Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Defense Secretary Hagel plans to shrink Army to Pre-WWII level. But wait, there's more. A-10, buh-bye. Hello F-35. U-2, buh-bye. Hello Global Hawks   (nytimes.com) divider line 249
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8462 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



249 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-24 10:18:48 AM  

CheatCommando: Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!


The joke about the Poles using horse cavalry instead of tanks early in WWII?

1. It wasn't really true. Poland also had tanks -- they were just outclassed by both the German and the Soviet tanks.
2. In the muddy battlefields of eastern Europe, especially in a 1939-1941 context, horses often worked better. Those mounted Polish divisions made for a really effective mechanized infantry/light armor force and often devastated lighter German armored divisions and played havoc in behind-the-front raiding. They only really suffered against heavy armor -- but everyone suffered against German heavy armor in those years.
 
2014-02-24 10:22:48 AM  
bluenovaman [TotalFark]

Why would we do that? It's not like we have failing schools, hungry children, people who need healthcare and any number of other issues that need attention.
The same reason the democrats gave for killing the Superconducting Super Collider.
 
2014-02-24 10:29:03 AM  

This text is now purple: CheatCommando: Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!

The joke about the Poles using horse cavalry instead of tanks early in WWII?

1. It wasn't really true. Poland also had tanks -- they were just outclassed by both the German and the Soviet tanks.
2. In the muddy battlefields of eastern Europe, especially in a 1939-1941 context, horses often worked better. Those mounted Polish divisions made for a really effective mechanized infantry/light armor force and often devastated lighter German armored divisions and played havoc in behind-the-front raiding. They only really suffered against heavy armor -- but everyone suffered against German heavy armor in those years.


Yes, and how would that work in a  2000-2014 context? Not so hot, except in incredibly limited circumstances. The point is that weapon systems do become obsolete, and arguing that something has worked in the past does not mean that it is worth keeping for the future. Particularly if keeping it means that you cannot also invest in the future due to budgetary constraints.

Another example would be both the F-14 and A-6, each of which was more capable at its dedicated mission than the first generation of F-18s that replaced both of them. In fact, in raw terms of payload delivered, the A-6 remains superior to the F-28 even today, but we could not afford to replace the A-6 with a dedicated strike aircraft and could not afford to stop development on a new naval fighter.

The defense budget needs to go down. What do you suggest eliminating?
 
2014-02-24 10:32:49 AM  
The new Super Tucano looks promising. It is a lot cheaper to fly, build and maintain, has all the modern bells and whistles, and looks super fun fly.  It is not the A-10, but I think it is more practical for taking out our current threats.
 
2014-02-24 10:33:02 AM  

RediixOne: All these people in love with the A-10 and for what? It's really good at blowing away farmers on the side of the mountains? The A-10 has no place in the pacific pivot strategy. The lack of range and limited role would truly be a waste in such a vast AOR. Apaches and predators can easily handle the CAS role on its own. And if you are going again ya country that has capable air defense, you are going to need range and speed.

As for giving the A-10 to the army like that would be some capable feat. So in light of shrinking the army's ground force (which you know..the reason it exists), you magically want to shiat out money for the Army to train and equip it's own pilots and maintainers, construct and maintain its own airfields, construct, man and equip their own ATC towers, build hangers and air operations centers JUST because you like the BBBRRRTT and you've seen it do very well at killing a bunch of guys armed with AKs and absolutely no anti air.

Sounds smart guys.


Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!
Why do you have America!
9-11! Support the Troops!
Wharrrrrrrrrr-garble!
 
2014-02-24 10:34:19 AM  

jayphat: IamAwake: jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.

Are you counting all the civs on the ground in support these days?  Blackwater, Haliburton, etc?  A vast majority of what the military used to do is now outsourced.

That's not my chart. That's the DoD's actual data for active service members they are paying. I have no idea about the other data you're asking about.


