On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:10:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable.

Let me try and summarize your main points:

- Carriers are worthless because they are vulnerable.

- Fixed bases are more worthless.

That's why you need to send the Marines.

Don't plan - improvise. :)

Hoo rah !

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:40:55 -0400, hk wrote:

I'd like to know how a ship is supposed to avoid being hit by a
wave-hopping, supersonic missile "steered" by a couple of guys via a
video camera on the weapon and a laptop computer. That's where anti-ship
missile technology is headed.

Why waste a perfectly good missile when you could do the same thing
with say, a radio controlled/GPS guided Parker ?



Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.

Harry, you are in the area. Try to see how close you can get to a Navy
ship of any kind entering the Bay.

Eisboch

On Aug 14, 8:23*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 8:14 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:



"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 8:05 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message

....
On Aug 14, 7:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:

and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a
ducission.
your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter

wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for
a
Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Why b Definitely got your handle right.

--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

=========================================

Try reading the header.

With all the folks here using multiple handles lately..........why
bother?

BTW: Who's wife is a bull****ter?
===================================

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

So who is it?
========================

It ain't SWS.

So who is it?

I don't care to do anymore research other than it's obvious who it isn't.

NP. Just seeing if you can help cleaning this place up.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:11:58 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

So who is it?

Don White

C:\Windows\System32tracert 24.222.66.79

Tracing route to blk-222-66-79.eastlink.ca [24.222.66.79]

Eastlink.ca is headquartered in Halifax, Nova Scotia

http://www.eastlink.ca/about/

QED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.


Yeah, I do. Comped. Long, long story, the gist of which is that I used to
handle the marketing and PR for a now-defunct pro-military entanglement
"diplomacy" publication, and when the pub folded (long after my
involvement with it), the senior editor, a buddy, hopped to the Jane's
group, and I got a comp. After some years, at my request, he switched it
to an electronic subscription. I still look at it once it a while.

Good grief. Try the public library.

Eisboch

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:08:44 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

There's some interesting spin.

Who makes up the establishment? Individuals?

Individuals that Harry disagrees with - important distinction.

On Aug 14, 8:29*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:11:58 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

The point is you accuse someone that doesn't deserve it.

So who is it?

Don White

C:\Windows\System32tracert 24.222.66.79

Tracing route to blk-222-66-79.eastlink.ca [24.222.66.79]

Eastlink.ca is headquartered in Halifax, Nova Scotia

http://www.eastlink.ca/about/

QED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

If true.............disappointed!

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:18:26 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:33:29 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)
You do not.

Yeah, I do. Comped. Long, long story, the gist of which is that I used
to handle the marketing and PR for a now-defunct pro-military
entanglement "diplomacy" publication, and when the pub folded (long
after my involvement with it), the senior editor, a buddy, hopped to the
Jane's group, and I got a comp. After some years, at my request, he
switched it to an electronic subscription. I still look at it once it a
while.

Of course - a comped subscription to Jane's.

What was I thinking?

You weren't.

No kidding - done all the time - hell, I get comped magazines everyday
- inundated with the damned things - all left over from the early days
when I...

Well, we'll just leave that for another time.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:24:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:10:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable.

Let me try and summarize your main points:

- Carriers are worthless because they are vulnerable.

- Fixed bases are more worthless.

That's why you need to send the Marines.

Don't plan - improvise. :)

Hoo rah !

Damn straight. :)

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:26:27 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:40:55 -0400, hk wrote:

I'd like to know how a ship is supposed to avoid being hit by a
wave-hopping, supersonic missile "steered" by a couple of guys via a
video camera on the weapon and a laptop computer. That's where anti-ship
missile technology is headed.

Why waste a perfectly good missile when you could do the same thing
with say, a radio controlled/GPS guided Parker ?

Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.

Harry, you are in the area. Try to see how close you can get to a Navy
ship of any kind entering the Bay.

My brother, and my niece, have a great story about that.

It's highly amusing - especially the part about the .50 cals pointed
at him from some highly motivated sailors and Coasties. :)