I am not your teacher. I can assure you that you would have been the first one booted from my classroom. Look it up. You know, in the same manner you look everything else up. Incorrectly.

No thanks, only someone that takes it up the pooper would have one of those. I never had dolls of any kind. Sorry for you but to each their own.
Our? You have a friend (hee hee) with you that shares your doll?

Its impossible to keep up with you Glenn. You keep changing it up. It's like arguing a point with a child.

Ah, when no substantive retort is available you resort to childish babbling. We called em balls. Only a geek would call em gonads. Furthermore, women were not on combatant ships as well as in combat roles with the Army when you and I were in.
And if you "handled someone's gonads" I would appreciate you keeping that to yourself.

Glenn, not only is my background in avionics but I taught electronics for two years. Wanna go there?

Again:
READ
WHAT
I
SAID!

The Russians won't publish it when we surprise them. What are you not getting? You didn't play war games with unfriendlies out on your little camping excursions shooting at trees and the occasional beaver so I can understand, possibly, why you are so clueless about naval issues. No, not navel. That is what you picked the lint out of in your tent before beddy bye.

You should start building your bomb shelter then. Stockpile the SPAM. It keeps our folks at the Hormel plant working. It must be really hard on you knowing that no one has the wealth of knowledge that you alone command, eh? That is an awesome responsibility for one lonely soul.

You didn't understand a word I said did you?

Stop with the diversionary tactics will you? Nobody said we wouldn't lose any ships. People die in wars. Vessels are lost. Aircraft, tanks, etc. It would be foolish for us to go to war with Russia. As they were getting trounced they would pull the pin on their nuke arsenal and given the inaccuracy of anything Russian, the numbers alone would be catastrophic if not for direct hits, the fallout would reach around the world.

Unless one drives a fancy expensive sports car, then supposedly they have a small torpedo.

Glenn! Oh my God! You ripped Sergey for stating what he knows from Russian media as being pure propaganda and now you are citing it? Gotta be right at ANY cost no matter what the subject and whether the info source is credible or not eh? As long as you are righ? Okay this should get you a little chubby: YOU ARE RIGHT! WHATEVER THE SUBJECT....... YOU ARE RIGHT! Happy now? I'll give you a minute or two to go on a date with Rosie to celebrate. Good God!

AGAIN. I w i l l t y p e s l o w e r. We sneak up on them and occasionally get through their defenses as well. We called them war games.

You ROCK! They also use FLIR which is pretty cool.

Don't worry about Gary numerous names and differing gender profiles, aka his newest one. Zero credibility.

Uh, ever hear of sonabuoys? Anti-submarine aircraft? Subrocs? A nuclear sub is on patrol, stocked with food and hopefully enough toilet paper for up to six months submerged. We saw how their nuclear program worked. Their game, as it has always been, is quantity over quality.

Still not impressed. Do you not think for a moment that we sneak up on them as well? I have pictures of a Bear that flew by us, escorted by three F-14's. We also have the Phoenix missile system. They don't have anything comparable. Russian spy ships disguised as fishing trawlers used to steam up alongside us on a regular basis and when as close as they could safely come, the antenna's would pop out and the sailors would run on deck with cameras clicking. A group of us mooned them one day in the Mediterranean off Greece. You won't see the Russians publish OUR surprises though.

Correct. We should not even be considering going to war with anyone. I was merely pointing out fanta's humerous and uneducated comparison.

Glenn, you are quoting sources that are inaccurate. I spent eight years in the military. Three of them aboard a carrier while you were out swatting at mosquitoes. Do you really think you know anything about the Navy? Did you realize you were comparing apples and oranges? Prove me wrong. Moron.

Correct. Our technologically superior nuclear navy trumps the dog slow diesel/electric subs of WW2 technology. They need to surface to recharge their batteries and are limited in fuel capacity. Our subs can submerge for up to twelve years without refueling the core.They are limited by food supply alone.The Seawolf class of subs (Ships float, boats submerge Glenn)were cold war vintage and I believe the last was the Jimmy Carter. The new much faster attack subs were the Virginia Class if I remember correctly and that was in the late seventies so I am sure they have a new class by now. Concerning the Kitty Hawk, she is a diesel powered carrier of the Vietnam era and is like a Hyundai sitting in your driveway. A small carrier compared to the Nimitz class carriers of which all are since the Nimitz, CVN-68, of which I sailed on for three years. It, and its sister ships, are nuclear powered and can run circles around anything the Russians have to offer in the line of carriers although it would never get to that. Carrier battle groups protect the carriers as well as the attack subs that constantly sail with them.