We all know you didn't make the graph.  I'm simply pointing out that, despite what you think, you don't know how to read it.  If you do not know what data is represented - as you're stating - then why are you using it?

That chart doesn't, for example, cover those who are in the Reserves but who are activated.  It doesn't cover the private military and security companies.  We have private companies escorting active military personnel in combat zones quite frequently now - something that prior to a couple decades ago would be unthinkable.  Then we have civilian workers here in the US doing support roles which used to be done in the military, but aren't - just because they're not in a combat zone doesn't mean it isn't skewing those numbers.  Heck, with just the reserves that are activated, plus the regulars, there are 1.4million military personnel - now add the private companies (~200k from the ones who have to report, but that's a small chuck of the roles), the outsourced roles back on home soil here (nearly impossible to quantify...I'm one myself, however).  In the end, if you leave in the civs who are doing roles which the earlier numbers included, then yeah - we're at 2m.
 
2014-02-24 10:34:58 AM  

vygramul: clkeagle: Because that's always worked so well for us in the past?

That was arrogant stupidity on our part and clever work on the Serbs'Chinese part. It's not the aircraft that failed. It worked as advertised.


FTFY.  That is also the reason the Chinese embassy was 'accidentally' bombed.

Stealth aircraft can be detected the same way submarines are detected.  You listen for the spot that is TOO quiet.

Pilots are cheap compared to $200,000,000 aircraft.  Keep cranking out F-15, F-16, and F-18s since they are proven planes that are super cheap, even including pilot replacement costs.  Even if a bunch are shot down, it is still cheaper than buying F-35s.  farking zoomies always needing new toys, and Congresscritters buying them.
 
2014-02-24 10:36:32 AM  
Gotta get rid of the A-10 from the military and give it to Homeland Security.  They will be involved in the next war.
 
gja
2014-02-24 10:36:47 AM  

MrBallou: FTFA: some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move

10 to1 that those are the same asshats pushing for austerity, deficit reduction,"fiscal responsibility", and "small government".


I'll take your bet. And side-bet that it will include a lot of congess-critters you wouldn't think would be on this bandwagon because if you bothered to read and quote the FULL entry it might change the way that very selective bit you chose is viewed.

FTFA:
"For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding."

Take a look at port towns ion the US. Lots of them are in deep blue territory states. Expect much teeth gnashing from them.
 
2014-02-24 10:37:19 AM  

Joe Blowme: yes, let make more people unemployed while we legalize 20 million laRaza tards


Wow. I was infromed that there are no racists on Fark.
 
2014-02-24 10:38:31 AM  
prjindigo 2

The trick is the world KNOWS their armor can't win so they're not gonna use it. No armor, no need for armor busters.

So the A-10 is so good it wins battles without ever leaving the ground.

By all means, let's cancel this boondoggle.
 
2014-02-24 10:40:22 AM  
I need Close-Air-Support!  Send in the F-35's!  Said NO ground-pounder EVER.

There's a special warm feeling you get when you hear an A-10 let rip with the GAU-8.  Of course, I may be biased...
 
2014-02-24 10:47:08 AM  

incrdbil: I suggest instead of cutting pay for the top brass, they effectively gut the top ranks of every service. An overall reduction by 33% to 50% in the number of generals and admirals, and their staffs.

I guarantee the military wouldn't suffer a bit from it.


I was reading somewhere that the Navy has more Admirals than they do ships, which buying submarines and surface ships at the rate they are really surprises me.

Along with the reduction in hardware, I completely agree that there's plenty of fat to be trimmed from the upper echelons.
 
2014-02-24 10:54:11 AM  
A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

A military that can't occupy a foreign country for prolonged drawn out wars, why that is just un'murican.  How can we be the savior of democracy and justice if we can't overthrow a government and occupy another country.  What's next, our ability to kidnap and torture suspected militants?
 
