Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - davgdavg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
As a lefty, the only two things I care about are the mag release and safety, above all the mag release though. Fire selector too, but realistically I don't think I'm gonna have that option in my lifetime lol.

Charging handles don't bother me at all, you just get used to and its just as quick/easy one way vs another.
2
SHTF and for me, I want 5.56. More rounds, lighter carry, easier for all my family (women and kids I mean) to shoot accurately, should something happen to me. Also keep in mind that there is no Geneva in that scenario so any bullets are fair game. This is often overlooked. 5.56 that's not fmj will do plenty of damage, especially if keeping somebody from walking towards you is enough...

You are not going to be fighting against well armed troops. Mostly you are going to be fending off people who want your schtuff and hunting small-ish game. .308 serves no purpose in that kind of scenario where you are not actively looking to take down people from +-500 yards or hunting deer, etc. IMO.

But if it has to be .308, gimme an M1A. Never tried a SCAR17, but those look pretty reliable too.
3
Preparedness and Survival / Re: Vision Preps?
« on: May 08, 2018, 03:27:20 PM »
I have a couple of extra pairs of BCGs. Tough as shit, ugly as shit. Nobodies gonna wanna come close :)
4
Off Topic / Re: Where to buy bullet resistant wall panels?
« on: April 24, 2018, 03:01:33 PM »
A roll of kevlar and some good epoxy would be relatively cheap. Making a flat mold is really easy, the hardest part is dealing with the humidity issues here in Hawaii, but if you had an indoor space you might be able to make panels to your heart's desire. Back it with some mild steel and I bet you'd have one hell of a bullet stopper.
5
Off Topic / Re: April Floods
« on: April 23, 2018, 03:12:43 PM »
Westside just got some sprinkles, but the light show over the mountains was insane. Nobody had any idea that was going to develop, which is the scary part.

The good news is that the vasy majority of the people who live there have serious, serious cash, so they won't be affected too much outside of being uncomfortable.

6
Preparedness and Survival / Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« on: April 23, 2018, 03:07:39 PM »
There are already S-400 systems in Syria at tactically important sites. Strategically Russia is not going to just throw them all over the place for US or Israeli special forces to capture pretty much at will from disorganized and poorly trained Syrian army regulars. It would be a field day for anyone wanting Russian hardware.

Putin apparently signed off on the attack. The US warned everyone long before the attack.

All this "illegal" talk is so stupid. Just really, I don't have the words for it.
7
Political Discussion / Re: GOP Tax Bill
« on: December 20, 2017, 08:14:06 AM »
If you look at the real economic indicators any real growth stopped back in 2007/2008. What we have is a broken an highly unstable system based on sleight of hand where financial manipulators are banking on the fact that we can't understand their complicated graft mechanisms. They got us where they want us because most people can't bring themselves to face the reality that we already have our big toe in another depression. You can hold your nose and sing Hail to The Chief, but sooner or later our stool is going to get kicked.

Agree. The entire world's monetary system is just a big Ponzi scheme that people have tried to make so complicated that it seems too complicated to understand. The reality is that it is just as feeble and dumb as common sense would indicate.
8
From Politico of all places, normally pretty left. Gawd I wish Obama and his sheep would be tried and hanged for treason. Hopefully the current government will actually do what they should with these scum.

"In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/
9
Preparedness and Survival / Re: Survival Training
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:56:14 PM »
Just the locals and old timers on the leeward sides of the outlier islands...:)   Only half kidding.
10
General Discussion / Re: hanabata blocks missile defense in HI for 6 years
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:53:42 PM »
"those (such as Hanabusa) who think it would interfere with regular missile testing functions, jobs and community access at the Pacific Missile Range Facility."

I very much doubt the stupid bitch has any understanding at all of what goes on at PMRF.

"Community access"???

WTF?  There is no access now, same as most every military installation, particularly one involved in test and evaluation of advanced systems.

Stupid cow think locals are picnicking on the PMRF beach these days?

Not that I don't understand the sentiment, but there is access for people to Shenanigans (the restaurant), Housings surf break, Majors Bay rec area, and Kini Kini surf break/fishing spot. People must be citizens, apply, pay $20 (I htink, could be more) and undergo a background check/scan, which can take a while. I won't comment on the other stuff...
11
Preparedness and Survival / WWIII Starts...what do you do?
« on: October 04, 2017, 09:50:34 AM »
Just a hypothetical here, but lets say any one of a number of scenarios starts to play out and ultimately ends up moving towards WW3.

