WWlll
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2017, 11:13 AM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 06:25 AM)Dom Wrote:  What will it look like?

Is there really a point in putting all that money into outdated methods of war?

What should we invest in to prevent cyber war? Chemical warfare? Poisoning of food supplies? Or?

I think we are living through it. World War III that is. Decades from now, people will look back and realize that this was a period of major violence, even though it was largely confined to the Middle East. The powerful countries are rational enough to understand it cannot get out hand and lead to bigger conflict where there are no winners.

There is no point in the US ramping up military expenditure, except to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy. The only real fear for the US and the west, IMO, asymmetric players. There should be some resources set aside for purposes of keeping up with the latest technological developments. I think the US can do with half, even less, of the current military expenditure. During the Iraq invasion and occupation the military was spending over 1 billion dollars a week in Iraq - they could instead have made all colleges tuition free over the same period.

America's foes with near parity in military terms spend a fraction of what the US does, and that is enough deterrent. It works. China, Russia, India, etc, almost literally all they need to do is make sure their launchers are still operational. Nobody, include the US, is going to attack them. Meanwhile America spends itself blind buying new weapons while denying citizens a social safety net.

The US should invest in healthcare, education, infrastructure, renewable energy, space exploration, arts and cultural exchanges etc. Taking care of society will create new jobs that replace the jobs lost from the military industrial complex.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like tomilay's post
26-03-2017, 01:21 PM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 11:13 AM)tomilay Wrote:  ... The US should invest in healthcare, education, infrastructure, renewable energy, space exploration, arts and cultural exchanges etc. Taking care of society will create new jobs that replace the jobs lost from the military industrial complex ...

By far the greatest blindness of perspective has been the US "defense" industry. A vast proportion of our manpower and wealth is consumed in "protecting" the nation without any thought given to what is being protected: something so greatly impoverished by the cost of protection it's not worth protecting. Just one small example: The pentagon is exempt from environmental laws. That's exactly the equivalent of hiring an in-home bodyguard and telling him he doesn't need to use the toilet, he can just defecate all over the house and not even bother to clean it up. Is such a house worth protecting?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Airportkid's post
26-03-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 11:10 AM)ImFred Wrote:  Do you agree with my premise (that I borrowed from Hawking) that over a long enough time line a nuclear disaster is an inevitability?

Given enough time many things will become essentially inevitable and we've already had two nuclear disasters, Chernobyl and Fukashima, non military ones but disastrous nonetheless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 01:21 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Just one small example: The pentagon is exempt from environmental laws.

Where did you get that from? When you have to store WWI mustard gas and a menagerie of munitions, you pay very close attention to environmental impact.

"Army Environmental Policy Statement
a. All Army organizations and activities will comply with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws, regulations, executive orders (EOs), or overseas Final Governing Standards (FGS) (see para 15–8 for additional specific overseas requirements); develop and implement pollution prevention and control strategies; and establish environmental priorities in consideration of the benefits to the sustainment of missions and operations.
b. All Army organizations and activities will strive to achieve continual improvement in overall environmental performance and supporting management systems.

Commitment to Environmental Stewardship
a. The Army is committed to environmental stewardship in all actions as an integral part of its mission and to ensure sustainability.
b. This regulation supports the Army Strategy for the Environment, 1 October 2004, which presents the Army’s environmental vision as sustainable operations, installations, systems, and communities enabling the Army mission. Under the strategy, the Army’s environmental mission is to sustain the environment to enable the Army mission and secure the future. In doing so, all Army organizations and activities will—
(1) Foster an ethic within the Army that takes us beyond environmental compliance to sustainability.
(2) Strengthen Army operational capability by reducing our environmental footprint through more sustainable practices.
(3) Meet current and future training, testing and other mission requirements by sustaining land, air, and water resources.
(4) Minimize impacts and total ownership costs of Army systems, materiel, facilities, and operations by integrating the principles and practices of sustainability.
(5) Enhance the well being of our soldiers, civilians, families, neighbors, and communities through leadership in sustainability.
(6) Use innovative technology and the principles of sustainability to meet user needs and anticipate future Army challenges." - Army Regulation 200–1

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 03:17 PM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 08:41 AM)abaris Wrote:  If business interests are involved in going to war, if war becomes the business, there's no way to reign in the horses.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
26-03-2017, 03:38 PM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 03:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Where did you get that from?

Lack of more current googling. Glad to see the Army has environmental perspective - and thanks for the correction. I had recalled an article or statement sometime ago that mentioned pentagon exemption from EPA compliance. The lesson now is don't say anything until you've gone google first. To be an honest commenter. And ir was supposed to be a lazy Sunday today - oh well Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 05:29 PM
RE: WWlll
It's my view that the Trump administration wants one or more wars to serve as a distraction from their perfidy and ineptitude. In particular, Bannon has said publicly that he sees war with China inevitable and sure enough, we are currently sabre-rattling in China's back yard over North Korea as well as being bellicose with them in many other ways. Meanwhile Trump is quietly sending more American ground troops to the Middle East and there's talk of invading Syria. There are plenty of other opportunities for unforced clusterfucks. In my mind war is now not a matter of if, but when and how.

Would it be another world war? I don't think that's terribly likely, though far from impossible. I think it will be more like death by a thousand cuts, being mired in a half dozen resource-sapping regional conflicts, than being engaged on 2, 3 or 4 discrete battle fronts pushing back against a loose alliance of conventional totalitarian regimes with a strong coalition of allies.

No one has tried to fight a world war with nuclear weapons in the arsenal. No one we are currently provoking is a credible nuclear power, but some of their allies are, so who knows. China or Russia could sense weakness and go for it. But if I were them, I would just let us wear ourselves out in several simultaneous Vietnams. No need to risk nuclear fallout, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
26-03-2017, 06:02 PM
RE: WWlll
Quote:No one we are currently provoking is a credible nuclear power

China hasn't been too happy with Agent Orange.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 06:37 PM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 06:02 PM)ImFred Wrote:  
Quote:No one we are currently provoking is a credible nuclear power

China hasn't been too happy with Agent Orange.

Pasty is the new orange - someone cleaned him up. White skin and blond hair turning white is what I saw the other day.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2017, 04:10 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2017 04:36 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: WWlll
The next war will be fought with science. Biological or chemical warfare and Drone warefare.

Drones is the future. They can be more easily mass produced and are better/cheaper than manned aircraft. America completely has their priorities wrong. They are building 100 million/unit jet fighters that are already obsolete the moment they come off the production line.

Obsolete because unmanned aircraft can outmaneuver them. I'd like to see a manned aircraft pull off 15+ G maneuvers without injury or incapacitation.

China is better at mass production than America. America has sent all that expertise over there - all the manufacturing jobs that went to save a few $$$.

Drones can be produced at less than half the cost. They don't need cockpit shielding, life support, ejector seats. They don't need or risk losing pilots with specialised training.

They can navigate without gps if they have to. They can complete missions in radio silence. They automatically evade threats without people on the ground needing to micromanage everything. (Imagine if a missile was coming and there was communication lag.) That would make drones useless. Everything we have seen so far shows that drones are the way of the future.

Drones have faster reaction times and can anticipate/form strategies like humans without ground assistance. See this article about a Rasberry Pi powered AI beating a human in a dogfight



For drones to be viable they need to operate without communication or minimal communication to hq after launch. In war time it would be expected that most of the satellites would be taken out fairly quickly.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DeepThought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: