Nukes

Post advice on tactics and strategies here; share your experience on how to become a better wargamer.

Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM

wolflars
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:07 pm

RE: Nukes

Post by wolflars »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: wolflars

I think even carriers are a big[:D] problem. They sure pack a punch and are great for peacetime force projection. But a large war with China is likely to see one of these behemoths sunk by a UAV launched from a small but fast coastal craft. Imagine the headlines: “USS Hubris sunk by Chinese fishing boat, thousands dead or missing.”

Carriers are different; they can operate outside of the range of coastal weapons systems and still project power against them.

Not so different they don't sink. Coastal was a poor word choice on my part, but you get my point I think. Stealth, UAVs, and cruise missle technologies are quite capable of getting this done.
User avatar
a white rabbit
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:11 pm
Location: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..

RE: Nukes

Post by a white rabbit »

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..just a general thought on a war with China...

..how are you going to kill them all ? 
...


See the title of this thread...[:)]

..carpet bombing with nukes ???[&:]????...oh great glow-in-dark Chinese with nothing to lose...
..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,
User avatar
Trick37_MatrixForum
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: My mama
Contact:

RE: Nukes

Post by Trick37_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..just a general thought on a war with China...

..how are you going to kill them all ? 
...


See the title of this thread...[:)]

..carpet bombing with nukes ???[&:]????...oh great glow-in-dark Chinese with nothing to lose...

I remember seeing a couple of t-shirts about 20 years ago.....

1). Nuke Khdafi's ass and take the gas

2). Nuke 'em, and use their asses as runway lights.

[X(]
User avatar
Trick37_MatrixForum
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: My mama
Contact:

RE: Nukes

Post by Trick37_MatrixForum »

[font=calibri]
ORIGINAL:  golden delicious[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]2). Patton's intel chief didn't predict it---I think you meant that it was COL Dickson, 1st Army's intel chief. 
[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]No- Oscar Koch of 3rd Army;[/font]
[font=calibri]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBS/is_2_28/ai_84903392[/quote[/font][font=calibri]][/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Good article, but…….. [/font][font=calibri]http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=42[/font][font=calibri] (See “The Initial Assault,” third paragraph which starts with “Depite Eisenhower’s….” and go to the middle of the paragraph.)[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]
ORIGINAL:  golden delicious[/font]
[font=calibri]
ORIGINAL:  Trick37[/font]
[font=calibri]You're right on the economy, though.  Dubya has put us in a bad way with regards to not only going into debt, but with WHOM we're into debt.  The Chinese only have to call it its debt to us, and we're sunk.
[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Well, so're they. Ultimately, the American economy has a deeper basis than China's does, and they would recover faster than China in the event of a global slump.
[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Yea, but the damage to our economy could be as bad as during the Depression, is not worse, and it would most likely force us to put our military in the state that the Russian one is in….”on hold.”[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]
ORIGINAL:  golden delicious[/font]
[font=calibri]
ORIGINAL:  Trick37[/font]
[font=calibri]But if their economy falls far enough......?  What if they're faced with the same political issues that the WARSAW Pact, and especially the USSR was faced with, when the Wall was falling, thus putting the final nail in the coffin to the failure of Communism in the Pact countries?  Will the Chinese leadership be so keen as to just let it happen, resulting in a few elite losing power, or will they lash out at Taiwan )or even Russia or elsewhere)?  I only hope that we won't have to find out.
[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]If they're acting in desperation then you just have to make the war unpopular with economic warfare. Then the government will presumably collapse.
[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Presumably……[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]
ORIGINAL:  golden delicious[/font]
[font=calibri]
ORIGINAL:  Trick37[/font]
[font=calibri]It must've also been either Iraqi arrogance or Saddam's stupidity that led to them not adapting.
[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]I would say a systemic incompetence; the Iraqi army just wasn't a modern organisation in the way a Western army was, or even an army like Syria's or Egypt's. Moreover this wasn't the first time this had happened- take a look at the "campaign" fought against the Iraqis in 1941; they just folded right up.
[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Weren’t the Iraqis in WW2 still riding on camels…….?[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Well, when you have an army where people are forced to join/fight when they don’t want, you don’t get an effective fighting force.  We’ve seen this before…[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Nukes

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..just a general thought on a war with China...

