NATO is 600 billion its a good start

Charity begins at home

We need to make sure our people our taken care of so any chance to go the democrat way requires actively fucking the American people to do their nonsense.

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10161246356000725/

I love how he roasted those EU fags

Let Russia eat them alive.

Then we can have trade deals with just Russia.

bu-bu- muh russain collusion

Please if the russians could rig the election the dems would have done it

USS Tennessee (BB-43) , 1943

While only using 14inch guns, the Tennessee and her sister ship USS California (BB-44) were considered some of the most powerful ships in the US navy in 1941.

Both ships would survive Pearl Harbor, however they'd be damaged to the point where by the time they were back in service newer and more modern ships had completely outclassed them.

In 1944 however they'd get one last shot at fame when they engaged the two Japanese battleships that they'd been built in response to. the IJN Fuso and IJN Yamashiro and along with the aid of their escorts sank both ships.

Back when the name California was cool

USS Missouri leading USS Iowa into Tokyo Bay, Japan, August 30th, 1945. destroyer USS Nicholas in escort.

If she hadn't been damaged in a battle beforehand the USS Enterprise would have been the ship to accept the Japanese surrender instead of the Missouri.

i love warships

it's a shame the days of naval combat are pretty much over

at least manly lead-slinging combat

one of these days i want to go around the world and look at different countries' museum ships

shame the bismarck, tirpitz, yamato and musashi were all destroyed. would've been hella impressive to be able to see them in person

At least the americans have 8 battleships left and Greece has a Pre-ww1 battlescruiser

Know what would give me a freedom boner? Nuclear powered battleships w/ railguns instead of conventional guns ❤ Sadly there's no justifications for it lmao

yeah by the time railguns are tenable they will be able to just fit them on destroyers.

which i still am not sure why the navy is pursuing railguns, earth's curvature puts a hard limit on the range of something with a shallow firing arc like that

aircraft mounted railguns, though...

or, you know, orbital ones

that might actually be a really efficient weapons system, just collect solar energy to power it and fire low-mass inert projectiles through it... easy to get into orbit and rearm, compared to missiles or something

With our focus on anti-missile tech, I can't say it's too crazy that we'd also be researching tech for (relatively) close combat that wouldn't be able to be stopped by the same tech.

that's fair. still, being limited to within 20-30 miles of the coast kinda sucks

That's international waters baby, totally legal to patrol ❤ Then when ya need to, BOOM.

Don't get me wrong, being able to strike from the other side of the world is pretty hot too, but it's nice seeing sci-fi tech come to fruitation. Gives you hope for the future, yanno?

yeah it's cool

i'd be concerned about weaponizing space though tbh

going back to orbital railguns or something, that just gives the controller of that system the ability to obliterate anything you want, anywhere at any time without any of the consequences of deploying nukes

that's a lot of power to put in the hands of one government with no balancing

i think we signed a treaty or something not to weaponize space, but with the whole space force thing not sure if that's out the window or not

From my understand we've signed a treaty that doesn't allow for WMDs in space

But ship to ship or ship to satellite "combat" should be fair game

And let's be honest, if you took out a country's satellites and disallowed use of your own to them they'd be struggling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

"It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV)"

"However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit and thus some highly destructive attack strategies such as kinetic bombardment are still potentially allowable."

i guess that answers my question

Honestly from what I'd heard about kinetic bombardment I figured they'd be classified under WMDs, but ey I'm not complaining lol