0
kallend

Military primacy?

Recommended Posts

(edited)
1 hour ago, timski said:

In the big picture, YES. However, no one can take this land we occupy. For the shear number of privately owned weapons. (and a few good men willing to lead them)

edit: this deserves a proper, non-phone post.

 

While the US has more guns per head than any country on earth, the majority of those gun owners are both untrained and unorganised.

Ask any military professional and they'll tell you that simply being able to shoot a gun doesn't mean that you'll use it properly when faced by an opponent trying to kill you. That's why we spend so much on training our military rather than just giving everyone an M16 and saying 'go to it, boys!'.

The idea that the general populace could withstand an invading professional army in the current age is hollywood fantasy.

And while it's true that a dedicated guerrilla force CAN make life difficult for an invading army, the idea of a land invasion scenario isn't how a big war will really pan out in the modern era. You don't NEED to put boots on the ground if you can control a country's power, communications and general infrastructure remotely.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, yoink said:

edit: this deserves a proper, non-phone post.

 

While the US has more guns per head than any country on earth, the majority of those gun owners are both untrained and unorganised.

Ask any military professional and they'll tell you that simply being able to shoot a gun doesn't mean that you'll use it properly when faced by an opponent trying to kill you. That's why we spend so much on training our military rather than just giving everyone an M16 and saying 'go to it, boys!'.

The idea that the general populace could withstand an invading professional army in the current age is hollywood fantasy.

And while it's true that a dedicated guerrilla force CAN make life difficult for an invading army, the idea of a land invasion scenario isn't how a big war will really pan out in the modern era. You don't NEED to put boots on the ground if you can control a country's power, communications and general infrastructure remotely.

WOLVERINES!!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yoink said:

And while it's true that a dedicated guerrilla force CAN make life difficult for an invading army, the idea of a land invasion scenario isn't how a big war will really pan out in the modern era. You don't NEED to put boots on the ground if you can control a country's power, communications and general infrastructure remotely.

Definitely.

Imagine a completely hypothetical situation.  "Mr. President, I must point something out.  We gave you hundreds of millions years ago, and don't forget we have the recordings of what you offered us in return.  It would be a shame to see those recordings slip out due to some unscrupulous hackers, and an even bigger shame if your power grid went down right after you made that claim about the infrastructure bill.  On the other hand, imagine if you got the same sort of election assistance you got from Russia - but at least twice as effective.  Your choice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

Definitely.

Imagine a completely hypothetical situation.  "Mr. President, I must point something out.  We gave you hundreds of millions years ago, and don't forget we have the recordings of what you offered us in return.  It would be a shame to see those recordings slip out due to some unscrupulous hackers, and an even bigger shame if your power grid went down right after you made that claim about the infrastructure bill.  On the other hand, imagine if you got the same sort of election assistance you got from Russia - but at least twice as effective.  Your choice."

If that happened to our current president, he would just claim, fake news, and say the recordings were not him (that’s not a stretch, he has actually done that before).  As far as the power grid going down?  He would just blame Obama and Pelosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2020 at 9:05 AM, kallend said:

What do our military experts think of this article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines

"

“Over the past decade, in U.S. war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time.”

That’s a quote from a new book called “The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare,” the most provocative critique of U.S. defense policy I’ve read in years. It’s written by Christian Brose, former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a close adviser to late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). The book isn’t just a wake-up call, it’s a fire alarm in the night.

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them."

 

etc. etc,

 

i am no expert on military, but i do have one very important point to make:

i am pretty sure that it should be supremacy and not primacy.  while primacy means to be first, the term military supremacy is more often used and the correct term here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, yoink said:

edit: this deserves a proper, non-phone post.

 

While the US has more guns per head than any country on earth, the majority of those gun owners are both untrained and unorganised.

Ask any military professional and they'll tell you that simply being able to shoot a gun doesn't mean that you'll use it properly when faced by an opponent trying to kill you. That's why we spend so much on training our military rather than just giving everyone an M16 and saying 'go to it, boys!'.

The idea that the general populace could withstand an invading professional army in the current age is hollywood fantasy.

And while it's true that a dedicated guerrilla force CAN make life difficult for an invading army, the idea of a land invasion scenario isn't how a big war will really pan out in the modern era. You don't NEED to put boots on the ground if you can control a country's power, communications and general infrastructure remotely.

I think what you're saying is that putting money into our socialist education system might give as much bang for the buck as our socialist military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 6:36 PM, yoink said:

edit: this deserves a proper, non-phone post.

