Post: #101

(05-31-2016 09:10 AM)Engineer Wrote:  Disagree with you 100%. Of course there are some soft, dumb, clueless people in the military, just as there are in any field. But of every group of people I've ever met, the overwhelming majority of military "grunts" are the ones I trust. Those last four words are the highest praise I am able to give.

What do you trust them to do, that people from other walks of life can't?

Post: #102

(05-31-2016 06:23 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 06:21 PM)dain_bramage Wrote:  Rules of modern warfare:

Thanks for sharing that. I've never heard it before. Cool beans.

Post: #103

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.

One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.

Yes and no. The Chinese are not these brave, mindless drones that everyone thinks they are. They are not fighters. They bred that out of these people. I don't say that as a mark against them, personally, but they simply don't have it. They are so awful at team work here it blows my mind. 1 million bodies to throw at an invading force is great, but I always thought that the greatness of the USA's army is the coordination like I've been saying over and over again.


I really cannot see the China ever bringing the fight to anyone (outside of Japan, if they never get over their victim Olympics about Nanjing)

I could see China winning and economic war with USA, but I can't see China winning a war of blood, steel and death against the USA.

Post: #104

OP is just lucky that Ali B is banned he might have gotten a fist full of it.

Coming in as the first generation immigrant on the board. I'm fairly happy for what the U.S. military does. In a lot of countries it's simply a corrupt vehicle to get a nice cushy job while the grunts slave away. For the average man here, it's a patriotic way to get involved and become a successful individual learning discipline and an understanding of simple male camaraderie(which is slowly dying or becoming ridiculed by the current culture). All this despite that that on foreign policy I support isolationism.

I sadly have not many good things to say about the political system on the other hand. Talk about being shafted no matter who you get in office as well as the bloated bureaucracy. The military and veterans benefits being a good example of it with many a good friend suffering in this regard.

Post: #105

I can kind of see where the guys saying that they are annoyed by the arrogance of Americans are coming from. But let me tell you, if you were a citizen of the world's only superpower, you guys will be arrogant as well.

Its pretty much safe to say that America is considered by the whole world to be the best of the best in terms of everything. No matter what the stats say, America is seen as the top dog, the alpha male, the leader, the country every country aspires to be. Being a citizen of this country feels pretty fucking good and of course arrogance comes with it and also a sense of pride comes with it as well.

Im fucking proud to be an American man!! Greatest country that God gave man. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Post: #106

(05-31-2016 07:01 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.

One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.

Yes and no. The Chinese are not these brave, mindless drones that everyone thinks they are. They are not fighters. They bred that out of these people. I don't say that as a mark against them, personally, but they simply don't have it. They are so awful at team work here it blows my mind. 1 million bodies to throw at an invading force is great, but I always thought that the greatness of the USA's army is the coordination like I've been saying over and over again.


I really cannot see the China ever bringing the fight to anyone (outside of Japan, if they never get over their victim Olympics about Nanjing)

I could see China winning and economic war with USA, but I can't see China winning a war of blood, steel and death against the USA.

Your average military aged male there is an unimpressive specimen however it would probably be a big mistake to right off the actual military though.

They do get lots of in field training against combatants and are combat tested pretty frequently. A lot of this is blacked out in the media. However Xinjiang is constant warfare against well trained and Turkish equipped islamic militias and that's not counting whatever other ops they have going on too.

This isn't all just kicking down doors and shooting sleeping Mohammads in the head either. Lots of counter ops going on and battles in harsh mountainous territory to root out Haji.

I also wouldn't underestimate the zealous nature of ethnonationalism when probably motivated. People underestimated what the Vietnamese could do too until shit got real.

Worst thing any military can do is underestimate any opponent. You always want to overestimate them so you throw sufficient power to overwhelm.

Same thing if you get into a scrap with someone you want to crack them in the jaw as hard as possible even if they don't look that strong. Better to be sure at the end of the day.

Post: #107

Also thank God its America being the superpower and not Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan or any of the Islamic states. If any of those countries were the superpower they wouldn't be as forgiving and we will probably be living in the dark ages.