..how are you going to kill them all ?

You just don't. They just can't project enough power, and can be defeated by a united front in an economic war.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Nukes

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Trick37

You're correct there. When MacArthur threatened to use nukes against Chinese troops if they intervened in Korea, the response was "So we lose a couple million......" One hell of a psychology, eh? [X(]

I beleive Mao said;

"If the Americans make war on us, we may lose one hundred or two hundred million people. So what? War is war."
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Nukes

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Trick37
Weren’t the Iraqis in WW2 still riding on camels…….?

No. However the British, Italian and French colonial forces all had camel mounted troops for use in the Sahara desert. The Iraqi army was mostly infantry with one motorised brigade. It was defeated by a scratch force about one fifth of its size.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Trick37_MatrixForum
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: My mama
Contact:

RE: Nukes

Post by Trick37_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

You're correct there. When MacArthur threatened to use nukes against Chinese troops if they intervened in Korea, the response was "So we lose a couple million......" One hell of a psychology, eh? [X(]

I beleive Mao said;

"If the Americans make war on us, we may lose one hundred or two hundred million people. So what? War is war."

Yea, something to that effect...... Still the same effect on the psyche, though.

User avatar
Trick37_MatrixForum
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: My mama
Contact:

RE: Nukes

Post by Trick37_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
Weren’t the Iraqis in WW2 still riding on camels…….?

No. However the British, Italian and French colonial forces all had camel mounted troops for use in the Sahara desert. The Iraqi army was mostly infantry with one motorised brigade. It was defeated by a scratch force about one fifth of its size.

That was actually a rhetorical question..... [:)]
User avatar
sstevens06
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:12 pm
Location: USA

RE: Nukes

Post by sstevens06 »

ORIGINAL: Trick37

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

You're correct there. When MacArthur threatened to use nukes against Chinese troops if they intervened in Korea, the response was "So we lose a couple million......" One hell of a psychology, eh? [X(]

I beleive Mao said;

"If the Americans make war on us, we may lose one hundred or two hundred million people. So what? War is war."

Yea, something to that effect...... Still the same effect on the psyche, though.



That was a long time ago.

Today there are a number of Chinese (PRC) billionaires and millionaires who aren't particularly interested in getting nuked. Most of these personages are high communist party officials and/or have enormous influence ($) with the higher echelons of the Chinese communist party - these folks are far more interested in trade than in conflict. However the situation in the PRC is complex - these plutocrats are somewhat offset by elements of the PLA (People's Liberation Army) who seem much more aggressive. Only time will tell which of these factions winds up calling the shots. My money is on the plutocrats (obviously)!
Jaylord14
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:07 pm

RE: Nukes

Post by Jaylord14 »

quote:

Years later I would witness a similar but more advanced and heavily armored Bradley completely obliterated by an IED made from a coffee can and some 60mm mortar rounds. I was shocked to say the least.

And that's what Russia would have been putting into the field against you within a year. Only a little more high tech.

The problem for the Soviets is that to get those follow-on divisions into combat they would have to completely wreck an already creaky economy. What most people don't know is that Soviet Cat II & III divisions had almost no organic supply transport. Their transport came from stripping almost every truck in the entire Soviet Union from the the civilian economy. In fact, most Cat III divisions didn't even have much in the way of organic transport for their combat elements such as used by the infantry and artillery. Once these divisions are mobilized the Soviet economy starts to shut down and within 60 days (probably more like 60 hours given the typical Soviet era food stockpiles) the people start to starve. Read up on the mess the mobilization for the move into Afghanistan made of the economies in the 'Stans in 1979.

So you have the Cat IIs going into combat with no re-supply capability, only the ammo and fuel the combat elements can carry with them and maybe the Cat IIIs walking. But you ask, what about rail movement and supply? Well, even in the '80s the Soviets had to funnel troops and supplies through a half-dozen rail choke points on the border of the Soviet Union proper, with only three of them (as I recall) having any real excess capacity even in peace time. One the F-111s (with some help from Tornadoes) main tasks was to shut these choke points down.