2014-02-24 10:58:19 AM  
"That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. "

So, that's factually not pre-WW2, as that started in 1939. And the army of USA in 1940 would obviously reflect that.
 
2014-02-24 11:01:07 AM  
Well, if Hagel is talking about cutting the number of general officers down to pre-WW II levels, please proceed.  Efficiency of the military will skyrocket (if we can keep the retired generals someplace where they can't meddle with things).

Even WWII levels would be a huge improvement (we have roughly double the number of GOs for a military a quarter the number of troops we had in WW II).
 
2014-02-24 11:07:57 AM  

Wrath of Heaven: Hey, Ima let you finish but Digital Combat Simulators A-10C is the best A-10 simulator of all time. OF ALL TIME.
[www.simhq.com image 700x394]


I love this sim...especially with a TrackIR!
 
2014-02-24 11:09:49 AM  
Probably too late for this, but:

Putting the A-10 on the list is a good negotiation ploy.  Hagel can take it off the table to scrap the rest of the deadbeat stuff.
 
2014-02-24 11:12:14 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


What's it like to live in constant unjustified fear? It doesn't sound fun.

Nobody else is even CLOSE to the USA. We could cut military spending in half and STILL be the world's hyperpower.

mediamatters.org


Maybe you just need to stop listening to news sources that primarily exist to keep you afraid.
 
2014-02-24 11:12:54 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

pfft. let me guess, you sleep with your gun beside the bed at night too?


He's worried about Mexico invading.

I am guessing he showers with his gun.
 
2014-02-24 11:14:05 AM  

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.



So you equate having a job with living in pants-wetting fear of an invasion by Mexico or Canada?

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-24 11:15:59 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.

I got news for you buddy. most people work and love their country here too. they just don't lie awake at night with Red Dawn running on a loop in their head.



THIS

Although Red Dawn is accurate. The local rubes head to the hills with their guns and hide. They manage to pull off a few token strikes, but in the end most of them are dead and it's the actual trained military that liberates them.
 
2014-02-24 11:29:06 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yes, clearly the adults in the room need to speculate about being invaded by Canada because we're discontinuing some aircraft. That's a very important adult conversation.

 
2014-02-24 11:32:56 AM  

Emposter: When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.


Ah, Jeremy Clarkson goggles

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-24 11:47:07 AM  

juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way


You need something between strong words and nuclear weapons. Are you going to nuke Canada if they start charging more for drinking water? Are you going to nuke China if they occupy some no name island in the Phillipine Sea? People will call you bluff more often than if the threat was to send in the marines.
 
2014-02-24 11:56:16 AM  

SpectroBoy: Although Red Dawn is accurate. The local rubes head to the hills with their guns and hide. They manage to pull off a few token strikes, but in the end most of them are dead and it's the actual trained military that liberates them.


Most people really don't realize how accurate Red Dawn (1984) would be.

The Soviets invade in September, and the "Wolverines" head for the hills.  They are there for at least a month before they ever fire a shot at anything other than a deer.

So that brings us to October/November, when they start actually attacking what are actually Cuban "REMF" occupation troops, political indoctrination troops, and perhaps Soviet troops sent to the rear for rest/regrouping.   Those aren't active front-line trigger pullers, for the most part.

So a group of kids who has knowledge of the local area, and help from local people, could indeed have some "victories" against the troops who are there just to hold the "passes in the Rockies", which it's implied by the train in the end of the movie that Calumet is a strategic pass for shipping purposes (probably a railway transit point).

This is especially true after they get help from Col. Tanner.

Then, when the Soviets get *SERIOUS* about going after the Wolverines in January, they send in a Spetznaz unit under Col. Strelnikov, and the Wolverines actually are down to just 20% after a month, and those two survivors only do so by running away.

The whole movie only spans about 6 months or so, from September to March.

So, the amount of time they are actively fighting against the Cubans (mostly) and Soviets is about 4, maybe 5 months, tops.
 
2014-02-24 11:58:05 AM  
Not the A-10s!