Post: #108

(05-31-2016 07:41 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 07:01 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.

One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.

Yes and no. The Chinese are not these brave, mindless drones that everyone thinks they are. They are not fighters. They bred that out of these people. I don't say that as a mark against them, personally, but they simply don't have it. They are so awful at team work here it blows my mind. 1 million bodies to throw at an invading force is great, but I always thought that the greatness of the USA's army is the coordination like I've been saying over and over again.


I really cannot see the China ever bringing the fight to anyone (outside of Japan, if they never get over their victim Olympics about Nanjing)

I could see China winning and economic war with USA, but I can't see China winning a war of blood, steel and death against the USA.

Your average military aged male there is an unimpressive specimen however it would probably be a big mistake to right off the actual military though.

They do get lots of in field training against combatants and are combat tested pretty frequently. A lot of this is blacked out in the media. However Xinjiang is constant warfare against well trained and Turkish equipped islamic militias and that's not counting whatever other ops they have going on too.

This isn't all just kicking down doors and shooting sleeping Mohammads in the head either. Lots of counter ops going on and battles in harsh mountainous territory to root out Haji.

I also wouldn't underestimate the zealous nature of ethnonationalism when probably motivated. People underestimated what the Vietnamese could do too until shit got real.

Worst thing any military can do is underestimate any opponent. You always want to overestimate them so you throw sufficient power to overwhelm.

Same thing if you get into a scrap with someone you want to crack them in the jaw as hard as possible even if they don't look that strong. Better to be sure at the end of the day.

Sure, I agree with that. If you fight you should always fight to win. But I have not seen anything in here in China that shows me anything in the way of great military prowess. They bully their neighbors, saber rattle at japan and talk a big game. I don't wanna talk too much about this since I am writing this from Chinese internet, ha. But they have labor "issues," i'll say, in every province and I'm supposed to believe they could contest the USA army for a significant amount of time?

They built a wall (and paid for it) against their greatest foe and still lost.

I imagine that a fight against china would go something like this:

*America declares war*

*China reveals their 101010493209345 tons of gold and completely crushes the dollar.*

I Just can't see them winning a gun fight, but they can definitely win the accounting battle.

Post: #109

I see a lot of Europeans in this thread upset that their nation's time in the sun has come to an end.

Post: #110

(05-31-2016 06:34 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  I'm not trying to troll anyone. Just saying that the USA military may not be as strong as you think it is due to decades of compacency. OK, you can kick crap out of some middle eastern country but against an equivalent or superior military such as China or Russia?? Don't be so cocky.

Well hands down USA kicks the crap out of England.

And the Us has something like 6000 Abrams tanks. England has 500 challenger tanks. It stands to reason that there were a lot more US tanks in Iraq, there for a lot more got damaged.

The thing the European country folk need to remember is that Russia won't attack the US first. US tanks will only face Russian ones after the Russians have ran over all of Europe.

Aloha!

Post: #111

Why even contemplate these hypothetical scenarios of a war with Russia/China?

Come on. you guys. I can tell you straight up that the people of Russia and China do not want armed conflict with the US. Same goes for the majority of Americans. The problem is for the last few decades US foreign policy has been hijacked by crazed Russia-hating neo-cohens. Trump's popularity is yuuge in Russia precisely because he seems like the kinda type who would try to relieve the tension between the two countries and maybe even start some sort of cooperation.

I also apologize for the hasty comment I made in the beginning of this thread. It was in poor taste.

Post: #112

(05-31-2016 06:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.

One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.

First, excellent points about "4th generation" nonsense. The idea that conventional nation-to-nation warfare is dead and that all the conflicts of the future are necessarily "asymmetric" wars against non-governmental actors is an exceedingly dumb one and characteristic of so much of today's web chatter (not just on this subject).

