Mattis loosens RoE in Afghanistan

[Skroe]

Which probably ties into your other recurring rant on there being too many MBAs and not enough IT guys. I don't think the Russians have cyber know-how that Uncle Sam does not, but I suspect military/government employment is more competitive there as in America.

Actually this is a matter of military priorities.

With respect to Short Range Air Defense (basically to protect a unit from a helicopter attack, drone attack, maybe a light airplane or missile)... the US Army and Marines had those units, and progressively demobilized them over the 2000s and 2010s to focus on Counter Terrorism / Counter Insurgency... kind of how like it turned Armored Brigades that used tanks into Infantry of Stryker (medium) brigades. It didn't need it at the time, so it retrained troops and swapped out equipment. And now here we are , and the US needs it again and it finds it is going to take years (~5) to get it back to where it was back around 2005. This is what @ringpriest was referring to. US troops trained to fight the Taliban aren't going to do very well against the Russians without significant retraining and rearming (which is exactly what is happening). In fact, the Ukrainian Army, which fought in Afghanistan as part of the coalition with the US, found itself entirely outmatched against the Russians, because its skill set was all wrong.

With respect to tactical use of drones... thats a classic Pentagon fail. The US has by far the best large theater-level drones in the world. The MQ-9. The RQ-170. The RQ-180. Global Hawk. China and Russia are years, even decades from parity with respect to anything like that. But pairing a small bike sized drone with self propelled artillery? Or training infantry units to use backpack-sized drones? The US has been talking about that for years. And to a degree experimenting. Russia and China have actually done it.

So how can Russia do it and the US not? Again, the classic Pentagon fail. Russia went with a "good enough", largely commercial off the shelf solution. The Pentagon wants a requirement-laden miracle drone that they can use for 20 years. Sometimes that approach is best. In this case, with something that is rapidly advancing every two years, it's lead to the US having a whole lot of nothing other than canceled plans. Hell the Army is seriously thinking about killing its next-generation tactical data network (WIN-T) in the 2018 budget that would be integral to any kind of squad level use of drones to enable data-sharing.

The US has serious procurement problems. Too many requirements. Too many competing interests. Hell right now one of the biggest procurement shitstorms going on is a fight over if the Boeing 707-derived E-8 battlefield management and command and control aircraft should be replaced with a 767-derived replacement for a Gulfstream business jet. Both with the same actual militarized package, just a different airplane. The Air Force likes the Gulfstream. Lots of people don't like that.

[sarahtasher]

Alternatively (as regards China) we can do the obvious thing, which is both smart and savage.

Nuclear first strike while their arsenal is still small. As you've pointed out, their 200+ missiles are inherently vulnerable to first strike and what few survived would be easily intercepted.

OTOH, their military would cease to exist (because we'd be hitting conventional targets too). And of course you'd want to do it during one of their Party Congresses so you can decapitate their leadership in one shot.

So: no wmd deterrent left, no conventional military to speak of, and all the CCP leadership so much radioactive ash. Result? Qin Shi Huang Di's achievement of a unified China comes to a permanent end. And the world is reminded that when you truly, existentially threaten the US, you are erased.

Barbaric? You're gddmn right.

"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph." --- Robert E Howard

The issue is that the people like you advocate to be ''barbarians'' only with countries that can't strike back....

[Realitytrembles]

The issue is that the people like you advocate to be ''barbarians'' only with countries that can't strike back....

well, yeah.

Take every advantage you can in every situation.

Also in the news: fire hot, water wet, sky blue.

[Skroe]

Alternatively (as regards China) we can do the obvious thing, which is both smart and savage.

Nuclear first strike while their arsenal is still small. As you've pointed out, their 200+ missiles are inherently vulnerable to first strike and what few survived would be easily intercepted.

OTOH, their military would cease to exist (because we'd be hitting conventional targets too). And of course you'd want to do it during one of their Party Congresses so you can decapitate their leadership in one shot.

So: no wmd deterrent left, no conventional military to speak of, and all the CCP leadership so much radioactive ash. Result? Qin Shi Huang Di's achievement of a unified China comes to a permanent end. And the world is reminded that when you truly, existentially threaten the US, you are erased.

Barbaric? You're gddmn right.

"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph." --- Robert E Howard

And live with committing an unspeakable crime against humanity that will destroy America's legacy to the world for all time?

A lot of people talked a lot of shit about how the unilateralism of the Iraq War was justified back in the day. I was one of those people. I believed that crap. And you know what? In the final analysis it was the worst nonsense to come out of the United States in decades.

