Just when you thought it was safe to eat at Taco Hell again…

@al3xanderthegr8

People say that carriers are obsolete because:

Hypersonic missiles are getting increasingly more powerful, to the point where it isn’t possible or economical to defend a carrier. Not only that, hypersonic missiles might have a longer range than carrier aircraft in the future (based on my own research, the F-35 still has a longer combat radius than most current missiles, though that’s because the Zicron doesn’t exist).

Submarines are getting quieter, to the point where they can easily destroy carriers.

Carriers are too big of a target. Some people use this argument and extend it to all surface ships.

If you’re curious, I personally disagree that these developments are too big of a problem, making them obsolete. Just my opinion.

People say tanks are obsolete because:

Tanks are easier to be targeted by anti-tank missiles, which have longer range than tanks.

Tanks are too expensive.

Aircraft have gotten more powerful to the point where they can replace the role of tanks.

Keep in mind my summary might be wrong, this is just what it seems reading some articles saying they’re obsolete.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

I agree. Al Qaida is almost exclusively a Sunni group made up mostly of Saudi’s.

I just misread your sentence “I have not yet encountered a hostile Iraqi, most of them are in fact, of Saudi background.” as being that you have not encountered hostile Iraqi’s who had emmigrated from Saudi Arabia and I was thinking that any Saudi who emmigrates to Iraq is probably up to no good….

Perhaps this needs to be moved to political discussion after my comments:

Shanghai is quite nice, and, yes, Beijing needs a ton of work.  Although I don’t think when people say that they think that Beijing city authorities should kick out thousands of poor residents on the city outskirts in preparation for the 2008 Olympics.

Overall, though, China has some significant problems that it needs to work out if it’s going to overtake the U.S.  Their environmental policy is god-awful.  90% of their water is undrinkable, and the dust storms that roll off the northern border are large enough to create their own weather systems.  There was also that benzene spill that happened last year, the one that was 50 miles long.  Unfortunately, while that was a notable case, it’s not the only one.

Also, China is definitely benefitting from its cheap labor supply right now.  The problem, however, is that their current birth rate is not high enough to maintain the population (1.73 children/woman versus the 2.3 widely considered necessary to prevent population declien), and in about a decade or 15 years, they will have an elderly population that makes the baby boomers and the problems associated with it look like nothing.  The Chinese need to start shifting to service industries, like India has, in order to keep their economy rolling.  It’s fine for a time to develop manufacturing capacity, but they don’t necessarily have the supply of educated workers that can compete and perform the way the country needs.  Also, some estimates of public debt mark it as 85% of GDP.

This isn’t to say that the U.S. doesn’t have massive problems as well.  But the infrastructure in the U.S. is well-established, and the procedures time tested but still open to change and challenge.  I think that’s a significant advantage over China, and while I know you aren’t saying that China will overtake the U.S., I think these are all points in favor of caution.

I ment expept for english

“we get 70% of our oxygen from the algae…save the algae!!! and who’s to say a communist socieity gives a damn about the environment???”

I’m sure if the algae population was threatened or exploited by capitalist (who knows?) there would be an attempt to save it. But the rainforest provides a lot more than just “oxygen.”

"The problems and corruptness of capitalism would not be eliminated by communism. "

Kind of ambiguous. What exact problems are we talking about?

“You base that off no one you know. My father, my landlord, my father’s students…all made money because of hard work.”

Hmmm… how is it that a worker makes less money than a CEO sitting in his/her office building when that worker does more hard work? Again, I find you definition of hard work ambiguous.

“And stop denouncing being rewarded from hard work as “American.””

Whoa… who said that? I think that’s more of a compliment. :roll: