I am thinking for some reason that the AT-10 Warthog was the best troop support airplane we have.
I was further thinking that the National Guard was in charge of those.
Am I right on those two thoughts?
The A-10 is absolutely the best close air support plane we have, and most particularly if the opposition is armored (it's also by far my favorite aircraft, as an aside). The National Guard definitely has some Warthogs, but I would say it's actually about a 50-50 split between the National Guard/Reserves and Active Duty. Why do you ask?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I will submit though that this thread is rather ridiculous. Any event sparking a widespread insurrection against the U.S. Government would either have already incapacitated the military (natural disaster/solar flare) or would have them used against the government (super taxation/commie takeover).
But, if for some weird reason they were used against us, then the demonstrated method of overthrowing/disrupting a suppressive occupation is terror (French Resistance/Israelis) via bombings and assassinations. Anyone who thinks they can take on and hold against the full might of the U.S. military has never fought in the dark against someone with night vision/heat sensors and superior weapons/body armor. Idaho is about the only place that could fight toe-to-toe against the U.S. and win. (just my humble opinion here folks)
I am thinking for some reason that the AT-10 Warthog was the best troop support airplane we have.
I was further thinking that the National Guard was in charge of those.
Am I right on those two thoughts?
AT-10 is a fine aircraft, and the Air National Guards have them in service. The primary user of the AT-10 is still the Air Force, especially considering that the Air National Guards are part of the Air Force. The only ground support aircraft the ANG's use are the AT-10's. (Combat support, that is. ANG has reconnaissance, EW, transport and other logistic aircraft as well).
So on your first thought- Probably yes
Second thought- Sort of
I thought that in a ground fight/insurrection that everyone seemed to be talking about a close support airplane was the only one that mattered (I mean if your enemy has no cities to bomb or tanks to fight the F-16 is really just wasting fuel). So if my second supposition was correct then the Air Force was not a major threat.
I got all my info from the son of a guy called Jeff Ethell. If you are into airplanes/air force maybe you knew of him (he died about 10 years ago though).
puppydog85 wrote:I thought that in a ground fight/insurrection that everyone seemed to be talking about a close support airplane was the only one that mattered (I mean if your enemy has no cities to bomb or tanks to fight the F-16 is really just wasting fuel). So if my second supposition was correct then the Air Force was not a major threat.
The Air Force certainly wouldn't be the major threat, I would agree. Though cities/tanks aren't necessary for bombing to be useful or effective. As well, there are other uses for the aircraft to make them useful.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
saxitoxin wrote:Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.
Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.
Woodruff, this -
Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence? Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.
- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.
You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.
Please stop the trolling. It's quite ridiculous.
Three pages after the question is posited and we are still left with nothing more than an empty sack of invective statements. It's good that you don't embarrass easily, Woodruff. Most people in your position would be absolutely beet red in the face right now.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.
Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.
Woodruff, this -
Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence? Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.
- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.
You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.
Please stop the trolling. It's quite ridiculous.
Three pages after the question is posited and we are still left with nothing more than an empty sack of invective statements. It's good that you don't embarrass easily, Woodruff. Most people in your position would be absolutely beet red in the face right now.
I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. I do wish you'd discuss the subject rather than trolling, though.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
puppydog85 wrote:I will submit though that this thread is rather ridiculous. Any event sparking a widespread insurrection against the U.S. Government would either have already incapacitated the military (natural disaster/solar flare) or would have them used against the government (super taxation/commie takeover).
But, if for some weird reason they were used against us, then the demonstrated method of overthrowing/disrupting a suppressive occupation is terror (French Resistance/Israelis) via bombings and assassinations. Anyone who thinks they can take on and hold against the full might of the U.S. military has never fought in the dark against someone with night vision/heat sensors and superior weapons/body armor. Idaho is about the only place that could fight toe-to-toe against the U.S. and win. (just my humble opinion here folks)
None of that is necessary. Our money is in banks.. we work for large corporations. Stop that and we devolve into anarchy pretty quickly.
saxitoxin wrote:Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.
Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.
Woodruff, this -
Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence? Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.
- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.
You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.
Please stop the trolling. It's quite ridiculous.
Three pages after the question is posited and we are still left with nothing more than an empty sack of invective statements. It's good that you don't embarrass easily, Woodruff. Most people in your position would be absolutely beet red in the face right now.
I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. I do wish you'd discuss the subject rather than trolling, though.
Agreed. So, does that mean you'll answer the question now? Or will you, once again, wildly wave your arms in the arm and madly exclaim people are out to get you?
Here it is, for the fourth time:
[Woodruff] What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Yet finally without the incessant trolling. Perhaps you've grown up over the past day or so?
saxitoxin wrote:[Woodruff] What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?
To provide information for strategic and tactical maneuvers, obviously.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:To provide information for strategic and tactical maneuvers, obviously.
Good! Now we're making progress (I deleted the rant you sneaked in so we could keep the madness to a minimum).
The next question you were requested to answer and chose not to:
- If there are no maneuver forces available, what strategic advantage does intelligence provide? (Basically, is there such a thing as situational awareness just for the sake of situational awareness?)
I hope you make the choice to keep this thread on track by continuing your good behavior.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Woodruff wrote:To provide information for strategic and tactical maneuvers, obviously.