 

While the US has more guns per head than any country on earth, the majority of those gun owners are both untrained and unorganised.

How many rounds of ammunition are sold in the US each year?
There is no way to get an accurate number. Estimate of the number of rounds sold in the US is anywhere from 8 to 15 BILLION per year

Ask any military professional and they'll tell you that simply being able to shoot a gun doesn't mean that you'll use it properly when faced by an opponent trying to kill you. That's why we spend so much on training our military rather than just giving everyone an M16 and saying 'go to it, boys!'.

The idea that the general populace could withstand an invading professional army in the current age is hollywood fantasy.

Has Trump surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban?

And while it's true that a dedicated guerrilla force CAN make life difficult for an invading army, the idea of a land invasion scenario isn't how a big war will really pan out in the modern era. You don't NEED to put boots on the ground if you can control a country's power, communications and general infrastructure remotely.

He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

“It took the infantry and the armor and the special operations commanders to go into that city, house by house, block by block, room by room, to clear that city,” he said. ”What I’m telling you is there’s a myth out there that you can win from afar. To impose your political will on the enemy typically requires you, at the end of the day, to close with and destroy that enemy up close with ground forces.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, normiss said:

SeaRAM is impressive!

I have a few friends working on this project. Interesting.

There are times I'm seriously interested in DoD work again. The tech is very interesting.

 

So 22 incoming Chicom ... er Chinese manufactured incoming missiles defeats this system.

I'm just jazzing you. The difference between Russian, Chinese and US military systems. Is primarily that the US upgrades systems more often than other countries. Many Russian A/C still operate with avionics that the planes were originally built with 20 years previously.

The US operates around the world continuously. It makes news when Russia tests NORAD.

The largest advantage that the enemies of America have is political staying power. US political will seldom lasts past one US president.

Trump bet on Kim. Now he’s disappeared.     North Korea will wait out Trump administration: Expert

So effectively trump suffered three losses against Iran. Spy plane shot down and two unanswered attacks against US forces. v The cost of one general.

Kim and N. Korea played trump and got four years to develop nuclear armed missiles. They gained international prestige and lost nothing. Victory to N. Korea.

It goes without saying that trump's deference to Putin gave Russia victories against NATO, time to secure his victories in Ukraine and Crimea. An investment by Putin that makes the Alaska deal look like chump change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

`A single launcher isn't the only defensive weapon on a ship, so no.

I'm more concerned with the multi-billion dollar nuclear gift Trump's dumb ass gave to MBS and Saudi Arabia. That's quite destabilizing for the ME and makes Iran their issue, not so much ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, normiss said:

`A single launcher isn't the only defensive weapon on a ship, so no.

I'm more concerned with the multi-billion dollar nuclear gift Trump's dumb ass gave to MBS and Saudi Arabia. That's quite destabilizing for the ME and makes Iran their issue, not so much ours.

Oh good thing you mentioned that. Cheap, for the cost of some gifts to Jared, Saudi Arabia gave Donald Trump 83 gifts including swords, daggers and artwork of himself 

"Presents to the President include two robes lined with fur - one from a cheetah and the other from a rare white tiger." from above link. Give MBS credit he knows what motivates trump.

Perhaps if Nancy Pelosi gave trump a couple CITES  type gifts.  A couple ivory statues of trump, appropriately stained orange. A rare Tasmanian devil robe. trump would sell out his tribe by telling the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Oh good thing you mentioned that. Cheap, for the cost of some gifts to Jared, Saudi Arabia gave Donald Trump 83 gifts including swords, daggers and artwork of himself 

"Presents to the President include two robes lined with fur - one from a cheetah and the other from a rare white tiger." from above link. Give MBS credit he knows what motivates trump.

Perhaps if Nancy Pelosi gave trump a couple CITES  type gifts.  A couple ivory statues of trump, appropriately stained orange. A rare Tasmanian devil robe. trump would sell out his tribe by telling the truth.

Hi Phil,

It sure looks like Trump is a cheap date.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 3 reasons why the US Army won the battle of 73 Easting.

First: Iraqi command was inflexible.

Second: troops were so poorly trained that generals only trusted them to fight from hull-down, dug-in positions.

Thirdly: US aiming/fire control systems were far more advanced, infrared, thermal imaging, etc. Iraqi armour and guns were almost as good, but Iraqi tankers could not see half as many targets as American tankers. 

Similar variables to the Israeli defense of the Golan Heights in 1973.

