Derek 2.0

I don't remember if it was a supercharger station, but a resort we have stayed in Long Beach had car chargers....

No doubt......think a French led Afghanistan, with all the crazy Islamic terrorists and IEDs, combined with FRY UN leadership.....what could go wrong?

That's ridiculous.......these are basic small arms, there are third world armies better equipped to deal with a Russian tank army then Canada..........none the less, from what has been made public, Canada isn't bringing much to the party....certainly nothing that could stop a Russian tank...... I never said anything of the sort.....The UK is, after the Americans, the most capable force in NATO and has recent experience leading large formations of combined forces in combat......the Germans, despite decades of cuts and downsizing are still the Germans......Canada was asked after the Dutch and Danes (IIRC?) turned it down. He won't buy anything for this deployment....he is sending Canadian troops into the field, to face a Russian threat (though remote), in even worse shape then his father........which is outstanding in a bad kinda way.

Poor Putin..........the former countries that his nation took over and ruled for generations don't like the prospect of a Russian do-over so they joined NATO......its so bad, Putin felt his only choice was to invade Georgia and the Crimea.

Trudeau could restart........he, unlike Harper is the current head of the Government. Harper didn't make the ADATS obsolete nearly two decades ago.........none the less, unlike Harper, the Trudeau Government, if it elected not to reprofile defense funds, could purchase MOTS any number of MANPADS, anti-armor systems, heavy machine guns etc for Trudeau's whipping out of the army to Eastern Europe.......one would think such systems may have some form of utility against the Russians if they decided to attack........ Can't blame Harper for agreeing to lead a battlegroup with a poorly equipped Canadian army......

Huh? The American (and Russian) weapons based in Central Europe, namely West (and East) Germany, were not based along the borders, but far inside their own territory.......and NATO (including Canadians) very much so planned to use tactical nukes, for decades, to plug the Fulda Gap and Northern German plain........

Borders vice bordering nations........

A family/person with a multi generational loyalty to General Motors Fair point, but once your kids get into their teens they won't want to drive around with Mom and Dad anyways My wife had a Cadillac ESV and went down to the Tesla once our youngest got his N license......liked the car aside from a few quirks, but it wasn't practical once we left the lower mainland....the top end Model S isn't worth the six figure price tag (almost as much as we paid for our first townhouse!!!) for what you get though........she now drives a Camaro SS and is thinking about upgrading to a 2017 Stingray later this year or next Spring. The BMW might be smallish, but IMHO, looks way better then one of those Fiat or smartcars.....

The Russian tank armies are very much real, and are the the direct equivalent to the Americans deploying several Carrier Battlegroups off a nations shores.......they are no less or more a threat then the Soviet hordes of the Cold War. Would Putin screw around in the Baltic States? Maybe, but to be successful, he'd need a majority of ethnic Russians like he had in the Eastern Ukraine.

I never said they were based on either borders (nor that US tac nukes should be based along the borders with Russia), again that reverts to maps......none the less, both nations employed tactical nukes in bordering nations, likewise theater nukes that could target European Russia and the UK and France......The deployment of the Pershing II (and nuclear tipped Tomahawks) was an upping of the ante with the Soviets, and combined with Star Wars, brought the Russians to Reykjavik. There's that nuance you're stumbling with again.

The BMW actually looks kinda interesting (I had to look it up).........if the Tesla had an internal gas backup we'd probably have kept it, as it stands, living in a rural area (not Tesla's fault mind you) where we always seem to loose power (sometimes days on end) the Tesla became a nonstarter (pun) for us my wife.......that and service/maintenance, a real pain in the ass, but I do understand its getting better in larger cities. We probably won't be in the market for another electric anytime soon, but the BMW does look like the perfect little car for the city.......and I don't even like German cars.....

If you're in the city, and plan to be for sometime, do it...........but lease (don't buy) a cheaper one like a Volt or Leaf etc.....stay away from the higher end ones, including Tesla.....not worth the money (My wife owned a Tesla S).

Too nuanced? The Russians or Americans can threaten each other (or other nations) around the globe, as is, with their nuclear arms........yet the Russians have elected to exert themselves in Central/Eastern Europe by deploying massive mechanized armies (as they did through the Cold War)....as a response (like was done during the Cold War) the US/NATO should redeploy tactical nuclear weapons that would negate the massive Russian armies.. ...ergo...... The Russians invade a NATO country with their army, NATO responds by nuking the Russian invasion force, which would then result in exchanges by both sides of theater weapons (and with that the end of most European cultures) and finally an exchange of strategic weapons between the US and Russia, and with that, the end of a good chunk of the World's population.......it might sound MAD, but it worked for decades.

I explained that above, yet again though, to negate the recent formation of two Russian mechanized armies based along their Western border with Europe.......the very same reason NATO employed them throughout the Cold War, to act as a counter stroke to the massive Russian hordes.