(violent curses)
 
2014-02-24 12:02:45 PM  

juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way



Evil Overlord list, #150:

I will provide funding and research to develop tactical and strategic weapons covering a full range of needs so my choices are not limited to "hand to hand combat with swords" and "blow up the planet".

I believe we have found the account Ming the Merciless posts under.
 
2014-02-24 12:06:55 PM  

vygramul: not to mention competing aircraft.


Our 187 F-22s will shot down everything else for the next 50 years

a/c spending at this point is primarily just welfare for LM
 
2014-02-24 12:09:59 PM  
The problem with cuts to the defense budgets is that they never seem to cut things that actually should be cut.  In my little scope of things I have seen so much wasted on O-6s needed that wall of TV's because it looks cool and hey that computer is two years old and you only use to check email, but here you go here's fifty new ones.  We have different weapon systems that cover the the capability of the four branches but could be covered by one system for all four branches.  The AF could dominate the skies with F-15s and F-16s, the Navy doesn't need 11 active aircraft carriers,  I don't work with the Army or Marines enough to comment on what could be cut from from them. But I am sure they have more than enough waste, that could be cut from them as well.
 
2014-02-24 12:21:11 PM  

DrPainMD: dejavoodoo64: DrPainMD: When your local economy is nothing more than a parasite on the national economy, you deserve to be reduced to a ghost town.

I'm looking at you, Huntsville.

Ooooh what a shot. You're right though. I use to  wonder what it would be like if Redstone closed and Marshall was all that was left. Huntsville is built around the two and losing the two would destroy North Central Alabama.

So? The important part is bolded/underlined, above.


A lot of meaningful patent work comes out of that most beautiful corner of the red dirt south.  Do you think all those technological developments would have happened without the money being spent somewhere?  Is it that you object to all federally funded applied research, or just this federally funded applied research?  Also, this is Alabama we are talking about.  Alabama receives more in federal moneys than it pays in.  Is Alabama the parasite? TVA a parasite?  Tell us more, enquiring minds want to know.
 
2014-02-24 12:24:51 PM  

CheatCommando: This text is now purple: CheatCommando: Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!

The joke about the Poles using horse cavalry instead of tanks early in WWII?

1. It wasn't really true. Poland also had tanks -- they were just outclassed by both the German and the Soviet tanks.
2. In the muddy battlefields of eastern Europe, especially in a 1939-1941 context, horses often worked better. Those mounted Polish divisions made for a really effective mechanized infantry/light armor force and often devastated lighter German armored divisions and played havoc in behind-the-front raiding. They only really suffered against heavy armor -- but everyone suffered against German heavy armor in those years.

Yes, and how would that work in a 2000-2014 context? Not so hot, except in incredibly limited circumstances. The point is that weapon systems do become obsolete, and arguing that something has worked in the past does not mean that it is worth keeping for the future. Particularly if keeping it means that you cannot also invest in the future due to budgetary constraints.


The idea is to learn from history. Time and again, we have prematurely disposed of old assets we presumed were obsolete, only to discover after a lot of unnecessary casualties that they weren't actually obsolete, or that their replacement wasn't as adequate as we had thought.

Hence the return of the dog-fighter with guns in Korea, the survival of the BAR into Vietnam, that the 1911 is still around, the existence of the B-52, etc.

This doesn't mean that one does not innovate. Mechanized infantry did mostly eliminate the horse from the military by the end of WWII, but there are still edge cases where horses are damned useful. Sometimes it's worth keeping some presumably replaceable stuff behind, just in case you find you need it.

Not all weapon systems need remain -- you don't need to keep everything. But it's perhaps worthwhile to keep the existing, proven-successful system, until you prove the replacement can also do the job. Because sometimes, it can't.
 
2014-02-24 12:48:16 PM  

whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.


It's dead.  There's A-10s on my base.  They just can't anything besides CAS and there are other airframes that can do more.
 
