IntenseDebate - ibsteve2u

9 years ago @ MilitaryAdvantage.Mili... - Riled by Top Enlisted'... · 2 replies · +5 points

Guess we need a draft again...then there will be no need to make promises which Congress et al have no intention of honoring.

The increasingly facile manner with which Congress and the military's senior enlisted and officer corps support breaking promises, though...that's bad news. If they'll break promises in these arenas, what arenas are "off limits"?

Will they one day deny requests for fire support 'cuz its either cut the lifeline to troops out on the fronts or raise taxes?

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - LCS Wargame Reveals Ne... · 0 replies · +3 points

Article sounds like the last gasp is pretending the LCS is an over-sized, over-expensive, and under-maneuverable torpedo boat.

10 years ago @ Defense Tech - Pentagon Cuts Research... · 1 reply · -1 points

“high-speed kinetic strike” vehicles, $300 million...would that it were more. Need to ramp up anti-missile capabilities...they're entirely too cheap to build especially if you've been given the requisite technology and its means of mass and rapid manufacture and further can manipulate your currency exchange rates at will.

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Official: U.S. Militar... · 0 replies · +6 points

The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer told [Congressional] lawmakers that the U.S. is investing in advanced weapons for potential use in the Asia-Pacific region, but that American military technological superiority isn’t guaranteed amid budget cuts.

Not when the owner/operators (the CEO, "major shareholders", and Wall Street) of the (mostly) American corporations that in turn own those "lawmakers" have been giving the PRC the technology required for the building of advanced weaponry and its means of mass - and rapid - manufacturer ever since Reagan/Bush/Clinton/BushV2.0 and Congress enabled the sell-out of America.

Or betrayed America, to be more precise.

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Top Weapons Buyer Disp... · 0 replies · -1 points

Quoting Kendall. “The plan was to develop a certain set and field a certain set of initial capabilities for local anti-submarine warfare capabilities and then add capabilities to that in increments."

To tell you the truth that strikes me as being a subterfuge...a way of selling Congress/the American people platform X at Y price even though you know that you're going to be tacking Y+1, Y+2, Y+3, Y+[...] onto the actual cost forever and ever, amen.

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Shrinking Army Studies... · 0 replies · +1 points

Me, I think robotics are 'OK' as long as they yield a decrease in logistical support requirements and an increase in speed (edit: as in a decrease in time required to accomplish their assigned mission), maneuverability, and/or firepower under combat conditions.

And cannot be defeated by simple measures like jamming and/or EMP.

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Iraq to Buy Hellfire M... · 0 replies · +1 points

Gee....I could go on and on about who may end up with either those missiles or the ability to copy them but what is the point? Just as when the Republicans enforced America's addiction to oil at and after the formation of OPEC leading to multiple wars "to protect our strategic interests" and our funding of both the terrorist attacks upon us and the Middle East's armies with petrodollars, we're going to be paying for another Republican action - the invasion of Iraq - for a long, long time.

Better, I guess, to hope that we already have an anti-missile system that has a 100% kill ratio against Hellfires...'cuz if they're only $70K apiece when we SELL 'em, a nation that rigs their currency exchange rate - say, the PRC - could crank 'em out at $10K or less a pop.

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Will Aircraft Carriers... · 0 replies · 0 points

If carriers could launch and retrieve without the (reflective) flat deck that even a STOL/VTOL carrier requires...or if active radar-canceling systems (like the noise-canceling systems in luxury cars) worked...or if it was possible to project duplicate radar reflections conforming to the profile anticipated from a carrier about 1,000 feet above the surface...or true rapid-firing laser/maser systems that could destroy an incoming missile with a 1-millisecond or less duration pulse existed...

And (the Boolean kind) if we hadn't have given our most significant potential adversary our industrial infrastructure/arsenal, our technology, and its means of manufacture so that we are guaranteed that they can afford to build missiles in sufficient quantities to barrage-fire them...and (Boolean, again) we had no reason to believe that they could hit, say, the moon or small targets like orbiting satellites...

Carriers will be useful for brush wars forever...but for global conflicts? I think I would also work on survival suits that were tough, fireproof, could take shrapnel hits, float independently, and carried some small armaments for sailors and naval aviators. And the Marine complement, of course.

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Navy P-8A Surveillance... · 0 replies · -3 points

I surely hope that it turns out that the Republicans and neoliberals were right when they jumped to the conclusion that the PRC's Central Committee would be and would remain as eager to whip the PRC's peoples with the stick of unrestrained capitalism as the owners of those aforementioned Republicans and neoliberals were and remain.

'Cuz if the day comes that the PRC decides that it has both the will to go hot and has been sold sufficient American dual-use technology and its means of manufacture to out-build the industry-as-arsenal of the United States, I'm pretty sure those AINOs who bought the Republicans and neoliberals in order to betray the American-people-as-"labor" and so these United States of America had already decided "Well, if worse comes to worst we can always go nuclear."

10 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Israel Bumps Marines, ... · 0 replies · +1 points

lollll..."several"? As many as 36 *...how many did we "sell" them?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with ibsteve2u

People I'm following

ibsteve2u