I gave you an answer, it would never happen.............The US and Russians, unlike the later 50s and early 60s, don't require forward bases for strategic/theater/tactical nuclear weapons to threaten each other.

It would never have to.

The Americans (British, French, West Germans, Canadians, Dutch etc) deployed tactical nukes in West Germany for decades....as did the Russians in Warsaw Pact Nations including East Germany................Your example (Russian nukes in Mexico) is fantasy land......the Mexican economy lives and dies with the largess of the Americans. US tactical nukes in Poland would negate the Russian army, and of course (like an integer) US/UK/French strategic nukes negate and are negated by Russian strategic nukes............the deployment of both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in Central Europe, by both sides, is what prevented a Third World War throughout the Cold War.......leaving Pandora's Box ajar for a conventional war in Europe is a fool's errand, as once one side starts losing it, the nuclear genie will be let out of its bottle and everyone looses.

The ability to defend against Russian theater ballistic missiles, ergo defense against Russian missiles. Tactical nuclear weapons are too small to target Russian cities (of course said cities could/would be targeted by American, British and French nukes), and of whats deployed already in Europe (B61), their intent is to be used against large armored formations and static targets like airfields, bridges and fuel/weapons depots. The Russians already have their own tactical (and of course strategic) nukes, none the less, the reformation of the 1st Guards Tank Army is every much a provocation, as said formation was the very one the Russians used to take (and hold for decades) Eastern Europe.....

And its a foolish idea........if the Russians attacked any NATO country, and NATO didn't respond, that would be the end of NATO........inversely, if Russia was intent on attacking NATO, a 4000 person brigade isn't going to deter them........hence this entire multinational brigade is a complete waste of time and energy......... If NATO really wants to deter Russia, aside from a massive buildup of conventional forces along the lines of the Cold War, they would restart and expand missile defense in Eastern Europe (what Obama halted) and (the Americans) would deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Eastern European NATO members and expand the numbers already shared with the Germans, Dutch, Belgians and Italians.........

The more correct term in "tripwire" speed-bump, even then its not much of one........the 4000 person brigade couldn't even be expected to slow two Russian Tank Armies, comprised of the North side of 60-70k personal, thousands of tanks, thousands of IFVs and hundreds of attack aircraft and helicopters...............The Canadian army, on its own, has zero anti aircraft defense, zero anti tank missiles, no heavy machine guns or mortars and is sending lightly armored LAVs alongside small arms......... I'm sure Putin is terrified. The several hundred Canadians Trudeau is sending over wouldn't even be cannon fodder

What simulator reference? In both cases, the reference was to "real live mock battles" between the F-35 and the F-16/F-15..... You're the one that appears ready to refute a claim that hasn't been made.......... I have countless times, in the case of retired General Hostage, quoting him earlier in this thread: The F-22 is to the F-35, what the F-15 is to the F-16.... Are you going to cite your claim that the F-35 requires the F-22 to contend with older 4th/4.5 gen aircraft?

No, there is no need.........as your "quote source" states the same thing (because it is): The woes on relying on third or fourth hand information

Ahh, prove otherwise, like the cited examples of the F-35 (with a combat suite) in mock aerial combat against F-16s and F-15s? But I assumed that it was.......as far as I know, no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior air superiority fighter then the F-22......yet this is your go to talking point......... I don't suppose you could repeat/cite the passage where its stated that the F-35 requires F-22 support against other 4/4.5 gen aircraft? Hostage does speak to 5th generation Russian and Chinese aircraft and compares them to the F-35: So Hostage doesn't appear concerned with Russian/Chinese air superiority aircraft, aircraft meant to contend against the F-22, and their impact on the F-35......so what specific aircraft are you suggesting he is concerned with?

Ahh.......reread my post you quoted: I cited the actual report that your media sources are quoting from...........of note, per the report, a pilot ejecting from an F-35 well wearing NVG/HMDs, from the known data, is at as much risk as a pilot ejecting from a F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Eurofighter etc etc etc.........in other words, ejecting from an aircraft is dangerous, ejecting from an aircraft with added weight on your head is even more dangerous.......

No , the F-22 has two large engines verses the F-35 single engine (regardless of Super Cruise verses afterburner), likewise the technology surrounding the F-35's engine incorporates further advances in heat reduction through the use of baffles on the bypass air, including a secondary bypass, that can regulate the air temp going into the exhaust (or can heat it up to increase fuel efficiency), thus cooling it even further.......the F-35's engine (F-135) is after all an improved F-119....the engine used in the Raptor. Plenty, but chief among them, the far larger and faster digital data link in the F-35 versus the Raptor, reducing electronic emission well sharing vastly larger sums of data. The other key area is the F-35's DAS, better put, passive electro-optical sensors (something the F-22 is severely limited with, so much so, for passive sensors, the F-14 Tomcat would be the F-22s near peer) that allow the F-35 the ability to forgo the use of its (very powerful) radar........combined with its smaller radar cross section (and many other factors not made public), and that is why the F-35 is more "stealthy" then the F-22.