Regarding a hypothetical conflict between the US and either Russia or China: wouldn't the American ability to inflict staggering casualties on the enemy, rapidly and by purely conventional means, be able to pacify even a military ready to bear quite extraordinary losses? The Japanese had a tolerance for loss unmatched by anyone, but they had to surrender in the face of the demonstration of a qualitatively different American nuclear capability. My sense is that US weapons technology is so advanced that it can, if called upon, inflict virtually nuclear-level losses on the enemy through purely conventional means. But I would like to know what you think.

I suspect it is not as clear cut as we'd hope, for a number of reasons.

I don't think US technological superiority can be assumed in many important areas of conventional combat. Russian armour (tanks, armoured artillery, etc) is every bit as good as American armour, and there is an awful lot of it. Russians LOVE tanks, for the excellent reason that their navy is rendered all but useless by geography. Russian planes are as good, more or less, as the US planes, and Russian weapon detection/radar/missle guidance systems are also comparable. Very broadly, The US and the Russians have the same capacity to inflict damage on one another in the important areas of the battle space when it comes to armaments.

America can deploy some of the more devastating nuclear technologies more easily, and therefore more effectively in a combat situation than any other nation. It is in this sort of thing that the real superiority of the US lies. There is not currently any technology held by the US that is different in kind from the technology the Russians have. The difference is in its maturity and its deployability, and whilst these differences are significant, they are not so pronounced that they can simply overwhelm another technically adept nation.

Another significant factor is that whilst conventional state-to-state warfare is not dead, a change in tactics for the deployment of armour and infantry will be required to mitigate the devastating effects that modern weaponry can have against massed units. A significant advantage will go to whoever is first to adapt to this once the conflict starts. In my view, having more men and being willing to expend them gives greater scope for trying new styles of combat, and probably tilts the advantage in this regard slightly in favour of Russia/China.

The US, for all its technological brilliance, also has a significant problem with over spec-ing during procurement. Whereas other countries will mass produce lower spec, but effective armour, the US will take a similar idea, and then through the procurement process turn it into a slow to produce, technically incredibly advanced, weapons system. However, these can only engage one enemy at a time, and could potentially be swarmed by lots of more mobile, lower spec armour. US military procurement and the influence of the Military Industrial Compex is a genuine problem (and then we, in our wisdom, just copy what you do).

The US also has a problem due to its need to project power on land, sea and by air. The Russians are aware that their Navy is more or less useless because of the geography (as illustrated in their lost conflict with Japan in 1905), and consequently they are geared up for a land war in Europe/Russia/China. The focusing of resources into this area has conveyed an advantage. The US also has the logistical headache that this reality poses. Of course, the US has many foreign bases (many along the frontier with Russia, of course), and this is excellent for projecting power and for conducting operations. However, getting enough equipment, resources etc in place, managing the logistics of it, and defending it whilst trying to launch attacks is a very serious problem indeed, and one that even the US would have a tremendous struggle to overcome.

I would still back the US to overcome all of this, but I think it would be a lengthy process marked by huge American losses. No amount of technology currently in existence can mitigate these very practical, logistical issues with waging war half a world away.

Post: #113

(05-31-2016 07:38 PM)Most Valuable Player Wrote:  I can kind of see where the guys saying that they are annoyed by the arrogance of Americans are coming from. But let me tell you, if you were a citizen of the world's only superpower, you guys will be arrogant as well.

Its pretty much safe to say that America is considered by the whole world to be the best of the best in terms of everything. No matter what the stats say, America is seen as the top dog, the alpha male, the leader, the country every country aspires to be. Being a citizen of this country feels pretty fucking good and of course arrogance comes with it and also a sense of pride comes with it as well.

Im fucking proud to be an American man!! Greatest country that God gave man. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Yes, this is exactly the sort of attitude that's annoying. Yeah, we get it, America is powerful, but repeating the same old platitudes just makes you look dumb and insecure.

Lizard of Oz Wrote:First, excellent points about "4th generation" nonsense. The idea that conventional nation-to-nation warfare is dead and that all the conflicts of the future are necessarily "asymmetric" wars against non-governmental actors is an exceedingly dumb one and characteristic of so much of today's web chatter (not just on this subject).