2014-02-24 12:51:32 PM  
Pretty excited, since this means my taxes are going to go down.
 
2014-02-24 12:59:32 PM  
Meh, something needs to change.  We live in an era when large-scale conflicts between superpowers don't make sense for anybody, and they're more easily avoided than at any time in history.

Going forward, we need to adapt to a world of asymmetrical warfare and international law-enforcement actions.  The need for a brute force military filled with 18 year old kids is gone, we need to professionalize and specialize;  more highly-trained special forces, fewer weekend warriors and the support systems they require.
 
2014-02-24 01:00:10 PM  

prjindigo: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

The A-10 sucks for close air support man.  SUCKS.   Its like trying to set tiny diamonds into an engagement ring with a #7 ballpeen.    The missions it performed in GW1 and 2 can be performed by a GH with hellfires and a gulfstream with two vulcans.

The trick is the world KNOWS their armor can't win so they're not gonna use it.  No armor, no need for armor busters.

They know they can't win because we have armor busters.
No armor busters, no need to hide your armor. Your argument is invalid.
 
2014-02-24 01:00:36 PM  
WWII never really ended anyway.  We've been fighting a war for global resources ever since.   How else can you justify a massive military defending a continent that hasn't been invaded in so long that you'd have to pick up a history book to find evidence of it.
 
2014-02-24 01:01:23 PM  

base935: Pretty excited, since this means my taxes are going to go down.


No, we only cut taxes on rich people when we START a war, sir.
 
2014-02-24 01:12:11 PM  

clancifer: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

Oh come on. There are better SSOs than CAS.


That was a long way to go for an authentication joke.
 
2014-02-24 01:19:51 PM  

dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.



There was just an article in Wired about the updating of the current U-2s.  The Global Hawk can't fly as high (and I'm guessing not as fast) nor carry the amount of gear/imaging equipment that the U2 does.  This would be stupid and a big mistake.
 
gja
2014-02-24 01:23:45 PM  

obamadidcoke: Let's cut it down to pre-ww1 levels.

The next time we have a war all we have to do is put a few buses at malls, nascar races, and Toby Keith concerts and anyone who supports the war can just get on the bus. We can take them down to the local MEPS and give them a physical. If they pass we send them to war of they don't we take 75% of their salary to fund the war.


Cute. How about fark you? At 52 I could pass it easily, but I know perfectly well they would pat me on the head and say "go easy gramps".
 
2014-02-24 01:31:24 PM  

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.


So you equate having a job with living in pants-wetting fear of an invasion by Mexico or Canada?

[24.media.tumblr.com image 220x157]


The man is terrified that they'll introduce a single payer healthcare system.
 
2014-02-24 01:34:41 PM  
I see the charts of what the US spends compared to others in the world.  What I am curious about is if the US actually gets value for what it spends.  Do all other nations pay 400 dollars for a hammer and more than 600 for a toilet seat?  Is the pentagon still missing vast amounts of money?
 
2014-02-24 01:50:21 PM  

jayphat: Also, this gem from the article:
The Guard's Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk - a workhorse transport helicopter - to use in domestic disaster relief.

Seriously, why weren't we doing this to begin with?


Politics (and dick size). The Guard doesn't just want to be the HADR force, they want to be killers too.
 
gja
2014-02-24 01:51:05 PM  

obamadidcoke: gja: obamadidcoke: Let's cut it down to pre-ww1 levels.

The next time we have a war all we have to do is put a few buses at malls, nascar races, and Toby Keith concerts and anyone who supports the war can just get on the bus. We can take them down to the local MEPS and give them a physical. If they pass we send them to war of they don't we take 75% of their salary to fund the war.

Cute. How about fark you? At 52 I could pass it easily, but I know perfectly well they would pat me on the head and say "go easy gramps".

So, you would go?