Good! Now we're making progress (I deleted the rant you sneaked in so we could keep the madness to a minimum).
The next question you were requested to answer and chose not to:
If there are no maneuver forces available, what strategic advantage does intelligence provide? (Basically, is there such a thing as situational awareness just for the sake of situational awareness?)
This is an irrational question. If there are no maneuver forces available, then the war is already lost.
saxitoxin wrote:I hope you make the choice to keep this thread on track by continuing your good behavior.
f*ck off, troll.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:To provide information for strategic and tactical maneuvers, obviously.
Good! Now we're making progress (I deleted the rant you sneaked in so we could keep the madness to a minimum).
The next question you were requested to answer and chose not to:
If there are no maneuver forces available, what strategic advantage does intelligence provide? (Basically, is there such a thing as situational awareness just for the sake of situational awareness?)
This is an irrational question. If there are no maneuver forces available, then the war is already lost.
Woodruff wrote:To provide information for strategic and tactical maneuvers, obviously.
Good! Now we're making progress (I deleted the rant you sneaked in so we could keep the madness to a minimum).
The next question you were requested to answer and chose not to:
If there are no maneuver forces available, what strategic advantage does intelligence provide? (Basically, is there such a thing as situational awareness just for the sake of situational awareness?)
This is an irrational question. If there are no maneuver forces available, then the war is already lost.
(to which you replied I was an idiot or a moron or an idiotic moron or something)
Good talk, Woodruff. As always. Bye now.
Of course, that wasn't quite your original assertion that started your trolling, troll. I wish you were a moron instead of a troll...I might have some respect for you then. But thanks for allowing me to point out how I was right. I appreciate it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Ah so this is where all the conspiracy theories are gathered.
I think that in the next 20 years chimps, orangutangs and gorillas will rebel against humans and eventually take over the earth.
Btw I did NOT get this idea from a movie! This idea spontaneously arrived in my head without any influence from the outside world. Sort of like how free will works really.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
Gillipig wrote:Ah so this is where all the conspiracy theories are gathered.
I think that in the next 20 years chimps, orangutangs and gorillas will rebel against humans and eventually take over the earth.
Btw I did NOT get this idea from a movie! This idea spontaneously arrived in my head without any influence from the outside world. Sort of like how free will works really.
One of the more intelligent ideas in this thread...
Woodruff wrote:To provide information for strategic and tactical maneuvers, obviously.
Good! Now we're making progress (I deleted the rant you sneaked in so we could keep the madness to a minimum).
The next question you were requested to answer and chose not to:
If there are no maneuver forces available, what strategic advantage does intelligence provide? (Basically, is there such a thing as situational awareness just for the sake of situational awareness?)
This is an irrational question. If there are no maneuver forces available, then the war is already lost.
(to which you replied I was an idiot or a moron or an idiotic moron or something)
Good talk, Woodruff. As always. Bye now.
OF COURSE, THAT WASN'T QUITE YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION THAT STARTED YOUR TROLLING, TROLL. I WISH YOU WERE A MORON INSTEAD OF A TROLL ... I MIGHT HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR YOU THEN.
Oh Woodruff. Woodruff, Woodruff, Woodruff. You blood pressure must always just be through the roof.
As to your "comeback" that I've edited my post, you do realize people are able to scroll back and see the original posts, right? You're aware the taupe colored underlining in my post indicates a hyperlink, in fact, to which people can immediately jump, right?
Please everyone, re-review the quoted section above in which Woodruff finally stops name-calling, wipes the froth from his mouth, and unwittingly admits I was correct all along. It will afford you the hardiest of laughs!
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Woodruff wrote:To provide information for strategic and tactical maneuvers, obviously.
Good! Now we're making progress (I deleted the rant you sneaked in so we could keep the madness to a minimum).
The next question you were requested to answer and chose not to:
If there are no maneuver forces available, what strategic advantage does intelligence provide? (Basically, is there such a thing as situational awareness just for the sake of situational awareness?)
This is an irrational question. If there are no maneuver forces available, then the war is already lost.
(to which you replied I was an idiot or a moron or an idiotic moron or something)
Good talk, Woodruff. As always. Bye now.
OF COURSE, THAT WASN'T QUITE YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION THAT STARTED YOUR TROLLING, TROLL. I WISH YOU WERE A MORON INSTEAD OF A TROLL ... I MIGHT HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR YOU THEN.
Oh Woodruff. Woodruff, Woodruff, Woodruff. You blood pressure must always just be through the roof.
As to your "comeback" that I've edited my post, you do realize people are able to scroll back and see the original posts, right? You're aware the taupe colored underlining in my post indicates a hyperlink, in fact, to which people can immediately jump, right?
Please everyone, re-review the quoted section above in which Woodruff finally stops name-calling, wipes the froth from his mouth, and unwittingly admits I was correct all along. It will afford you the hardiest of laughs!
As you well know, I didn't even imply that you edited your post. I know you like to pretend that everyone you're discussing things with is a raving lunatic, but all that has done is make me believe you're sitting at your keyboard, furiously pounding away in anger at each response. In summation...f*ck off, troll.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
You should learn to control your anger. I really don't understand why you're getting so worked up over being shown wrong.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Thank you for proving you have no argument, yet again. I appreciate it. Now go calm down somewhere.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