Can you elaborate on this? I can't wrap my head around this. Isn't this how all conflicts are currently playing out? I can't name one nation-to-nation war after the last Iraq War, and that quickly transitioned into an insurgency war.

(05-31-2016 11:44 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Why even contemplate these hypothetical scenarios of a war with Russia/China?

Agreed. All parties involved will do everything possible to ensure that never happens, since the stakes are too high. They'll exhaust all other options before resorting to direct warfare.

Shout out to H1N1 for his detailed and elegant posts on this matter.

Post: #114

Americans only bring up "warfare" when others ask about it. I've never had another american start a conversation about war with me. It is always other people baiting this shit out and then they get butthurt about it when they realize that we'd win the war.

What's great about the European butthurt in this thread is that we have such a high defense budget because we have to defend not only ourselves, but Europeans as well. You didn't think your warfare state bullshit was free, right?

Post: #115

(06-01-2016 03:26 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  Another significant factor is that whilst conventional state-to-state warfare is not dead, a change in tactics for the deployment of armour and infantry will be required to mitigate the devastating effects that modern weaponry can have against massed units. A significant advantage will go to whoever is first to adapt to this once the conflict starts. In my view, having more men and being willing to expend them gives greater scope for trying new styles of combat, and probably tilts the advantage in this regard slightly in favour of Russia/China.

The US, for all its technological brilliance, also has a significant problem with over spec-ing during procurement. Whereas other countries will mass produce lower spec, but effective armour, the US will take a similar idea, and then through the procurement process turn it into a slow to produce, technically incredibly advanced, weapons system. However, these can only engage one enemy at a time, and could potentially be swarmed by lots of more mobile, lower spec armour. US military procurement and the influence of the Military Industrial Compex is a genuine problem (and then we, in our wisdom, just copy what you do).

The US also has a problem due to its need to project power on land, sea and by air. The Russians are aware that their Navy is more or less useless because of the geography (as illustrated in their lost conflict with Japan in 1905), and consequently they are geared up for a land war in Europe/Russia/China. The focusing of resources into this area has conveyed an advantage. The US also has the logistical headache that this reality poses. Of course, the US has many foreign bases (many along the frontier with Russia, of course), and this is excellent for projecting power and for conducting operations. However, getting enough equipment, resources etc in place, managing the logistics of it, and defending it whilst trying to launch attacks is a very serious problem indeed, and one that even the US would have a tremendous struggle to overcome.

I would still back the US to overcome all of this, but I think it would be a lengthy process marked by huge American losses. No amount of technology currently in existence can mitigate these very practical, logistical issues with waging war half a world away.

Excellent post, snipped for brevity.

Agree 100% that state vs state warfare is not dead, it will merely evolve. Much like static warfare evolved into maneuver warfare, or muskets to rifles, or wood to iron ships, battleships to carriers. We can look to conflicts like WW1 to see the horrific outcome of fighting yesterday's battles with tomorrow's weaponry.

The geographic reality the US faces is both a blessing and a curse, if you will. A blessing because, as currently, no nation has the force projection capability to attack the US mainland. You've pointed out the reasons for the curse, though if you look back to the cold war OPLANs like REFORGER and the pre position ships (Strategic Sealift, Prepositioning, MPF) there is little else we can do aside from leaving even more units forward deployed on land which brings its own hazards into the mix.

Good discussion thus far.

Post: #116

(05-31-2016 06:41 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 09:10 AM)Engineer Wrote:  Disagree with you 100%. Of course there are some soft, dumb, clueless people in the military, just as there are in any field. But of every group of people I've ever met, the overwhelming majority of military "grunts" are the ones I trust. Those last four words are the highest praise I am able to give.

What do you trust them to do, that people from other walks of life can't?

The military ones in my experience tend to more often do what they say and be more effective at life than non-military people. Not saying that non-military are all losers and all military are winners, just a noticeable delta towards higher competency and reliability. Your experience with military people seems very different than mine.

