The Military/War Thread
- Thread starter Dak
- Start date
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-war-games-2019-3
Not surprised at all, but the little bit they gloss over is that the unsustainable spread of bases near other countries is what is at risk. Not the United States itself. Shut them bases down and bring the boys home. Problem solved. It's not 1970 anymore.
Not surprised at all, but the little bit they gloss over is that the unsustainable spread of bases near other countries is what is at risk. Not the United States itself. Shut them bases down and bring the boys home. Problem solved. It's not 1970 anymore.
rms
Active Member
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
rms
Active Member
I finally read this and I can't believe how it just ignores logistics in all parts of defining military strength. Attributing Soviet strength to defeating Nazi and Japanese army screams of some RT level spin. Hilarious
Let's ignore the Jewish theater, three front mistake the Nazis made and the colossal mistake the Japanese engaged in both in and around China and against us and simply state Soviet prowess.
Then his argument about a stalemate in Korea when in reality Americans surged past the parallel and stopped at the parallel. When the war started for us in damn Busan. after realizing the limitations of a distant war , yet again, has to wonder why someone so interested in writing about the myth of American military prowess can ignore the "quieter" side of war.
This was a stupid article and should've been rewritten of a thesis that American military strength is backed by a manufacturing dominance rather than some strange military esque myth.
And of course the idea that no one wants to engage a war with us is ignored because ...
Blah
It's like you still didn't read the article, and failed to even address the point that I highlighted. Yes, logistics matter. The bottom line is that the US is a sea-power, not a land power, and that projecting and defending supply lines into landmasses, especially when populated by enemy forces, is difficult. Fighting in the desert is somewhat like fighting on the sea. Clear lines of sight (at least from the air), and the US strategy depends on aerial supremacy. Jungle and mountain terrain significantly degrade the effectiveness of aerial support, even when aerial supremacy is achieved. Enemy powers don't currently want to pick a fight with the US because to do so requires eliminating US naval supremacy. MAD is also at play. But the US cannot, other than nuking China, expect to win a sustained war with China due to insufficient manpower and inability to project sufficient land-based forces into China. The US looks dominant when it picks on failed states. It does not when it attempts to direct civilian affairs (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) and wouldn't if it were to be in conflict with a near-peer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/magazine/woman-war-gaming.html
This narcissistic bitch will, if she hasn't already, get good men (and, at this point in the integration story, women) killed. I don't like the use of the word cunt generally speaking, but fuck this navel gazing cunt.
High school students = women, big slip up there, but I bet she slips up a lot. Nothing about this entire article suggests she has any equal interest in national security compared to men. Her desire is to make fun safe space full of women, not national security, not figuring out how to "make that other poor bastard die for his country." China is laughing.
This narcissistic bitch will, if she hasn't already, get good men (and, at this point in the integration story, women) killed. I don't like the use of the word cunt generally speaking, but fuck this navel gazing cunt.
High school students = women, big slip up there, but I bet she slips up a lot. Nothing about this entire article suggests she has any equal interest in national security compared to men. Her desire is to make fun safe space full of women, not national security, not figuring out how to "make that other poor bastard die for his country." China is laughing.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
The US relies on air power for near force projection and as part of its strategic nuclear force (not to mention unmanned surveillance). However, the sea power vs land power distinction is an old distinction and speaks not only about actual power but the general theory and orientation of the military and national geopolitics. The US has no national land-based enemy worth considering. The UA Navy is the main global force projection. Russia and China are currently and have been land or continental powers (China is trying to change this, but notice they are trying to do it by mostly creating more *land* in near-territorial waters). They aren't worried about maritime invasions nearly as much as they are land based invasions.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-increasing-demands-may-bring-back-the-draft/
I don't see this happening. If it did happen, I see it being a disaster without a complete engagement of the entire Cathedral on its behalf.
I don't see this happening. If it did happen, I see it being a disaster without a complete engagement of the entire Cathedral on its behalf.
Matt
Active Member
I am in the first stage of an interview for an SA position with the FBI. I'm still not sure that this is the right path, but I'm going to keep going down it anyway as the process takes forever.
rms
Active Member
Matt
Active Member
Not yet. I am past the initial testing and whatnot but still have a few phases to go through prior to that. I'm trying to get promoted at my current job and I'd be making over 100k at that point; its a tough call.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
rms
Active Member
Fuck would you leave that job for then? Fbi SA is like 80k with expected 50+ hours work week and you're likely to get assigned to a shit hole
Matt
Active Member
No actually - I got burned out with that after a really bad experience and took a job job kinda whimsically in the energy efficiency field. Trying to become a Program Manager.
Pension + benefits. Plus I've always wanted to serve somehow. If I don't get the promotion soon I'll probably go for it (if I even make it through the process).
Go Active Duty military if you want to serve. If you're not over the age of 32 and have been working out regularly it shouldn't be hard, and the pay and job options are likely far better.
Matt
Active Member
I've almost joined several times and still am considering it. When I lost my job around this time last year I almost just said fuck it and enlisted in the Navy (despite having a degree already) but then I got the job I have now which pays 3x more. I am not sure if it was the right choice. I wasn't sold on the recruiters telling me that it was 'super easy to go to OCS if you just enlist first' narrative and I honestly can't afford to make 30k or less.
Similar threads
