Aren't the A-10s starting to have airframe wear & tear problems like the F-15?
Man, we should just let the Army have the goddamn things. Change the "Air Force" to "Aerospace Force" and tell them to go conquer the moon.
Yeah this is what I was thinking from this thread too. If the AF want to be only air superiority and strategic bombing, then shouldn't Army aviation get the close-air capable planes?
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
I think I read some time ago about some AF generals cackling and (presumably) jizzing themselves over the prospects of making anti-matter weapons, so space superiority seems like it'd fly with them as a goal.
I don't like the idea of the USAF experimenting with anti-matter though.
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
It occurs to me that with our exceedingly powerful military, the United States could make money by being paid to intervene in conflicts worldwide. We could essentially become a nation of mercenaries.
I think. I'm not entirely sure that's feasible for a nation-state.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
It occurs to me that with our exceedingly powerful military, the United States could make money by being paid to intervene in conflicts worldwide. We could essentially become a nation of mercenaries.
I think. I'm not entirely sure that's feasible for a nation-state.
Not if we want to maintain a particular ideology, or any allies. Also the idea is ethically gross.
I think I read some time ago about some AF generals cackling and (presumably) jizzing themselves over the prospects of making anti-matter weapons, so space superiority seems like it'd fly with them as a goal.
I don't like the idea of the USAF experimenting with anti-matter though.
Isn't that the backstory of DOOM/DOOM II? Like, literally?
I think I read some time ago about some AF generals cackling and (presumably) jizzing themselves over the prospects of making anti-matter weapons, so space superiority seems like it'd fly with them as a goal.
I am 100% absolutely certain that the Air Force has had suborbital heavy bombers since Reagan. People tend to look at me askance when I say that, though.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
VoranthMI NOMBRE, POR CIERTOES DONTÉ!Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
I thought the U.N. has banned the owning and weaponizing of outer space? Like international waters.
Maybe that's why their armed forces are so huge - so no one can stop them when the space battleships take off for mars!
Voranth on
PS4: Voranth
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
I thought the U.N. has banned the owning and weaponizing of outer space? Like international waters.
Maybe that's why their armed forces are so huge - so no one can stop them when the space battleships take off for mars!
Land mines and cluster munitions are also banned by UN treaty, like that's ever stopped us. (For good reason, things are damn useful)
Yes, they are highly effective civilian killing machines.
Yes, but before that they are extraordinarily good enemy soldier killing machines. I mean, I can understand why people want them banned, but I can't even express how much harder life would be on front line infantry if they couldn't use landmines to defend their positions. I don't even know how it would be done, would require brand new doctrine, and I don't think even then it would be as effective.
Claymores? Admittedly I'm being facetious here since claymores were a giant fucking liability in Vietnam and the US resorted to putting them in concrete when they laid them down to stop the VC/NVA turning them around on an entrenched position.
Sorry, I'm pretty much against anything that involves the indiscriminate killing and maiming of civilians... which is exactly what ends up happening long after the conflict is over.
Also nobody in power gives a shit enough about world conflicts to pay to stop them.
We could have stopped Darfur with probably 5% of the military force used in Iraq
Woah. Not even close- Darfur is a huge can of worms. I know some people in that community (the 'intervene in Darfur' one) and even they say it'd be extremely complicated.
Yes, but before that they are extraordinarily good enemy soldier killing machines. I mean, I can understand why people want them banned, but I can't even express how much harder life would be on front line infantry if they couldn't use landmines to defend their positions. I don't even know how it would be done, would require brand new doctrine, and I don't think even then it would be as effective.
That's odd. I was just reading a book on the landmine ban in American politics, and one of its central claims is that the military was lukewarm on the subject- the Pentagon was basically willing to just concede it to Clinton, but the President didn't want to press the issue since he'd already forced zero-yield testing on them.
Really the military argument is at the margins- we haven't used them since Vietnam. We brought a bunch to the first gulf war but they ended up a waste of time and effort, without a single confirmed kill on the enemy. Either our extremely mobile warfare doctrine or counter-insurgency don't have much use for landmines; the first because their stationary and the second because it kills too many civilians.
Yeah, I think the landmine thing is because once a landmine is laid down by a force, they don't exactly go back to police it up when the conflict is over.
Also, claymores are fuckawesome.
And I know I'm using that word a lot....there's a lot of RFCS in the military.
Yeah, I think the landmine thing is because once a landmine is laid down by a force, they don't exactly go back to police it up when the conflict is over.
Also, claymores are fuckawesome.
And I know I'm using that word a lot....there's a lot of RFCS in the military.
Armies that don't care at all about their PR don't pick them up afterwords. And armies that don't care about their PR aren't going to give a shit about a UN mandate anyhow. I always thought the arguments against land mines by the Western world to be fairly weak in light of the current realities of war.
And yes, the idea of eliminating the air force isn't just to burn all the planes to the ground and wash our hands of it. Its to move appropriate capabilities into the army and navy where there are different training regimens and fighter jocks aren't considered golden gods. So CAS would primarily go to army, strategic bombing to navy, etc etc.