Post: #117

Just a few thoughts:

• Militaries are generally built around the paradigm that won the preceding war. In WW2 massive resources were thrown at battleships, but aircraft carriers and submarines won the naval front. If history is a guide, it's foolish to assume that a large force of yesterday's winner is a guarantee of victory in tomorrow's conflict. We don't really know what technology will play a decisive role in the next major state to state conflict.
• History is replete with examples where major powers are defeated by newcomers. In WW1, England was defeated in all but name by Germany until Zionists agreed to bring America into the war. Rome was invaded by "barbarians". It usually happens during the twilight of empires.
• Asymmetric warfare can quickly make conventional technology obsolete. Prior to WW1, the British invested a tremendous amount of resources in their massive force of dreadnoughts. In the Battle of Jutland, Germany inflicted disproportionate losses on the British fleet with the unconventional Uboats. England kept their massive fleet in port for most of the war following that engagement to prevent further losses.
• The lead time between developing a weapons platform (such as an aircraft carrier or jet) until it's delivery is now massive. By the time a weapons platform is delivered, it may be 20 years after it's initial concept. It will be based on the technology available during it's design. During this entire process, foreign intelligence agencies will be attempting to procure it's design, without spending the $Billions on R&D the host country did.
  
• Due to the long lead times and the tremendous investment involved in producing weapons platforms, they're operational life is often extended for decades beyond what they're originally designed for. Failure to produce a replacement often leads to evolutions (blocks) of those platforms. A single weapons platform can be 30 years in development by the time it's launched, and 50 years old by the time it's retired.
• The longer a weapons platform is in use, the longer an adversary has to develop asymmetric weapons to defeat it. It is much less costly (in dollars, manpower, and physical resources) to redesign a missile than an aircraft carrier.
• The asymmetric threats are always underestimated. Since the end of WW2, naval mines have seriously damaged or sunk almost four times more U.S. Navy ships than all other means of attack combined. Mines cost thousands of dollars, ships billions. Employing asymmetric weapons, depending on their effectiveness, can quickly make large forces obsolete.
• It's possible to develop countermeasures to asymmetric threats, but only the known threats can be planned for. Countermeasures may be completely ineffective against unknown threats.
• Employing more countermeasures is not cost free. It often translates to more weight, more space, more computational power, more cost, more manpower, and so on. Attempting to circumvent every threat can quickly make a weapons platform obsolete for it's intended purpose.
• The more technologically complex a weapons platform, the more points of failure it has for an adversary to exploit.
• The next major conflict will employ tactics and methods of war that aren't even on the radar of most people. Information warfare, cyber warfare, monetary warfare, electronic warfare, space based warfare, weather based warfare, and so on.
• All of us here have no idea who would win a major engagement or what technologies they possess. We're all just armchair experts here. Aside from high level officers, nobody has access to the information required to see the big picture. Even the people who develop the technologies for future wars only see a small slice of the whole pie.
• Any country facing an existential threat will likely employ all means of warfare at their disposal regardless of legality. MAD only worked because there were no existential conflicts between powers who possessed nukes. Germany didn't use chemical weapons in WW2 because Hitler was the only world leader who fought in the trenches and understood the inhumanity of its use. Japan did though. If there were a pre-emptive war against a major power, everyone would lose.
• Construction of elaborate underground bunkers for the world elite has increased in recent years.
  