Any changes to your daily life in prep?
What would your short and long term plans be?
Would you stay in Hawaii or "get out of Dodge"?


12
Preparedness and Survival / Re: Possible nuclear attack
« on: September 28, 2017, 03:33:53 PM »
Not really worried. The only situation that I would worry about is that if we preemptively attacked and weren't completely successful and they just threw everything out there.

WW3 doesn't seem likely to start over it to me. Much more likely in Ukraine or middle East to me, which seem to be shaping up in a roughly similar fashion to WWI.
13
General Discussion / Re: Army searching again for a new caliber
« on: September 22, 2017, 10:29:02 AM »
Why don't they just have two? Bigger guys get issued and trained for bigger rounds...seems to make sense in everything except logistics. Just like in ancient times you had varying weapons for varying people. I understand the reality of possibly having to use another person's ammo in a bad situation, but I would be curious as to how often that actually happens.
14
Political Discussion / Re: North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
« on: September 08, 2017, 11:58:23 AM »
One of the boats I served on (USS PINTADO) literally tailed a ruskie nuke  with only 100 yards separation their aft to our bow. After matching them turn for turn, we pulled up along along side of them at about 500' and yelled "boom boom" in Russian over the transmit transducer then pulled a hard turn to pose and disappeared before they knew what happened. Oh well no more sea stories 😜😀⚓️

That. is. awesome.
15
Political Discussion / Re: North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
« on: September 06, 2017, 12:13:28 PM »
You are correct. Great example. The Stirling AIP propulsion is a real marvel and is unbelievably quiet. Most modern day subs have two counter- rotating screws for noise cancellation due to cavitation. This allows them to speed up considerably compared to the older, single screw boats. However it's not just cavitation. Drop a wrench when someone is listening,  you've been caught. As for running silent, the submariner service says "there's submarines and there's targets". I don't think NK has the same level of technology or silent running as the Swedish boat. If they are coming me thinks we'll detect and hopefully grow a set of balls and destroy.

Cool, thanks. I always wondered about in The Hunt for Red October if they would really be able to hear singing or things like a wrench dropping. Sounds like it would possible. I'm curious to see how a twin prop works in terms of fluid dynamics, but I guess that is all classified stuff.

16
Political Discussion / Re: North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
« on: September 05, 2017, 09:19:09 AM »
Take a look at this then you'll understand that the detection of the mini-sub is, for a better word, elementary. Extremely easy to detect by surface, sub-surface, airborne deployed sono-bouys or submarine detection grids.......
As for the balloons, you have a point.....


I'm curious if I am misunderstanding something.  Like the video says, cavitation is dependent on velocity of the blades/sub. Keep the blades slow enough, and there is no cavitation, right? I thought a sub will normally stay below that velocity except in an emergency situation. I was pretty sure this has been done since WWII.

 I think it was in 2014 or 2015 that a Swedish Gotland class sub evaded the entire Reagan battle group and theoretically sunk the carrier before disappearing again during exercises. My understanding was that the only realistic way to get one of those subs is when it is recharging its batteries or maybe after its fired something.

Whether NK has subs of that quality is suspect, but theoretical ability is there for a nearly silent sub.
17
Political Discussion / Re: North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
« on: September 01, 2017, 11:55:45 AM »

Not my words you are attributing to me. They are the words of EEF. You combined both my posts and EEF's post and you attributed the combined post to me. Please research your mistake here. It is quite obvious.

The rest of my arguments are still the same, but Well, I'll be. You are %100 right and I am wrong that  I mistook that 1 sentence for yours. In one of my posts the words did get put together somehow, and I was going from that. My apologies for that error.
18
Political Discussion / Re: North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
« on: September 01, 2017, 08:55:59 AM »
My response was to EEF in regards to the missile that was launched and flew over Japan. That missile was determined to be an ICBM. Sorry if that wasn't clear. All I was referring to was an analysis of that missile launch and the consequences of what might happen if we shot it down.

