Consolidated “America and the capitalist military” thread.

[Kruel J]

I think the line was blurred between a young person wanting to serve their country and disdain for how our leaders choose to employ them.

Same as blaming the bullet instead of the idiot behind the trigger.

 

[No_Regerts]

The problem is that people view war on the micro level. The military is the instrument of policy/politics. Force is, for the most part, used for political resolution after a failure in diplomacy.

As ling as humans are self-interested, interests will compete. Since WWII, no nation state has decided to bring the fight to us. The strategic gains in WWII have allowed us to be what we are today.

We control the air and we control the sea. Disagree? Submarines aren't sinking cruise ships and SU-27s aren't shooting down 737s.
Imports and exports are safe.

Its not personal, its politics and its business. That's why a well equipped, well trained, volunteer service does well. They'll make you two or three times or effective vs a draftee. The cost of consumable equipment is cheaper than 3x the entitlements to draftees.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Its not personal, its politics and its business. That's why a well equipped, well trained, volunteer service does well. They'll make you two or three times or effective vs a draftee. The cost of consumable equipment is cheaper than 3x the entitlements to draftees.

On the other hand, just how much waste have there been in funding for technology, equipment, only to have Congress or Committees cancel the programs, leaving companies who participated in the cold?
A reform on how the contracts and biddings, and how the defense spending should be important, but again; following the money and following who stands to profit and lose from either granting or cancelling contracts..... its going to take a long time before the contractingnand bidding and production is brought to better levels

 

[No_Regerts]

On the other hand, just how much waste have there been in funding for technology, equipment, only to have Congress or Committees cancel the programs, leaving companies who participated in the cold?
A reform on how the contracts and biddings, and how the defense spending should be important, but again; following the money and following who stands to profit and lose from either granting or cancelling contracts..... its going to take a long time before the contractingnand bidding and production is brought to better levels

.gov contracts are very lucrative, but there is risk. That's why companies find states where sitting senior senators and congress members live who are friendly to the cause. You see lots of companies being swallowed up into bigger companies who can afford the risk.

Look how many companies were swallowed up by Boeing? The vast majority of Boeing military aircraft used to belong to McDonnell Douglas.

 

[CamoDeafie]

At the same time, how is it ok for Congress to cut production of certain aircraft, in order to "save money/wait for better" when the companies have to deal with loss of orders/destruction of tooling at end of production?

The B-2 and F-22 programs are the biggest examples.. and thats if programs aren't canceled/cut after spending billions (for example, all three successive programs to replace the O/AH-58 Kiowa/Kiowa Warriors and MH-6/AH-6, and the programs for the various ground vehicles to replace the Stryker series )

My opinion? stick to the original production contracts, and maybe we wouldnt be in such a place where the F-15s and F-16s have to deal with improved Sukhois and MiGs and chicom copies, while we're spending billions on the F-35

 

[Stomper]

War...what's it good for...absolutely nothing...so says Edwin Starr.

To add to the butchers bill or even just to see the cost and waste of war , both of which I have done...does not endear me to the idea of war.

That said...
War is necessary at times....two of mine were so called Peace Keeping tours.
One in Bosnia and the other in Somalia ...in each place I both saved and took lives...
I also feel that it was indeed necessary to be there...
To see first hand what the phrase Ethnic Cleansing really means , first hand...and actually have a chance to make a difference there , means a lot to me.

Now I am not talking about the whole overall effect of our presence in those places or the reasons behind the "Why'...
But to the people that I helped train or helped evacuate , to the food and medical supplies that I guarded , to the lives that I safeguarded by my skill as a Rifleman and a Small Unit Leader...A difference was made...an immediate difference , one that might have meant life or death....that to me , at leas , is and was , worthwhile...And not something that I take lightly or am happy to hear folks disparage.
Andy

This video is worth the watch...

 

[Howard1955]

This video is worth the watch...

What an excellent speech! Thanks for posting that.

I wonder what he would say if he were alive today?

 

[Ura-Ki]

Why is it Congress holds not only the purse strings, but also decided what is best for the military? The first one I get, the second makes zero sense! Politics should have no bearing on what the Mil decides is best for it! F-35 being a perfect example, NO ONE outside the Marines wants it, and their needs are far to specific in that airframe to even be considered by the others, and yet it's being forced on the Navy and Air Force. The F-22 was cut off less then half it's original order, and while suitable replacements to "fill" that gap were proposed, why is it a failure is being forced through? I smell another M-16! Same with the Navy and it's Destroyer X and it's Littoral combat ships, all dismal failures, doomed before they were even built, and yet here we are, funding more new builds, even after they have proven failures! Talk about waste!!!
We are supposed to have 13 advanced air craft carriers, ( Who decides that number?) and now it's being cut to 11, after the keel and hull plates have already been cut and fab started, and Who pays for the loss there?