And related to the US military specifically

• The development, delivery, and procurement process of weapons platforms is broken. To build any weapons platform, you need to build a part of it in every state (to get in passed through congress). To avoid spending $80 on a $10 gasket, you have to spend $20,000 in management labor to prove you're not wasting $70. Every sub-department using the DoD as corporate welfare needs to have part of their ricebowl built into the platform to justify their jobs. All of the underperforming hacks and leeches in the HR, EEO, training, and so on can't be fired, but you still have to pay them with department funding. By the time a weapons platform is delivered, it's over time, over budget, and under performing.
• The amount of unnecessary training and compliance makes getting actual work done more and more difficult. By the time you're done your weekly training not to rape each other, NMCI training, PII training, suicide prevention training, etc etc all on different IT systems that you need to sign into each month to avoid having to re-register and call 5 people to get your account reinstated, the day is over and the to do list has grown. It takes 3 workers to do the same thing 2 could do 10 years ago.
• By 2022, personnel costs will consume most of the entire military budget.
• Due to high personnel costs, there's been a push to cut costs wherever possible in weapons platforms. To save money through economies of scale, a single platform is required to accomplish multiple tasks that used to be assigned to multiple platforms. What results is complex and expensive weapons platforms that are mediocre at their desired roles. Just look at the F-35 and LCS programs. The F-35 is supposed to have close air support, air superiority, and attack roles. The LCS is supposed to have anti sub, surface warfare, anti air, and minesweeping roles. Jack of all trades, master of none.
• Cost cutting and mismanagement often lead to project failures. To cut costs, the LCS was largely contracted out, and many of the concerns raised by subject matter experts were ignored. Maintenance issues have continued to plague the craft to the point to where they've experienced critical failures that required them towed into port. They're considered by many to lack warfighting capability due to the design requirements of high speed and low cost. The LCS program is expected to cost over $20 billion during it's lifetime.
• Many of the "sexy" technologies like railguns, lasers, etc, are highly expensive logistical nightmares. Some may eventually mature into useful technologies, but most will be huge wastes of money.
• Despite growing costs, the number of operationally ready forces is decreasing. The total number of ships in the Navy continues to decline despite the inclusion of non combatants in the total count. The marines have forced to ground a large portion of their aircraft to use for maintenance parts for their active force.
• Despite growing costs and decreasing volume of weapons platforms, there is still difficulty in filling required billets on deployments. Maintenance issues and low billets mean the operationally ready forces are deployed for longer than ever before. Forces that are deployed prioritize mission requirements over maintenance requirements, further adding to the maintenance issues.
• Many of the forces counted in the available forces (aircraft, naval vessels, etc), are out of spec or undergoing maintenance at any given time. Some forces are better than others depending on their access to funding.
• If you follow military publications, there have been many headlines of well regarded officers being forced to resign for baseless reasons. There's been a rise in officers who seem to place politics as a higher priority than war fighting.
• Most of the new breed of high ranking officers seem to care more about covering their own ass than getting things done.
• Many enlisted people have plenty of stories about how awful the effects of bringing women into the military has been. What used to be an environment of comradery has descended into a cesspool of white knighting, fears of false rape accusations, gossip, and petty fighting over pussy.
• A few other thoughts.
• The US military is technologically advanced, but the US doesn't have much manufacturing capability. China may be behind technologically and have a smaller standing force, but they are the world's manufacturing and supply chain giant. The US is like Germany was, and China like the US was in WW2.
• War is a racket.
• It's been a very long time since a war for freedom or liberation was fought. The point of the military is to act as Israel's and Saudi Arabia's bitch, or to enforce petrodollar hegemony.
• As above, it's unreasonable to think that being critical of the preemptive invasion of sovereign nations is due to jealousy. The Jews' beef with the Nazis probably came down to more than just jealous admiration of the tiger tank.
• I don't understand the cognitive dissonance required in critiquing the globalist elite, and then cheerleading the enforcement arm that makes their plans possible.
  

Post: #118

(06-01-2016 06:27 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  I don't understand the cognitive dissonance required in critiquing the globalist elite, and then cheerleading the enforcement arm that makes their plans possible.

Boom.

Superb and succinct point right there.

Post: #119

^ Gonna delete that post too?

Post: #120

(06-01-2016 08:12 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 06:27 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  I don't understand the cognitive dissonance required in critiquing the globalist elite, and then cheerleading the enforcement arm that makes their plans possible.

Boom.

Superb and succinct point right there.

True enough, but you could just as easily argue that any American who pays taxes is an enabler of the globalist elite's plans, or that anyone who buys American products that generate taxes in a America is an enabler of the globalist elite's plans, or that anyone who drives a car using gasoline that was traded in American dollars is an enabler of the globalist elite's plans.

Post: #121

(06-01-2016 09:02 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  True enough, but you could just as easily argue that any American who pays taxes is an enabler of the globalist elite's plans, or that anyone who buys American products that generate taxes in a America is an enabler of the globalist elite's plans, or that anyone who drives a car using gasoline that was traded in American dollars is an enabler of the globalist elite's plans.