I know what I'm talking about. I spent 5 years in the '80s serving at a USAF intelligence post in WGER. We were well aware of WP capabilities and vulnerabilities. It was scary to think what the first 2 weeks would be like and we figured our post (Field Station Augsburg) was a prime candidate for a nerve gas attack or for some of the Spetnaz boys to drop by for a few beers. [:(] We even joked about stealing some the orange street cleaner uniforms they used in WGER and sweeping our way to Switzerland. [:)] The fact is, the WP had to win in 30 days or the Soviet economy would collapse. Their big hope was for weenie leadership in the west like Jimmy Carter, Helmut Schmidt and James Callaghan. Once Reagan, Kohl and Thatcher were in charge they had little chance of winning short of sneaking a devastating nuclear attack in. Saying that after a year the Soviet steamroller would crush the NATO forces is a pipe dream.
Jaylord14
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:07 pm

RE: Nukes

Post by Jaylord14 »

rue, but the battleships didn't just have the 16" guns. They were fitted with Tomahawk cruise missles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles (two 5" gun mounts on both sides were removed for this), as well as an in-the-aft-well helicopter hanger that could fit 4-8 helicopters and/or Harrier jets. That firepower alone is well worth it. In addition, it had four Phalanx CWIS (Close-in Weapons System) mounts on the ship for anti-missile defense. Although not perfect, they're worth more than their weight in gold. (The UK learned the hard way what they were worth when they turned down an offer to fit their ships with them....before the Falklands War. That changed afterwards, but at an unfortunate cost.)

The 16" guns on the could fire a round 24 nautical miles, or 39 kilometers, thus giving them the power to suppress beach and port defenses without being seen (as we saw during the 1st Gulf War in 1990/1991). As we know the history, these ships, along with the Marines in their assault ships, convinced Iraq that we were planning an amphibious assault as a part of our attack strategy. We also know that wasn't the case, ad that he was caught with his pants down after reinforcing his beaches in response.

Just having those ships in the inventory is something to behold, and to fear.

As far as an Execeet missle hitting it, I refer you to what my dad used to say: "The submarine is a 'boat,' but there are no surface ships...only targets."

I miss the BBs too, but I understand why they were retired even though they could still be awesome warships today. The problem with them was their cost/combat power ratio was too low, especially their operational costs given the 2800+ crews (although after the '80s refurb I think the crew was reduced somewhat). The Navy knew that with the end of the cold war their were going to be large personnel cuts and with 5000+ men on CVs they needed the men on the BBs elsewhere. It's sad, but those are the facts.[:(]
Jaylord14
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:07 pm

RE: Nukes

Post by Jaylord14 »

You're right on the economy, though. Dubya has put us in a bad way with regards to not only going into debt, but with WHOM we're into debt. The Chinese only have to call it its debt to us, and we're sunk. THEN they wouldn't need to worry about us getting involved in Taiwan......if they be so bold.

Actually you have this kind of backwards. If they call in their debt it basically becomes worthless and Americans can buy it back at fire sale prices. Meanwhile we cut most imports from China (Most people can go a a year or more without buying any cloths or Elmo dolls) and the 60 million workers who work on exports in China and represent 60+% of their economy are immediately out of work and the Chinese economy collapses. The US economy would fall into a deep, deep recession but the Chinese would be totally screwed. The Chinese hold ~$1 trillion of US debt, but the US economy is $13 Trillion+, so we could weather that blow.

In fact, US debt compared to GDP or especially compared to wealth (the value of all the land, buildings, stocks, cash on hand, etc.) is much lower than most European countries (Like Italy. Yikes!) [X(] The gross number of dollars in the yearly deficit are relatively unimportant, it's the debt as a ratio to total economy that's a concern. If the debt rate is lower than the productivity gain rate (which it is for the US, but not for most of Europe), then it's not a big problem. In fact, the deficit as a percentage of GDP last year was 1.9%, well below the 30 year average, and the productivity gain was ~2.5%. And the deficit will be quite a bit lower this year. You need to get your info about the economy from somewhere besides the usual suspects (CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/NYTimes/Time/Newsweek). [:-] Watch how the second a Democrat gets in the White House the awful, nasty economy will become the best in the history of the Universe! Why, we will be the envy of every Khlatoo on Omicron 5!! [:D]

The deficit only looks bad next to the artificial surpluses brought about by the Dot Com explosion during the last half of the Clinton admin. After the bust we were going to have deficits no matter what. There are things to worry about in the economy and federal budget, but for the moment the deficit is a lesser concern.
User avatar
a white rabbit
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:11 pm
Location: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..

