, and if that means control of the satellites, I would answer definitely LEO .I look forward to more input from you. Have a good trip!!
No, you're not heartless, just factual. With all the mutinees, I don't think even many individual captains could care less about his men except for them doing their job. Heck, they didn't even care about paying them.
Colonial dominance has nothing to do with sea power except to the extent that sea powers could effectively project land power. See my earlier comments about taking and holding territory. The name of the game is power projection and sustainment.
I understand that, but I don't agree at all with what you say about sea power mainly because I tie in economic dominance with military dominance. A successful colony is a result of a nation's ability to project their power is it not? Patrick, without a powerful navy Britain, Spain, etc. etc. would never have been able to do that. Why would two European nations go to war of over some stupid little islands in the Carribean? The answer is, I think, because they realized the economic importance of that area. This is what financed their militaries. In England's case, they were able to create a standing army and navy. In situations of colonial war like this the number of infantry kind of becomes irrelevant. The number and size of ships; very relevant. We could also talk about how large navies could avert war between nations (kind of like the US-USSR Cold War).Don't you think privateering (piracy) was a major stratergy of warfare in early modern history? I know my answer, but I'm curious what yours will be especially with your saying naval power wasn't that important. Granted these weren't large scale battles, but they were sustained battles that projected power and held territory. How could a large land-based infantry possibly do this in India, the Americas, and other major trading centers? Logistically, I don't think this was possible, at the very least it would be extremely difficult.Let me ask you this "what if" question. What if any colonial power suddenly lost their navy. What would have happened to their colonies?
What scares me is that someone like her can manage to stay competitive in a race despite her "Native American" comments, and that comment that Scott Brown played in that campaign ad (I think it was a comment similar to Obama's "you didn't build that" comment). How does a candidate survive that?
Because it's Boston. The Lefty la-la land of New England.
Sea Power is not as important as many think.
Even in the 16th-18th centuries? If we can get into a discussion about expansion, colonization, and economic dominance this statement could be easily debunked.
Sea Power and Air Power advocates either forget or ignore the above facts in their quest to make warfare clean, they don’t want to acknowledge that war is a dirty, bloody affair in which people get killed, and often in horrible ways.
Where do you get this from? I haven't read any naval historian that even comes close to implying that. Is dying on a ship "cleaner"and less horrible than being shot on land? Was life easier for an 18th century sailor than it was for infantry?Just curious, do these two statements apply to all of history or only today's modern warfare?
Here's really hoping they show the rowing now..preferably this evening. GB is doing great. Made the finals in the men's 8, quad, double, and single.And the GB women's doubles won a........
I want to read your links and will get back with more, but I'd like to comment on this
Did the Dutch defeat Spain or just hold them off? There is a difference. The Dutch never managed to defeat Spain because they could not translate sea power into an effective way to project their ground power.
Yes they did!A Dutch army was organized after the Dutch Revolt. By the 1700s William III made them the second largest army in Europe. (which they could afford because they had such a vast sea empire) They beat Spain both on the sea and on the land, in the colonies as well as the Low Countries. Spain invaded from the south, the Dutch were able to stop any invasion and eventually drove them back. And they weren't only defensive, they also went offensive. Check out the Battle of Nieuwpoort for example. Also, see this link about VOC warfare. I would say the Dutch were quite successful translating sea power to ground power.
Awesome, two more big things for the USA we won't see on TV until this evening spoiled by Drudge and others. Doesn't anyone say *spoiler alert* anymore, or do they only do that with movies?
I'm not saying sea power is the end all for everybody, I was just questioning and disagreeing with your comment on it not being as important as many think. I can't explain the others, but Rome did have the strongest navy at the time. The others were superior of course because of better land forces and battle techniques. How did the Greeks beat Persia? Sea power. How did Sparta beat Athens? Sea power. Sea power was the most important factor in early modern warfare. Explain how the Dutch beat Spain if sea power wasn't the be all that ends all. Explain how a relatively small, isolated island nation ruled the world for 200 years. It was much more than just economic well-being IMO. And besides, economic superiority is how they paid the military, afforded to build new ships, and keep the people at home happy and well fed.I don't know enough about the history of air power to make an educated comment, other than saying when air power first came into play, it wasn't so much about naval power anymore. If air power is easily negated, then explain WWII. Explain Pearl Harbor, or London, or Berlin, or Rotterdam. With Vietnam, you can argue about domestic issues which is what lost the war for us. We could have (and did at times) easily anhilate them. But, nope. The Lefties and hippies couldn't deal with that for whatever reason. Wasn't air power a major factor in the first Gulf War. It certainly was a factor in the initial invasion if OIF. Shock and awe!The wars we are involved in today are different than total warfare. Finding legitimate targets is nearly impossible (think Afghanistan). Intelligence is almost as important as the infantry now. We didn't win Iraq at the end by bombing the crap out of them, we won it by convincing the sheiks to come to our side. That certainly wasn't the case in many wars I can think of before the 1960s when the only goal was total submission by an enemy and there weren't all these international laws and even some in our government that tied our hands behind our backs. I am not familiar with the acronym LEO. Is that a logistics thing? I'm pretty sure you don't mean law enforcement officer.