You could argue, and you'd be right. That's the beauty of full spectrum dominance. It's very difficult to opt out of. That's why alternative systems that challenge that hegemony are treated with such hostility.

We're all complicit. It's the awareness and enthusiasm of complicity that's up for question.

Post: #122

(05-28-2016 04:03 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 04:02 AM)Chaos Preacher Wrote:  Perhaps a more appropriately worded OP would have been "Just how useful is the U.S. military?"

Only as useful as the Commander in Chief in charge of it.

Damn, wish I'd said that.

CP, thanks for your rewording of your initial post. Much more accurate question now.

Post: #123

(05-29-2016 10:34 AM)Chaos Preacher Wrote:  One habit of many Americans which I find very annoying is the concept of "American Exceptionalism."

Notice that Hannibal seems to think without US military power the rest of the world is likely to fall into some kind of barbarism.

I guess you've been asleep the last 7.5 years that Obama has, in essence, withdrawn American military power from its previous positions. Like what you see?

Donald Trump doesn't apologize for American Exceptionalism, and neither do I.

Post: #124

(06-01-2016 06:27 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  Just a few thoughts:

• I don't understand the cognitive dissonance required in critiquing the globalist elite, and then cheerleading the enforcement arm that makes their plans possible.
  

No one here was critiquing the global elite, it was dragged it in off-topic.

The US Navy was not obsoleted because of mines. It was temporarily denied freedom of operations in a small area and then adapted. Please name any specific US modern large military system rendered "obsolete" because of asymmetric threat.

I really don't care about the cost inefficiency because our resources are usually orders of magnitude bigger than the opponents.

Guitarman, regarding the F22 vs PAK-FA. The Russian plane is fine but there are what, three prototypes flying? And did they already train vast numbers of pilots in simulators for when they eventually maybe get built? So what if it outmaneuvers slightly, dogfights where that matters almost never happen anymore. The F22 stealth advantage and sensor fusion with other platforms makes it practically invulnerable. A few years back I asked a F-22 pilot in an unclassified briefing on the plane if he was worried about multistatic or high frequency radars or advanced IR detection. He smiled, said he couldn't comment about specific threats, and mentioned when they go to war, they don't play to win 51-49, they play for 100-0.

Post: #125

(06-01-2016 10:48 PM)Engineer Wrote:  No one here was critiquing the global elite, it was dragged it in off-topic.

Maybe not critiquing them here, but what's this whole forum if not a middle finger to the elite's plans for destroying the family, normalizing degeneracy, and importing hordes of rapefugees into the heart of Europe?

Quote:The US Navy was not obsoleted because of mines. It was temporarily denied freedom of operations in a small area and then adapted.

I said asymmetric warfare can make weapons platforms obsolete, not necessarily that naval vessels are made obsolete because of mines. The point I was trying to make is that it's often possible to defeat, discourage, or deny access to a larger force using much less expensive weapons.

Quote:Please name any specific US modern large military system rendered "obsolete" because of asymmetric threat.

Here's the thing. We probably won't know the answer to that until the next major state to state engagement. An adversarial force isn't going to reveal their asymmetric technology to the public and let someone develop a countermeasure to it. U boats and aircraft carriers were an example of an asymmetric technology that transformed warfare. If history is a guide, there will be more. I actually know quite a bit about mines and countermeasures but I wouldn't get into it here or even in private without a proper clearance and a need to know.

Quote:I really don't care about the cost inefficiency because our resources are usually orders of magnitude bigger than the opponents.

Congress does, and that's what drives weapons platform spending. As "sequestration" demonstrated, military is one of the most politically easy areas to cut when the budget tightens. As personnel costs continue to rise, the amount of money that's spent on weapons platform as a whole will shrink. And this is all while the USD is the world reserve currency and we can piss taxpayer money away. Given the moves China is making with the AIIB and Yuan swap facilities, and trading partnerships, that may not be a given in the future.