The THAAD system is not designed to shoot down ICBM's. It is a different system that we have that so far has only been 50% effective against ICBM's. It is still under development and testing. The THAAD system has been deployed in South Korea because it can be hit by NK by missiles that are only short and medium range. I am not sure what you are saying about trajectories but ICBM's travel in space for long distances and come in faster and harder than short and medium range missiles do. That is a very different trajectory than a short/medium range missile. My understanding is this is why THAAD is not capable of hitting an ICBM. The system we have in Japan that is used for ICBM's is only deployed in Japan, Alaska and parts of the mainland. And it has only been effective 50% of the time. So the analysis that I read is quite accurat in my opinion.

I am not sure what you took personally, but what I wrote was not meant to be personal. I cannot help it if you took it that way. But I will apologize for whatever it is I said that you took personally as it was not meant to be personal.


I took personally you stating that I "obviously" didn't understand when everything you said and quoted showed a poor grasp of the current state of the technology or even ballistic missiles. If you want to ask mrgaf who apparently knows about this stuff if my statements hold water, feel free. Anyhow, exactly like I said, people more in the know have also said, the tech is there and has been for some time to shoot down very rudimentary missiles like those of NK. Russian or Chinese MIRVs might be a different story, but I have no idea about that. Like I said, $ spent on defending a NK threat that might not even be a threat is the real issue here.

I'll leave it at that, and extend a laurel and hardy handshake to bury the hatchet. :shaka:
19
You obviously don't understand as you are mixing up two completely different defense systems for two completely different types of missiles. Our THAAD Missile Defense system is the missile defense system you are referring to being in place since the 90's is designed to shoot down short, medium and intermediate ballistic missiles with shorter ranges than the ICBM that North Korea launched. The missile defense system that is designed to defend against ICBM's is a completely different system and is still under development. And it has only about a 50% success rate so far. It is a lot harder to shoot down a missile moving much faster and going into outer space than it is to hit a much slower moving short, medium and intermediate ballistic missile.

Now as to the analysis as to why we have not tried to shoot it down, to me the analyst makes sense based on the reality of only about a 50% success rate for new technology. I'll let your arguments as to why stand as I am no expert in this sort of gamesmanship.

I would prefer that we try and use the NK missiles as test fodder. But again I am not an expert here.

No, I'm not confusing the systems. You're response was directly in response to someone asking why we didn't shoot down a missile that had a SRBM or MRBM trajectory (regardless of NK's claims of theoretical distance)...you said you read an analysis about that, and also just said "missiles". Please re-read your post with the quoted post above and you will understand my post:

Also, almost any IRBM/MRBM goes into "outer space" like you say, that's not the difference between it and an ICBM...maybe you're the one who doesn't understand (and why get personal if its not your opinion?) Ballistics missiles of varying ranges are not "completely different" by any stretch of the imagination.

Lastly, that you think NK has an ICBM that can "change direction in mid flight" really says something about your understanding of this all.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: eyeeatingfish on August 30, 2017, 11:25:57 PM
My wife was in Japan when they launched that missile over Japan. I want to know why they didn't shoot it down. I also want to know that next time North Korea launches a missile in the direction of Japan, South Korea, or the US, we fire a retaliatory strike.

I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.

This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
20
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.

This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.

That analysis is basically %100 bull.  :wtf:

We've operationally been able to shoot down missiles since at least the 90s. The Israeli's have gotten to the point where they can shoot down tiny rockets with low trajectories and hit SAM missiles (which is damn impressive btw) selectively after calculating whether or not they pose a risk, along with SRBMs, MRBMs, and likely ICBMs. Pretty amazing. Of course it's not %100. Nothing is, big whoop.

NOW, whether or not the US and regional allies choose to deploy and use those systems remains to be seen. People underestimate just how expensive it would be to actually protect the entire West coast. We are talking about billions if not trillions.

If you want possible answers about why nobody shot it down, here's just a few:

1) The trajectory was clearly attempting to not overfly Japanese land as best as possible. NK chose their best option for launching a missile which has to overfly someone due to their geographic location. They're not going to choose China or Russia out of their 4 options. So, there is no point in wasting millions of dollars on a missile for nothing.
2) We don't want to show our poker hand for a harmless missile.
3) We don't care (or would like) an inert warhead missile strike on a very, very, low population density Japan as it provides a good reason to go to war.
4) We want to observe exactly where their technology is at, what it does, etc.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7