Recently, the USSR decided that their latest Armata tank was too expensive to manufacture in large numbers. Instead, they decided to upgrade aiming systems on existing T-92 tanks. Even back during the Cold War, there was a huge market for upgrading existing tanks with more reliable diesel engines, automatic transmissions, bigger guns, better sights, applique armour, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripley's "Believe it or Not" published a published a sketch of Chinese soldiers marching, with the caption something like "If Chinese soldiers marched ten abreast through a gate, they would never all march through it … birthrate … blah ..blah … blah"

Chinese will always out-number any other army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 8:36 PM, yoink said:

edit: this deserves a proper, non-phone post.

 

While the US has more guns per head than any country on earth, the majority of those gun owners are both untrained and unorganised.

Ask any military professional and they'll tell you that simply being able to shoot a gun doesn't mean that you'll use it properly when faced by an opponent trying to kill you. That's why we spend so much on training our military rather than just giving everyone an M16 and saying 'go to it, boys!'.

The idea that the general populace could withstand an invading professional army in the current age is hollywood fantasy.

And while it's true that a dedicated guerrilla force CAN make life difficult for an invading army, the idea of a land invasion scenario isn't how a big war will really pan out in the modern era. You don't NEED to put boots on the ground if you can control a country's power, communications and general infrastructure remotely.

THIS my dude is a well thought out response, by someone who hasn't been issued his TA-50.

You and Bill can watch the world crumble around you, while the "boys" and I get dirty. ;) 

PS, don't forget that phone, for quick calls and witty returns. 

Don't leave out "The Ron Factor" and his "Q" Army!!!  (I for one feel safer already). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2020 at 9:05 AM, kallend said:

What do our military experts think of this article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines

"

“Over the past decade, in U.S. war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time.”

That’s a quote from a new book called “The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare,” the most provocative critique of U.S. defense policy I’ve read in years. It’s written by Christian Brose, former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a close adviser to late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). The book isn’t just a wake-up call, it’s a fire alarm in the night.

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them."

 

etc. etc,

 

So you are saying that we need to spend even more on the military industrial complex?  Interesting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, timski said:

THIS my dude is a well thought out response, by someone who hasn't been issued his TA-50.

You and Bill can watch the world crumble around you, while the "boys" and I get dirty. ;) 

PS, don't forget that phone, for quick calls and witty returns. 

Don't leave out "The Ron Factor" and his "Q" Army!!!  (I for one feel safer already). 

Go on fella, I’ll bite.

Do tell me how your TA-50 is going to help you get dirty and fight the professional hacker sitting in an cubicle in Beijing. Because that’s the situation we’re talking about. Digital denial of infrastructure.

 

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yoink said:

Go on fella, I’ll bite.

Do tell me how your TA-50 is going to help you get dirty and fight the professional hacker sitting in an cubicle in Beijing. Because that’s the situation we’re talking about. Digital denial of infrastructure.

 

the first thing i will point out that you got way wrong was that the military's annual target practice will make you any more comfortable shooting at people than regular folks.  pro tip:  it doesn't.  and as for that statement about not needing boots on the ground, let me tell you a story about how well it worked out in the desert in '91.  it didn't.  we had to go in in large numbers after the air war went for a month.  it is essentially the same everywhere else with any other enemy.  and then there's the part about guerrilla forces not standing up to a professional military.  i have a strong feeling that any veterans that fought against us in vietnam, iraq, or afghanistan would have a differing opinion on that.  they may need some help from allies, but that's it.  i think that history would also have a differing side to the story but am not much of a history buff when it comes to this. 

and for the point made in this comment, i have a lot of friends in the infosec industry, some of whom are into ics security and preventing attacks on critical infrastructure.  most of them will gladly tell you how it isn't as easy as it is in the movies and that no, criminals cannot just take out our power grid like that.  government agencies can do more damage, but still cannot perform the magic feats that you are picturing.  close, but not there yet.  it is people like me who are going to be fighting the people sitting in beijing, and the military has a lot of them now.  i almost went back in as an officer in cybersecurity but decided that i had had enough of it.  i am glad as hell now that i stayed out.  not my game any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, kallend said:

You attributed to me a position that I have not taken and cannot be inferred from what I posted.  Misrepresenting someone's position is setting up a straw man.

Your position remains a mystery.  You should reacquaint yourself with the rules of the forum.

 

"Copying and pasting the words of somebody else is not a conversation. 

At the very least, the person should make a comment in relation to the wall of text they've copied and posted so we know where the poster himself stands in relationship to it. Give it some context so you aren't simply acting as a copy and paste meat robot"

According to the rules of the forum you are nothing more than a "meat robot"

 

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0