The United States made as fundamentally stupid trade. It traded long term interests and relationships for a short term solution. Many of the countries that were against the Iraq War would have quietly supported it, or stood aside, but America and America alone created a scenario that forced them to take a public position... a position they had little choice in taking because the wars, not popular with their peoples, threatened their governments. German Chancellor Gerhard Scroder was never a friend to America, but no German Chancellor could have done much different. Same with Jacque Chirac and the rest of the "axis of weasels."

We disrespected and publicly disparaged harmless, principled dissent and created a showdown situation that could have easily been avoided through quiet diplomacy and patient lobbying. How do you think the US has held together the united front with Europe over Russia sanctions.... sanctions Europe does not love? By having zero drama about and keeping it as low key as possible.

The Iraq War turned the world against American. Unilateralism... telling our friends that what they think does not matter, had the predictable outcome of deeply alienating us from them for years. We has President Barack Obama, a President Europeans really liked, and we still have not fully recovered. And hell, I support the drone war in full, but Americans are deeply blind to exactly how that war looks to the rest of the world. These perceptions do matter. If we are to be the leader of the world we have the responsibility to _listen_ to our friends concerns and take THEIR interests into account. Because we only lead through their assent. We are 25% of global GDP and 5% of the World's population. We cannot run this planet based on those metrics, if you get what I'm saying. We are what we are because of a Stakeholder model we have carefully nurtured, and unilateralism of any sort, particularly when it is obnoxious and insulting like it was in 2003, does more to undermine that model than anything.

So if we were to do what you'd say, sure, we'd win the war, and lose everything that mattered. Forever. There'd be no way back. America would exist as a country. America as a model, as a leader and as something more than just "the homeland of the Americans"? It would be dead. We'd be the pyrric, or perhaps "American victory" that people living a thousand years hence would refer to.

[Realitytrembles]

So if we were to do what you'd say, sure, we'd win the war, and lose everything that mattered. Forever. There'd be no way back. America would exist as a country. America as a model, as a leader and as something more than just "the homeland of the Americans"? It would be dead. We'd be the pyrric, or perhaps "American victory" that people living a thousand years hence would refer to.

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the 2 passages I italicized. Whether or not some whining foreign prick screams to high heaven about it means as much to me as the dogsht I wipe off my shoe.

[Skroe]

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the 2 passages I italicized. Whether or not some whining foreign prick screams to high heaven about it means as much to me as the dogsht I wipe off my shoe.

I hope you realize America got where it is today because our forebearers didn't think so... well... small.

No offense but what in the blue hell do you think this is? We share the world with billions of other people. If we are a bully to get our way, the day will come where we suffer nothing but losses. And I don't mean military. I mean economic and political. They dont need to bomb Memphis to take everything from you.

America maintains its primacy through partnerships and privileged positions. Keyword: privileged. Force of arms has a role, but it is a supporting one. Our strength comes from the depth of our relationships with our partners.

Your route turns us into North Korea with Capitalism. A paranoid hermit state. Precisely the thing that Americans 120 years ago worked to get us out of. And what happened? We became richer and mightier than ever.

And you'd give it all up... an approach that has clearly yielding extraordinarily positive and historic result.... why exactly?

You can want what you want, but we can go about getting it the stupid way or the smart way. Ultimatums. The tough guy act. It's stupid. And it doesn't work for a reason. It didn't work in the unipolar moment in 2003, at the peak of our relative power, which is now long since over. It sure as hell ain't working now, or 10 years from now. in fact, acting the way you described did more to sap our power than anything else.

And you would do it again? Heh. Like, seriously?

[Surfd]

Nuclear first strike while their arsenal is still small. As you've pointed out, their 200+ missiles are inherently vulnerable to first strike and what few survived would be easily intercepted.

And this is why nobody takes you imbeciles seriously. Nuclear first strike? That is your "solution"? You would have to be fucking mental to even entertain the idea. You do realize that a nuclear first strike on anywhere, for any reason, would be the literal end of the attacker. Congrats. You just nuked China. And now literally every single country on the entire planet has moved you directly to the top of their worst shit list. In fact, they put you so high on that list, that you have to flip to page 3 or so before you find the second entry. You think Germany got it bad at the end of WWII? The entire rest of the planet will rip you a new one so hard you won't even exist by time they are finished sweeping up the pieces.

America as a country? Yeah, it's toast. Exactly how long do you think a country survives when under global trade embargo by every single country on the planet? When under sanctions that make the worst things thrown at the worst countries you can think of look like friendly pats on the back. Good luck with that.

[Realitytrembles]

Congrats. You just nuked China. And now literally every single country on the entire planet has moved you directly to the top of their worst shit list.

And what can they substantially do about it? I mean that would not also result in a bad day for them too.

It's a wonderful power to have.

Maybe the whole rest of the world united against the US would be a threat.