RE: Nukes

Post by a white rabbit »

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: Trick37

ORIGINAL: golden delicious




I beleive Mao said;

"If the Americans make war on us, we may lose one hundred or two hundred million people. So what? War is war."

Yea, something to that effect...... Still the same effect on the psyche, though.



That was a long time ago.

Today there are a number of Chinese (PRC) billionaires and millionaires who aren't particularly interested in getting nuked. Most of these personages are high communist party officials and/or have enormous influence ($) with the higher echelons of the Chinese communist party - these folks are far more interested in trade than in conflict. However the situation in the PRC is complex - these plutocrats are somewhat offset by elements of the PLA (People's Liberation Army) who seem much more aggressive. Only time will tell which of these factions winds up calling the shots. My money is on the plutocrats (obviously)!

..some how i doubt the PLA would weep too much if some fat buggers in luxury appts get nuked either. It won't be the first time in Chineses history that the military have run the place..
..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,
User avatar
a white rabbit
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:11 pm
Location: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..

RE: Nukes

Post by a white rabbit »

ORIGINAL: Jaylord14
You're right on the economy, though. Dubya has put us in a bad way with regards to not only going into debt, but with WHOM we're into debt. The Chinese only have to call it its debt to us, and we're sunk. THEN they wouldn't need to worry about us getting involved in Taiwan......if they be so bold.

Actually you have this kind of backwards. If they call in their debt it basically becomes worthless and Americans can buy it back at fire sale prices. Meanwhile we cut most imports from China (Most people can go a a year or more without buying any cloths or Elmo dolls) and the 60 million workers who work on exports in China and represent 60+% of their economy are immediately out of work and the Chinese economy collapses. The US economy would fall into a deep, deep recession but the Chinese would be totally screwed. The Chinese hold ~$1 trillion of US debt, but the US economy is $13 Trillion+, so we could weather that blow.

In fact, US debt compared to GDP or especially compared to wealth (the value of all the land, buildings, stocks, cash on hand, etc.) is much lower than most European countries (Like Italy. Yikes!) [X(] The gross number of dollars in the yearly deficit are relatively unimportant, it's the debt as a ratio to total economy that's a concern. If the debt rate is lower than the productivity gain rate (which it is for the US, but not for most of Europe), then it's not a big problem. In fact, the deficit as a percentage of GDP last year was 1.9%, well below the 30 year average, and the productivity gain was ~2.5%. And the deficit will be quite a bit lower this year. You need to get your info about the economy from somewhere besides the usual suspects (CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/NYTimes/Time/Newsweek). [:-] Watch how the second a Democrat gets in the White House the awful, nasty economy will become the best in the history of the Universe! Why, we will be the envy of every Khlatoo on Omicron 5!! [:D]

The deficit only looks bad next to the artificial surpluses brought about by the Dot Com explosion during the last half of the Clinton admin. After the bust we were going to have deficits no matter what. There are things to worry about in the economy and federal budget, but for the moment the deficit is a lesser concern.

..about right.

..China has a very artificial economy based on little but the ability to promise huge profits to investors, a modern South Sea Bubble. If the exchange rate goes to it's true level, a *3.5 revalue up, the economy collapses; if raw material imports cease or cease to be subsidised by others it collapses (an oil price rise would be catastrophic for China, same with metals); if food imports cease to be subsidised cf the US cereal imports, it collapses; if the mass migration to the cities continues, it collapses..

..a unified economic front would finish China, unfortunately, other countries, mostly western, would also suffer..
..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Nukes

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Jaylord14

The problem for the Soviets is that to get those follow-on divisions into combat they would have to completely wreck an already creaky economy. What most people don't know is that Soviet Cat II & III divisions had almost no organic supply transport. Their transport came from stripping almost every truck in the entire Soviet Union from the the civilian economy.

