trump has the Pentagon planning something big right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up near Great Falls park over the weekend, and when we were driving by the Navy buildings on the Clara Barton Parkway, my friend pointed out these green and tan steel boxes propped up on trailers. She said they were missile launchers. I thought she was just joking, but then she showed me pictures off the web, and OMG, she was right - they really ARE missile launchers!!!! I’ve never seen them there before. How can the military just put missiles someplace without even telling the public? And there’s no one even guarding them! What if terrorists steal one and try to set it off??? What is happening?!?!?!

I’m calling Senator Chris Van Hollen’s office right now.

The constant helicopter flights are bad enough, but now we’ve got nuclear weapons getting installed in Potomac now? Oh HELL no!

Jeff just said those have been there for a long time.

And you’re ok with that?

I don’t know/care how long they’ve been there. It’s not alright to have a missile base near where so many people live! I thought they put these things out in the middle of the country where no one lives - in the Dakotas or places like that. I’m assuming they did that back then because missiles were probably bigger and used underground control centers. So I guess it’s reasonable to assume that they’ve gotten smaller since the cold war but, seriously, why base them in essentially the middle of a city? That’s insane!

They come and go all the time. They are anti-aircraft missile batteries and it is part of the standard operating procedure to deploy them and remove them from military and critical government installations all over. This was a result of 9/11

Are you a missile expert? You said these are anti-aircraft missiles? Like for shooting down airplanes?

They aren’t missiles that carry nuclear bombs?

You know this for sure? How?

I am a rocket expert. Those are not nuclear .

Your lack of specifics suggests otherwise.

What exactly ARE they then, rocket expert? Can you tell us the exact model so we can go to Wikipedia and read about it?

Crickets from the “rocket expert”

I am not him, but they are probably Patriot batteries (they are regularly deployed around DC)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in and live in Arlington. I drive by the Pentagon almost every day, and the last time I can remember seeing the parking lot as full as it is now during the winter holidays was back when I was in middle school - in December of 2001, when the Afghanistan war was getting started.

It looks like that again now.

Bookmark this post - we are about to start another war. Probably with Iran, with the Israelis helping. Or maybe even against China and Russia. Something is going to happen, and soon.

LOL what are they going to help with...holding our beer? The Israel can not project force. The only thing they can help us with is as a cheerleader.

Israel likely has somewhere between 80-300 nuclear bombs. If that’s not “projecting force”, then I don’t think you even understand the term.

this is not projecting force. projecting force means having a force you can actually use. many countries have the bomb and there has been many conflicts in which they have been involved since WW2 and how many times did they use the bomb (except for WW2 with Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? zero times. for Israel the nuclear bombs are a deterrent that might be used only in case of an immediate, existential threat . any war with Iran would be fought with conventional weapons, and there is the issue of how much help Israel could actually provide to fight a country with 80 million people while having its own internal issues to address.

remember when UK and France got involved in Libya. the UK was using missiles , shooting several a day and an article on the newspaper said that the UK has about 80 missiles of that type in its arsenal (US has thousands) meaning that Gadhafi could have simply hunkered down for two weeks and the UK would have finished all its missiles and this is also why the US was dragged in. do you think the UK could have then used the nuclear bomb on Tripoli? I don't believe Trump is about to start a real war. I don't believe the military would want it and his GOP enablers are not that stupid (hopefully). he may try to do something like the killing of Suleimani to make things more chaotic and difficult for Biden and the new administration

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Crickets from the “rocket expert”

I am not a rocket expert but I have seen the rockets that were there (though it was years ago). They looked just like Patriot Missile batteries that I saw on TV and once in real life during and after the Gulf War. But, since it is only really possible to see the launcher, I guess different types of missiles could be inside.

Here is an article of unknown veracity that suggests I have misidentified the weapon:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3206812

[Anonymous]

This is fun to read.

The US has no mobile nukes at this time.

They are antiaircraft missiles and anti missile missiles and they are in numerous places in DC. They have been for a while. Yes I am ok with that because lots of people want to attack us and we need to defend ourselves.

Military does not like trump. Especially general officers. There are a few here and there but most want him gone. They are not conspiring with him.

