Well, yes, but that's been the case for many years, and nations all around the world still want them. Possibly intending them to be used against non-peer adversaries, though.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
For instance, the idea with the mooted German invasion of Britain was that the British fleet would wreak havoc on any seaborne invasion: even if troops got across, hardly any supplies to keep them fighting would. Therefore it was necessary to cripple the Royal Air Force so that the Luftwaffe could then prevent the Royal Navy from intervening. That's where a navy stands: anything good enough at sinking its ships, it's not much use.
Anything good enough at destroying X means X isn't much use, though.
As I understand it, though, in that particular instance, the RAF had to be destroyed to stop it from attacking whatever marine forces the Germans put together, and also to stop it from contesting the air with the Luftwaffe, which had to protect the transports and beachheads and also perform close air support.
No, the RAF needed to be destroyed so the Luftwaffe would be free to sink any of the Royal Navy that tried to intervene.
There are numerous instances where the air force was used to prevent a naval operation of that type. Although I'm thinking here more evacuations: Dunkirk or Crete. Yes, air attack is dangerous and damaging, but...
However, imagine one, single destroyer unopposed in a fleet of landing ships or a transport convoy. Four, twin, 120 mm gun turrets firing 10 salvos a second and 1000-2000 rounds of ammo in the magazines. That's not just damaging, it's catastrophic (unless they can scatter).
Last edited:
Ah, my mistake, should have said "the RAF also had to be destroyed to..." In that the invasion was vulnerable to air attack in a number of areas.
Operation Tiger comes to mind.
(As an aside, I'm led to believe that a RAN destroyer wouldn't actually have needed any weapons to sink much of the invasion fleet, as simply steaming past at speed in a large sea-worthy vessel makes things very unsafe for smaller boats intended for inland waters. Not having seaworthy transports was one of a large number of good reasons why Sealion wasn't attempted.)
You arm them with AESA radars and VLS cells with anti-missile missiles.
Plus, it goes beyond ships; refueling, logistics, and other support vessels are important.
Harriers < supersonic aircraft armed with French anti-ship missiles.
The Germans lost for a lot of reasons, and sure, mass building Pz IVs (roughly their equivalent of a Sherman or T-34) instead wouldn't have saved them alone.
However, the Germans certainly could have fielded more tanks to better effect: for most of the war, their Panzer divisions were permanently depleted. They were supposed to have a strength of about 200 tanks, but introduced a rule that each company could have one fewer squadron and each squadron one fewer tank, thereby meaning the standard strength of a Panzer division was actually only about two thirds (~130-140). And that's even before them being understrength due to losses, or in late war having to make up numbers with tank destroyers.
If a PzIVH (the main variant) cost about a third of a Tiger to make and was about half the weight, this suggests that with the same effort, factory effort and materials, the Germans could have produced around twice as many. In terms of a Tiger II, they might have got three PzIVHs. Once in service, PzIVs would also need correspondingly less fuel, break down less, be easier to recover when stuck or damaged, etc. (chances are about two-thirds of Tigers would be unfit for action at any one time). They only made about 1300 Tiger Is, so that would be 2500-3000 PzIVHs. Although if you start including the Tigers IIs, Ferdinands, Jadgtigers and other hulking wastes of resources and factory time, including the time and effort setting up facilities for new designs, it's plausible the Germans could have made getting towards 10,000 more PzIVHs instead. With the context that they only built 8-,9000 of all PzIV variants, that's a lot more tanks. It's also not that much of a big deal in manpower, because an armoured battalion required a lot less manpower than an infantry battalion. Losing a few regiments of infantry to supply the crews and mechanics for those extra tanks is totally worth it.
And there's laws that allow those things to be "bypassed".
Silvanus said the people deported were protected residents and they're not.
The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the United States.
Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States
The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the...
You've not proven any of these people were deported unlawfully yet.
Let's see these laws that allow habeas, judicial review, and notice to be bypassed, then. Because both examples you've provided so far don't allow it, and the AEA doesn't apply.
I said that some of the deportees were legally resident, which is established, and that protections exist and apply against summary deportation without due process, which is also true.
It's been proven to the satisfaction of three federal courts that deportations without notice or review cannot go ahead under these conditions. You can blindly insist otherwise all you like, but those are the facts.
The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the United States.
It's also not against the law for the executive branch (enforcement in general) to misunderstand a law as long as they don't continue doing when told not to do it.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,772
- 3,351
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Giving more credibility to a random article from 2014 than to actual current laws posted for you in their original language and judgements made by federal judges about those laws.
You continue to argue in bad faith.