This is exactly what the sort of thing they had to do in 1941. I don't think this action will cause serious problems for the Soviets. Certainly not as much as the equivalent American actions will cause (in terms of men rather than material).
The fact is, the WP had to win in 30 days or the Soviet economy would collapse.

I'm deeply sceptical for the excellent reason that this sort of argument has been proven false before. Prior to the First World War, economists everywhere predicted that a western economy could not operate under the conditions of mass conscription and that as a consequence the war could not have lasted more than a few months.
Saying that after a year the Soviet steamroller would crush the NATO forces is a pipe dream.

Well that wasn't my argument. I was saying that after a year the Soviets would have such vast numerical superiority that they would have made life very difficult for NATO, but ultimately the superior economic strength of the west would have told and led to slow, bloody victory.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Nukes

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Jaylord14

(CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/NYTimes/Time/Newsweek). [:-] Watch how the second a Democrat gets in the White House the awful, nasty economy will become the best in the history of the Universe! Why, we will be the envy of every Khlatoo on Omicron 5!! [:D]

If you're in good economic times, you ought to be paying down that debt no matter how much you don't think it matters.

I tend to agree that your economic situation isn't as bad as a lot of people say- ultimately, the US economy has an incredible resilience- but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to run at a constant deficit.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Trick37_MatrixForum
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: My mama
Contact:

RE: Nukes

Post by Trick37_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Jaylord14

(CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/NYTimes/Time/Newsweek). [:-] Watch how the second a Democrat gets in the White House the awful, nasty economy will become the best in the history of the Universe! Why, we will be the envy of every Khlatoo on Omicron 5!! [:D]

If you're in good economic times, you ought to be paying down that debt no matter how much you don't think it matters.

I tend to agree that your economic situation isn't as bad as a lot of people say- ultimately, the US economy has an incredible resilience- but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to run at a constant deficit.

The problem that we have right now (and I need to be careful here.....) is that we have a president who wants to spend money on crap, and "give money back to the people" int he form of tax cuts. Now, I'm all for having more money in my pockets, but if doing that puts us into "the red" from being in "the black" (when Clinton left), then I'm not for it. We're at least $1 trillion in debt now, and that's a travesty.....and a collapse waiting to happen.

Now, before I say anything else on the economy, I'll be the first to udnerstand that I'm not an economist, nor do I understand everything in this field, but I'm not blind. Deficit=bad is all that I need to know.
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Nukes

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Trick37
The problem that we have right now (and I need to be careful here.....) is that we have a president who wants to spend money on crap, and "give money back to the people" int he form of tax cuts. Now, I'm all for having more money in my pockets, but if doing that puts us into "the red" from being in "the black" (when Clinton left), then I'm not for it. We're at least $1 trillion in debt now, and that's a travesty.....and a collapse waiting to happen.

Well, it's normal to be in debt, and it's acceptable to have a deficit if it's called for. But the current situation just doesn't call for it. Of course as has been noted a lot of western countries have it much worse.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
Jaylord14
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:07 pm

RE: Nukes

Post by Jaylord14 »

The problem that we have right now (and I need to be careful here.....) is that we have a president who wants to spend money on crap, and "give money back to the people" int he form of tax cuts. Now, I'm all for having more money in my pockets, but if doing that puts us into "the red" from being in "the black" (when Clinton left), then I'm not for it. We're at least $1 trillion in debt now, and that's a travesty.....and a collapse waiting to happen.

Now, before I say anything else on the economy, I'll be the first to udnerstand that I'm not an economist, nor do I understand everything in this field, but I'm not blind. Deficit=bad is all that I need to know.

The problem isn't from the tax cuts, tax revenues are at record levels because of the booming economy brought about in large part by the tax cuts. The problem is with spending, like the vast amounts of money wasted through earmarks. Look at the $190 million plus that D-John "Benedict Arnold" Murtha got in earmarks, or the 150 million+ that R-Jerry "That's Not Funny" Lewis scored. Or the Minnesota congressman who squeezes millions out of the Federal budget for bike paths, but couldn't be bothered with bridge repairs. Tax Revenues are doing just fine. It's the spending.[:-]
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”