Iran is quite dangerous. They may try to take advantage of the last few weeks of a nutjob in the whitehouse. That is what I would be worried about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in Georgetown and it's been nonstop helicopters all morning.

2 days ago the helicopters in downtown DC was insane.

I'm in Vienna and I swore I heard a jet this morning. Far off, but the sound carried for a long time.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crickets from the “rocket expert”

I am not a rocket expert but I have seen the rockets that were there (though it was years ago). They looked just like Patriot Missile batteries that I saw on TV and once in real life during and after the Gulf War. But, since it is only really possible to see the launcher, I guess different types of missiles could be inside.

Here is an article of unknown veracity that suggests I have misidentified the weapon:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3206812

That’s absolutely insane. I had no idea. I’m in palisades. If one of these things exploded it could very well be the end of us. I feel so helpless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is fun to read.

The US has no mobile nukes at this time.

They are antiaircraft missiles and anti missile missiles and they are in numerous places in DC. They have been for a while. Yes I am ok with that because lots of people want to attack us and we need to defend ourselves.

Military does not like trump. Especially general officers. There are a few here and there but most want him gone. They are not conspiring with him.

Iran is quite dangerous. They may try to take advantage of the last few weeks of a nutjob in the whitehouse. That is what I would be worried about.

Ok, but then that begs the question of “what in the hell are they doing at the carderock naval surface warfare center that’s so important that it requires missiles to defend it”?

It looks like dumpy old warehouse facility to me. I read there’s a long swimming pool type thing inside where they test models of ships or something. That doesn’t seem like the kind of place that would be a key target to protect.

Something's not adding up.

[Anonymous]

Some of you guys have gotten infect by the conspiracy virus and would probably do fine over on Parler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fun to read.

The US has no mobile nukes at this time.

They are antiaircraft missiles and anti missile missiles and they are in numerous places in DC. They have been for a while. Yes I am ok with that because lots of people want to attack us and we need to defend ourselves.

Military does not like trump. Especially general officers. There are a few here and there but most want him gone. They are not conspiring with him.

Iran is quite dangerous. They may try to take advantage of the last few weeks of a nutjob in the whitehouse. That is what I would be worried about.

Ok, but then that begs the question of “what in the hell are they doing at the carderock naval surface warfare center that’s so important that it requires missiles to defend it”?

It looks like dumpy old warehouse facility to me. I read there’s a long swimming pool type thing inside where they test models of ships or something. That doesn’t seem like the kind of place that would be a key target to protect.

Something's not adding up.

Re:Carderock it’s right there in the title. With the pivot to the Pacific, naval warfare technologies are critical. DOD initially asked for 1 naval warfare ship and were allocated 15 in the new defense bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology that must be protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would make sense. If a war with Iran happens, the Persian gulf would be shut down for ships. The only way to get crude oil out of Saudi Arabia would be by air.

Gotta keep those gas prices low, right? Otherwise all the trumpets wouldn’t be able to afford to put gas in the ‘Hemi. And his base would abandon him.


He thinks he’s so smart. But he’s so painfully stupid.

You are not this stupid?

Tanker aircraft exist only to refuel fighter jets and long-range bombers. They do not export oil from Saudi. Or anywhere else. Oil that we don't really need.

Remember? The US is a net oil exporting nation.

Looks like you’re the stupid one here.

You can use a tanker just to transport fuel, too. You’d need several of them to equal what could be transported by ship, but they’re so much faster that a dozen of them could probably move the same amount of oil a ship could move, in the same amount of time.

It wouldn’t exactly be the first time a republican miss-used our military.

A supertanker holds 2 million barrels. It would require HUNDREDS of heavy duty tanker. That's 84 million gallons.

A KC-135 tanker holds 30,000 gallons of fuel (which is less dense than oil.)

DP

In other words, it would require about 2,800 10-hour flights to move the same amount of oil.

A quick web search reveals the military has over 300 such tanker aircraft. So they could easily accomplish moving that amount of oil in less than two weeks. Even faster than a ship could move the same amount of oil.

I think you just proved the PP’s point. While trying to refute it, lolz!

Silly trumpet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, but then that begs the question of “what in the hell are they doing at the carderock naval surface warfare center that’s so important that it requires missiles to defend it”?