BUT

before we fell, everyone else would go down with us. And they know it.

And so, back to what I said earlier, impotent rage.

[sarahtasher]

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the 2 passages I italicized. Whether or not some whining foreign prick screams to high heaven about it means as much to me as the dogsht I wipe off my shoe.

The issue being that contrary to a cherished belief, the USA have a pretty dubious record at winning wars even against impoverished countries, with or without the ''foreign pricks''. Listening to the foreign pricks telling you ''it's going to destabilize the region'' would have been a mightily good idea

Because, yeah, for all the ''SURRENDERING CHEESE EATING MONKEYS'' memes you can conjure, the French, who had the immense joy of fighting a war in Algeria that nearly bankrupted them, were quite spot on Irak.

[Surfd]

And what can they substantially do about it? I mean that would not also result in a bad day for them too.

It's a wonderful power to have.

Maybe the whole rest of the world united against the US would be a threat.

BUT

before we fell, everyone else would go down with us. And they know it.

Oh yes. Brilliant strategy. If you are afraid someone else might end up scoring more runs than you, just burn the entire stadium down with everyone inside to make sure that if you might lose, at least the other guy wont win. Masterful plan there.

So after you nuke china, what then? You going to nuke the rest of the world too? Cause that would pretty much be the only option you have left at that point. Unless you think the good old USA can survive when the entire rest of the planet effectively cuts it off from everything that keeps it running. Hard to run a Capitalist empire when absolutely nobody will trade with you. Then again, I guess that would be one way to get your Travel ban. Course, the ban would now include 100% of countries not named The USA.

[sarahtasher]

well, yeah.

Take every advantage you can in every situation.

Also in the news: fire hot, water wet, sky blue.

Therefore, Iran and North Korea are perfectly logical to seek nuclear weapons : since in your worldview it's virile and manly to bomb any country to submission, those countries follow the perfectly rational course of making themselves ''unfreedomizable'', as they follow the perfectly logical reasoning that the USA will happily kill millions of impure of non whites but will give it second thought if there is a risk for them....

[Realitytrembles]

The issue being that contrary to a cherished belief, the USA have a pretty dubious record at winning wars even against impoverished countries, with or without the ''foreign pricks''. Listening to the foreign pricks telling you ''it's going to destabilize the region'' would have been a mightily good diea.

Oh you'll get no argument from me there. I don't think the US should poke around very much at all outside the Western Hemisphere. I don't care what people do to each other on the other half of the planet, but bring it over here and we gonna have a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Therefore, Iran and North Korea are perfectly logical to seek nuclear weapons : since in your worldview it's virile and manly to bomb any country to submission, those countries follow the perfectly rational course of making themselves ''unfreedomizable''.

yes it's logical that they do so. They are pursuing their own interests.

Life (among people or nations) is a story of conflicting interests.

[sarahtasher]

Oh you'll get no argument from me there. I don't think the US should poke around very much at all outside the Western Hemisphere. I don't care what people do to each other on the other half of the planet, but bring it over here and we gonna have a problem.

- - - Updated - - -



yes it's logical that they do so. They are pursuing their own interests.

Life (among people or nations) is a story of conflicting interests.

And the national interest of the USA would be to stop randomly bombing third world countries. Especially the wrong third world countries.

[Deleted]

Collateral damage will happen no matter what if we fight them,that or we don't fight them and they keep slaughtering innocents unchallenged

What's the worst,some innocent lives lost as collateral damage,or a lot more innocent lives lost due to inaction?

Vietnam worked out well.

Let's just start burning afghani villages now. A few more combatants (children over age of fucking 12) killed won't matter.

[JohnBrown1917]

And what can they substantially do about it? I mean that would not also result in a bad day for them too.

It's a wonderful power to have.

Maybe the whole rest of the world united against the US would be a threat.

BUT

before we fell, everyone else would go down with us. And they know it.

And so, back to what I said earlier, impotent rage.

Good ol' american insanity, exactly the reason we have so many terrorists now.
The far, war-warmongering, authoritarian, right will never stop, will it?

[sarahtasher]

Good ol' american insanity, exactly the reason we have so many terrorists now.
The far, war-warmongering, authoritarian, right will never stop, will it?

And, note again, the reason to go bomb those countries is worded often in ten years old language : ''they are bad guys'' ''they are evil''

I would LOVE to know why killing 5-6 people with a car is ''eeeeevil'' but ''nuking duh Arubs'' is tough and manly.

(It goes without saying that ISIS terrorism is abominable and inexcusable-but I really don't see how bombing towns in perfect safety is much better, not to mention that the usual suspects, desperate to look tough and virile online are advocating ''kluver stratugies'' that are about killing 100-1000 times more people than ISIS)