On another note, Why is it there are no willing shipyards in this country, shipyards who desperately need work to stay alive, yet they refuse work, driving customers over seas to S. Korea or Scandinavia where they are more then happy to have any work they can get, and will do it far better, using far better materials, for far cheaper! WTF

 

[CamoDeafie]

It was Congress that forced the Marines to keep upgrading/rebuild a pair of 60+ year old designs in the H-1 series (AH-1Z and UH-1Y); Because the Congress banned sales of the Apache and not sure about the Blackhawks to the Marines (Although theres the Navy's Seahawks)

And the F-35 was originally to replace only the F-16s but no. Pentagon declared that it would replace the A-10, A-7, AV-8B, as well (shades of the McNamara debacle with the F-4 and F-111 ?)

We are left with like 100 F-22s out of what. The 1,000+ that the USAF wanted to replace the F-15C/Ds for frontline service? Did you know theres a squadron of the F-22s in the Air National Guard?

Why couldn't the navy just keep making Arleigh Burkes and build new Cyclone class boats that did very well in littoral combat when divorced from NSW support? (That was a job that it was too large for )

 

[Baseacegoku]

I don't see the point in any war we have fought in since the 1800s.

WW1, WW2, Korea?

 

[Stomper]

Why is it Congress holds not only the purse strings, but also decided what is best for the military? The first one I get, the second makes zero sense! Politics should have no bearing on what the Mil decides is best for it! F-35 being a perfect example, NO ONE outside the Marines wants it, and their needs are far to specific in that airframe to even be considered by the others, and yet it's being forced on the Navy and Air Force. The F-22 was cut off less then half it's original order, and while suitable replacements to "fill" that gap were proposed, why is it a failure is being forced through? I smell another M-16! Same with the Navy and it's Destroyer X and it's Littoral combat ships, all dismal failures, doomed before they were even built, and yet here we are, funding more new builds, even after they have proven failures! Talk about waste!!!
We are supposed to have 13 advanced air craft carriers, ( Who decides that number?) and now it's being cut to 11, after the keel and hull plates have already been cut and fab started, and Who pays for the loss there?

On another note, Why is it there are no willing shipyards in this country, shipyards who desperately need work to stay alive, yet they refuse work, driving customers over seas to S. Korea or Scandinavia where they are more then happy to have any work they can get, and will do it far better, using far better materials, for far cheaper! WTF

It was Congress that forced the Marines to keep upgrading/rebuild a pair of 60+ year old designs in the H-1 series (AH-1Z and UH-1Y); Because the Congress banned sales of the Apache and not sure about the Blackhawks to the Marines (Although theres the Navy's Seahawks)

And the F-35 was originally to replace only the F-16s but no. Pentagon declared that it would replace the A-10, A-7, AV-8B, as well (shades of the McNamara debacle with the F-4 and F-111 ?)

We are left with like 100 F-22s out of what. The 1,000+ that the USAF wanted to replace the F-15C/Ds for frontline service? Did you know theres a squadron of the F-22s in the Air National Guard?

Why couldn't the navy just keep making Arleigh Burkes and build new Cyclone class boats that did very well in littoral combat when divorced from NSW support? (That was a job that it was too large for )

C'mon.... it's because Hunter Biden (or the equivalent) sits on the board of directors... and funnels all that tax-payer (and borrowed deficit spending) money to the "elite" families.


It's the way it's always been throughout human history.....

 

[Geardo]

WW1, WW2, Korea?

What was the point of any of those? WW1 we only got involved in WW1 so we could continue selling supplies and guns to our "allies" who did that benefit? Was it worth the cost of life?

WW1 then led directly to WW2. What ended WW2? Us nuking Japan and Russia invading Germany. How many good american men had to die when we knew the only thing that would stop the japanese was something as cataclysmic as nuclear weapons.

Going to refrain from discussing WW2 and germany here as I don't want to get banned.

Korea, a proxy war with China, for what? What good, what purpose? We have communists in office here in America now and huge genetic swaths of men who were willing to fight and do anything about it got wiped out on foreign soil.

 

[Flymph]

What was the point of any of those? WW1 we only got involved in WW1 so we could continue selling supplies and guns to our "allies" who did that benefit? Was it worth the cost of life?