I think that we should send people exactly like you. You have the wisdom and experience to fight a "smart war." You have lived and probably contributed to society, you have had the opportunity to have a family and a career. You have also been the recipient of the benefits of our society, so why shouldn't you fight.

And if the unthinkable happened your sacrifice would not only bring glory to your family and nation but it would save save society the cost of caring for you in your decline.

So think about it.


I would gladly go again. I have, however, no delusions they would say "welcome aboard". Not at this age.
And o suggest my earning be redirected as a consequence of not being taken is asinine.

As  far as 'glory' I know you are in jest. War brings no man glory. In war there is no glory and no winners. Only those who survive.
"Death be not proud" young fella. Whatsoever a man does in death, was better he lived and did many times over in life.
 
2014-02-24 02:11:46 PM  

Tsar_Bomba1: dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.


There was just an article in Wired about the updating of the current U-2s.  The Global Hawk can't fly as high (and I'm guessing not as fast) nor carry the amount of gear/imaging equipment that the U2 does.  This would be stupid and a big mistake.


The reason the U-2 needed to fly as high as it does was to make it survivable in an era when you needed a pilot, and having one come down in hostile territory was a bad thing.

That extra height dictated that the camera needed to be higher resolution, so it was bigger than prior reconnaissance cameras.

In other words, the reason the U-2 can carry more is that it needs to fly higher, because it's got a pilot in it.  If you can fly lower, you don't need as big of a camera:  That's just simple physics.

Now, it's true that you may well end up with some of them getting destroyed, but you're not putting any lives as risk, so you may well feel that the risk of losing a $222 million Global Hawk is worth it to get some vital information (that's streamed back live, btw) that you might not want to have risked sending a piloted U-2 getting, especially if there was a chance that the pilot could be captured.

A remotely piloted aircraft can't the people who pick up the pieces of wreckage what it was looking for, but a pilot can.
 
2014-02-24 02:12:25 PM  

Hobodeluxe: that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays.


You know who else said we were too economically intertwined? Most economists in 1912, that's who. Don't underestimate the power of stupidity. And who else is going to challenge us? Didn't stop people from lobbing SAMs at us before. Think having a smaller military will make that harder?

there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.

Maybe so, but also irrelevant. And why is coming up with a new philosophy seen as such a hurdle? But I've seen the navy capabilities and where they're headed, and deciding how we're going to interact with the rest of the world so we have a cohesive plan seems like a good idea rather than just cutting and expecting us to do the same stuff with less. That won't work.
 
2014-02-24 02:15:53 PM  

incrdbil: I'm ok with pretty much all of these cuts; the A10 troubles me somewhat, but we have measurewes that can do that job, and who knows what drone-tastic solution may effectively replace it. the F-35 is proof that the entire government procurement system needs to be tossed.  Its impossible to for legitimate buisnesses to navigate it easily, and darned hard to take action against poor performers.


I got to peek into the acquisition process for a research project I was working on for the Navy.

I think one is more likely to retain ones sanity reading the Necronomicon.
 
2014-02-24 02:17:07 PM  

dittybopper: I'd hit it like AA fire over Baghdad.


In other words, not at all?
 
2014-02-24 02:19:19 PM  

clear_prop: vygramul: clkeagle: Because that's always worked so well for us in the past?

That was arrogant stupidity on our part and clever work on the Serbs'Chinese part. It's not the aircraft that failed. It worked as advertised.

FTFY.  That is also the reason the Chinese embassy was 'accidentally' bombed.

Stealth aircraft can be detected the same way submarines are detected.  You listen for the spot that is TOO quiet.

Pilots are cheap compared to $200,000,000 aircraft.  Keep cranking out F-15, F-16, and F-18s since they are proven planes that are super cheap, even including pilot replacement costs.  Even if a bunch are shot down, it is still cheaper than buying F-35s.  farking zoomies always needing new toys, and Congresscritters buying them.


The Chinese had nothing to do with it being shot down.
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report