We've already provided you information on how summary removal procedures still require judicial review and yet you're still stuck on one sentence from a decade old article.
Twitch streamer Hasan Piker says he was questioned by U.S. Customs at airport
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said “claims that his political beliefs triggered the inspection are baseless.”
Of course it wasn't it political beliefs. Anyone with a forename like that would be up for some customs harassment.Should've just accepted the way things are now and quietly submitted to authority like a law-abiding citizen.Twitch streamer Hasan Piker says he was questioned by U.S. Customs at airport
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said “claims that his political beliefs triggered the inspection are baseless.”www.nbcnews.com
Funny, my thought was "Of course it wasn't political beliefs. Anyone as obnoxious as him is going to pick a fight with airport security."
Those same laws are on the books... And the fact that this is from 10 years ago and stuff other presidents not named Trump did (*cough* Obama *cough*) and you're only so up in arms now because it's someone you don't like doing it. I'm just so tried of people complaining about republicans doing stuff that democrats do and ignoring when the democrats do it.
Though anti-immigrant politicians and groups have long advocated for the use of the act in response to unlawful border crossings, Macedo do Nascimento said a number of executive orders and congressional policies have already broadened the federal government’s authorities to detain and deport immigrants.
“There are already laws that allow for mass detention. There are already laws, like the Laken Riley Act, that would broaden the dragnet of people who can be detained,” Macedo do Nascimento said. “So the idea of him invoking the Alien Enemies Act feels kind of needless. To me, it is really about building the narrative to label immigrants as terrorists.”
Judge blocks Trump from using 18th-century wartime act for deportations
Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport five Venezuelans, but order halted by judge
www.theguardian.com
You've quoted that segment four or five times now, without really understanding what it's saying.
To begin with: that talks about the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status being bypassed in summary removal proceedings. But those aren't the rights we're talking about. We're discussing notice, judicial review (which isn't the same thing as the right to appear before a judge), and habeas.
The article says 'summary removal procedures' covers 3 kinds: expedited removal; reinstatement of removal; and stipulated removal. We've already covered the last two and established that they don't allow those rights to be bypassed. So what remains is expedited removal.
After some reading into it, it looks like expedited removal does preclude the usual standard of judicial review. But it does not allow habeas to be bypassed, and it still requires notice, allowing the person to file (either for asylum, habeas, or an appeal). There are also specific grounds in which it can be used, and it wasn't used for the incarcerated Venezuelans anyway.
The gov used the AEA. And the courts have ruled it was used unlawfully.
Expedited removal does allow those to be bypassed. Habeas isn't even an issue here. Also, it's not illegal for an enforcement agency to misinterpret a law, though continuing to do so is a problem. You guys said Trump would ignore the courts and he's not.
Though anti-immigrant politicians and groups have long advocated for the use of the act in response to unlawful border crossings, Macedo do Nascimento said a number of executive orders and congressional policies have already broadened the federal government’s authorities to detain and deport immigrants.
“There are already laws that allow for mass detention. There are already laws, like the Laken Riley Act, that would broaden the dragnet of people who can be detained,” Macedo do Nascimento said. “So the idea of him invoking the Alien Enemies Act feels kind of needless. To me, it is really about building the narrative to label immigrants as terrorists.”
Judge blocks Trump from using 18th-century wartime act for deportations
Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport five Venezuelans, but order halted by judge
www.theguardian.com
DNC panel pushes to scrap David Hogg's vice chair election
David Hogg has been at the center of an intraparty battle within the Democratic National Committee.
www.cbsnews.com
Get David Hogg out of the DNC leadership. His anti-gun positions will cost us seats.
No, it absolutely doesn't. The Constitution guarantees Habeas, not only for citizens, and explicitly bars the government from suspending it except in exceptional grounds of rebellion or war.
Funny, then, that the Trump administration rushed these deportations through, to try to get then out before the courts could block them. Funny also that Trump responded to the court's decision by slandering the judge.
...and none of them allow habeas to be bypassed or for these things to be done with zero notice of a change in status.
Trump used the AEA. Federal Court ruled that's unlawful. You speculating (incorrectly) that he could have used alternative methods-- methods you can't even identify!-- is rather irrelevant.
Oh, the idea of getting rid of candidates because their policies are too progressive...that hasn't put the Dems in a good place. OTOH, the idea that this election is to stave off disaster, need to get a win...well, assuming there still are elections, that's going to be true. Again.DNC panel pushes to scrap David Hogg's vice chair election
David Hogg has been at the center of an intraparty battle within the Democratic National Committee.
Get David Hogg out of the DNC leadership. His anti-gun positions will cost us seats.