WW1 then led directly to WW2. What ended WW2? Us nuking Japan and Russia invading Germany. How many good american men had to die when we knew the only thing that would stop the japanese was something as cataclysmic as nuclear weapons.

Going to refrain from discussing WW2 and germany here as I don't want to get banned.

Korea, a proxy war with China, for what? What good, what purpose? We have communists in office here in America now and huge genetic swaths of men who were willing to fight and do anything about it got wiped out on foreign soil.

Because we totally needed to invade those spanish colonies and commit genocide in 1898, and before in the 1870's against the indigenous people. At least we got a massive land grab in the war with Mexico.
The war of 1812 was a real kicker, totally worth it! Who decided it was a good idea to invade Canada anyway?

There hasn't been a war the US should have been in since before the constitution was ratified... even then it's debatable.

Let me throw out some perceptual conspiracy that is fact. World War 1 ended empires and monarchs. All of the European Aristocracy was related to the English monarchy in some way or another. Woodrow Wilson gives a speech titled New World Order to the first conference of the League of Nations.
World War 2 solidified democratic government and created a Unified Europe. I wonder who had envisioned that?
Part of the problem with Europe and Japan was vast archaic infrastructure, desperately in need of modernization... but how to get people to accept the destruction of their childhood homes and cities you ask, start another war (more speculation than fact really).
The two superpowers coming out of WW2 begin fighting a series of proxy wars to establish ideological supremacy across the globe. Invading vast swaths of previously independent peoples, now engaged in global trade. G.W. Bush gives a speech in 1990 titled New World Order.


Alduous Huxley writes a book titled Brave New World in like the 30's or something... and you'll see where we're heading if you read it.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I'll say it. I agree with most of what that dude said.


I don't see the point in any war we have fought in since the 1800s.

WWII? After we were attacked by Japan? I am asking in all seriousness as that seems like the ultimate in needing a war in response.

 

[Flymph]

WWII? After we were attacked by Japan? I am asking in all seriousness as that seems like the ultimate in needing a war in response.

Suppose a country places an embargo on the US, preventing us from receiving oil and other necessary resources to support our industries and economy, would that not require an aggressive response?
Also supposing we didn't have any of those resources available "in house" so to say, as that is an important part of the equation.

We were askin' for a war, and unfortunately we got one.

 

[Geardo]

WWII? After we were attacked by Japan? I am asking in all seriousness as that seems like the ultimate in needing a war in response.

Not saying a retaliation wasn't Neccasary, but the only retaliation that seemed worth it was the nukes.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Not saying a retaliation wasn't Neccasary, but the only retaliation that seemed worth it was the nukes.

Which were deployed only after being developed.

 

[Geardo]

Suppose a country places an embargo on the US, preventing us from receiving oil and other necessary resources to support our industries and economy, would that not require an aggressive response?
Also supposing we didn't have any of those resources available "in house" so to say, as that is an important part of the equation.

We were askin' for a war, and unfortunately we got one.

Was that really the case? What I learned in school was they were sinking our merchant vessels heading into allied countries filled with guns and supplies, not sinking vessels filled with things americans needed.

 

[Flymph]

Was that really the case? What I learned in school was they were sinking our merchant vessels heading into allied countries filled with guns and supplies, not sinking vessels filled with things americans needed.

We placed an embargo on Japan, crippling their economy and forcing them to drastic action. Japan's isolationist policy and aspirations for expanding empire shielded them from the effects of the great depression. They were a rising power that could not be tolerated by western powers.
I was trying to make up a hypothetical that would cause empathy towards Japan's actions leading to war.
Not to say the Japanese didn't commit atrocities in China tho.

I'm saying, was meddling with their territorial expansion worth it.
I rather argue the cause, not the symptom.

Are you talking about German U-boats?
Then yeah, that was the case.

 

[Geardo]

We placed an embargo on Japan, crippling their economy and forcing them to drastic action. Japan's isolationist policy and aspirations for expanding empire shielded them from the effects of the great depression. They were a rising power that could not be tolerated by western powers.
I was trying to make up a hypothetical that would cause empathy towards Japan's actions leading to war.
Not to say the Japanese didn't commit atrocities in China tho.

I'm saying, was meddling with their territorial expansion worth it.
I rather argue the cause, not the symptom.

Are you talking about German U-boats?
Then yeah, that was the case.

Yeah sorry, I was talking about U boats sinking our ships.

Assuming what you are saying about Japan is true, then that side of the war was BS too.

I really admire the japanese culture now, and I think it was even stronger back then.