It looks like dumpy old warehouse facility to me. I read there’s a long swimming pool type thing inside where they test models of ships or something. That doesn’t seem like the kind of place that would be a key target to protect.

Something's not adding up.

They are at Carderock because it's a secured government facility. They don't have to be colocated with what they are trying to defend (which is downtown washington), because they have a range of 70 kilometers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would make sense. If a war with Iran happens, the Persian gulf would be shut down for ships. The only way to get crude oil out of Saudi Arabia would be by air.

Gotta keep those gas prices low, right? Otherwise all the trumpets wouldn’t be able to afford to put gas in the ‘Hemi. And his base would abandon him.


He thinks he’s so smart. But he’s so painfully stupid.

You are not this stupid?

Tanker aircraft exist only to refuel fighter jets and long-range bombers. They do not export oil from Saudi. Or anywhere else. Oil that we don't really need.

Remember? The US is a net oil exporting nation.

Looks like you’re the stupid one here.

You can use a tanker just to transport fuel, too. You’d need several of them to equal what could be transported by ship, but they’re so much faster that a dozen of them could probably move the same amount of oil a ship could move, in the same amount of time.

It wouldn’t exactly be the first time a republican miss-used our military.

A supertanker holds 2 million barrels. It would require HUNDREDS of heavy duty tanker. That's 84 million gallons.

A KC-135 tanker holds 30,000 gallons of fuel (which is less dense than oil.)

DP

In other words, it would require about 2,800 10-hour flights to move the same amount of oil.

A quick web search reveals the military has over 300 such tanker aircraft. So they could easily accomplish moving that amount of oil in less than two weeks. Even faster than a ship could move the same amount of oil.

I think you just proved the PP’s point. While trying to refute it, lolz!

Silly trumpet.

Except we import 42 million gallons of oil per day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, but then that begs the question of “what in the hell are they doing at the carderock naval surface warfare center that’s so important that it requires missiles to defend it”?

It looks like dumpy old warehouse facility to me. I read there’s a long swimming pool type thing inside where they test models of ships or something. That doesn’t seem like the kind of place that would be a key target to protect.

Something's not adding up.

They are at Carderock because it's a secured government facility. They don't have to be colocated with what they are trying to defend (which is downtown washington), because they have a range of 70 kilometers.

Then wouldn’t it make more sense to space them out farther away from DC? Like maybe on a mountain top in Frederick or out in the Chesapeake Bay?

Why put them so close to neighborhoods and schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the WaPo front page:
Bracing for a possible Iranian-linked attack, U.S. officials warn ‘the threat streams are very real’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/12/30/us-iran-military-tensions/

We are coming up on the one-year anniversary of the drone strike against Solemanei. It seems that the Administration/Pentagon is expecting retaliation before Trump leaves office.

I read the article, and simply put, I don't believe there's a new/heightened threat that would require the level of buildup/deployment we are witnessing. I think they are exaggerating existing threat reporting as a pretext. And I'd bet almost my bottom dollar the "senior defense official" quoted is one of Trump's handpicked lackeys.

I don't buy that Iran wants to do something big like shooting some missile at the American Embassy in Iraq before Trump leaves office in retaliation for Suleimani. Suleimani was a personal blow. The attempted payback will be on the same level. And divorcing that response from the Trump Administration makes it an American problem, not a Trump problem. Our personnel footprint in Iraq is so drawn down at this point that I just don't buy this story.

I do think the Trump Administration would engineer a conflict so they can attack/bomb Iran, thus killing almost any possibility of a return the nuclear deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, but then that begs the question of “what in the hell are they doing at the carderock naval surface warfare center that’s so important that it requires missiles to defend it”?

It looks like dumpy old warehouse facility to me. I read there’s a long swimming pool type thing inside where they test models of ships or something. That doesn’t seem like the kind of place that would be a key target to protect.

Something's not adding up.

They are at Carderock because it's a secured government facility. They don't have to be colocated with what they are trying to defend (which is downtown washington), because they have a range of 70 kilometers.

Then wouldn’t it make more sense to space them out farther away from DC? Like maybe on a mountain top in Frederick or out in the Chesapeake Bay?

Why put them so close to neighborhoods and schools?

Frederick is 80 km out, so barely out of range. Did you know they do secret biological research at the military base in Frederick? Scared yet?