Yeah, I think the landmine thing is because once a landmine is laid down by a force, they don't exactly go back to police it up when the conflict is over.
Also, claymores are fuckawesome.
And I know I'm using that word a lot....there's a lot of RFCS in the military.
Armies that don't care at all about their PR don't pick them up afterwords. And armies that don't care about their PR aren't going to give a shit about a UN mandate anyhow. I always thought the arguments against land mines by the Western world to be fairly weak in light of the current realities of war.
And yes, the idea of eliminating the air force isn't just to burn all the planes to the ground and wash our hands of it. Its to move appropriate capabilities into the army and navy where there are different training regimens and fighter jocks aren't considered golden gods. So CAS would primarily go to army, strategic bombing to navy, etc etc.
Wait, so...the Navy doesn't consider fighter jocks to be golden gods?
Yeah, I think the landmine thing is because once a landmine is laid down by a force, they don't exactly go back to police it up when the conflict is over.
Also, claymores are fuckawesome.
And I know I'm using that word a lot....there's a lot of RFCS in the military.
Armies that don't care at all about their PR don't pick them up afterwords. And armies that don't care about their PR aren't going to give a shit about a UN mandate anyhow. I always thought the arguments against land mines by the Western world to be fairly weak in light of the current realities of war.
And yes, the idea of eliminating the air force isn't just to burn all the planes to the ground and wash our hands of it. Its to move appropriate capabilities into the army and navy where there are different training regimens and fighter jocks aren't considered golden gods. So CAS would primarily go to army, strategic bombing to navy, etc etc.
Wait, so...the Navy doesn't consider fighter jocks to be golden gods?
I guess we'll just have to resort to Plan B: sell Alaska.
I would say this is easily as executable, probably more so, they extortion. Specifically, extortion leading to our country becoming a pariah-state of mercenaries/pirates/other cool dudes and putting us at war with the rest of the world.
(I'm putting my money on the rest of the world. I like me them odds!)
And who's going to object? The Alaskans? All 690,000 (rounding up) of them? There are more people in freaking Gwinnett County, I'm sure the rest of the country wouldn't object if they all started revolting.
I guess we'll just have to resort to Plan B: sell Alaska.
I would say this is easily as executable, probably more so, they extortion. Specifically, extortion leading to our country becoming a pariah-state of mercenaries/pirates/other cool dudes and putting us at war with the rest of the world.
(I'm putting my money on the rest of the world. I like me them odds!)
And who's going to object? The Alaskans? All 690,000 (rounding up) of them? There are more people in freaking Gwinnett County, I'm sure the rest of the country wouldn't object if they all started revolting.
I guess we'll just have to resort to Plan B: sell Alaska.
I would say this is easily as executable, probably more so, they extortion. Specifically, extortion leading to our country becoming a pariah-state of mercenaries/pirates/other cool dudes and putting us at war with the rest of the world.
(I'm putting my money on the rest of the world. I like me them odds!)
And who's going to object? The Alaskans? All 690,000 (rounding up) of them? There are more people in freaking Gwinnett County, I'm sure the rest of the country wouldn't object if they all started revolting.
Hmm....I wonder who we could sell it to, however.
*is completely derailed*
Russia or Canada seems like the obvious buyers.
You would think, but I don't think either has enough (spendable) money to make it a good deal. Though Canada could make the claim, "HAHA! NOW OUR COUNTRY IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HUGE (geographically) JUST WAIT RUSSIA WE'RE CATCHING UP!"
Back in the 90s, when I lived in Yokohama, I was thinking of this precise question and thought of--Japan. The country was just coming out of the banking crisis (I think), and was pretty wealthy (at least, there was no gigantic national debt and the economy seemed to be growing). The Japanese could use it--mine the crap out of everything, secure those oil reserves that they've desperately wanted for the last century, open a few hundred thousand new jobs, create an artificial landmass in far west of the Bering Sea for a trade route with Russia....plus, it would give the Japanese not only some of the highest value real-estate in the world, but also some of the lowest.
But I'm pretty sure that would upset the Alaskans more than anyone else taking over. Including Canada.
You would think, but I don't think either has enough (spendable) money to make it a good deal. Though Canada could make the claim, "HAHA! NOW OUR COUNTRY IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HUGE (geographically) JUST WAIT RUSSIA WE'RE CATCHING UP!"
Back in the 90s, when I lived in Yokohama, I was thinking of this precise question and thought of--Japan. The country was just coming out of the banking crisis (I think), and was pretty wealthy (at least, there was no gigantic national debt and the economy seemed to be growing). The Japanese could use it--mine the crap out of everything, secure those oil reserves that they've desperately wanted for the last century, open a few hundred thousand new jobs, create an artificial landmass in far west of the Bering Sea for a trade route with Russia....plus, it would give the Japanese not only some of the highest value real-estate in the world, but also some of the lowest.
But I'm pretty sure that would upset the Alaskans more than anyone else taking over. Including Canada.
Wasn't that part of their goal in WWII? In the USA secure both Hawaii and Alaska, and that's about it (maybe a portion of the west coast), but they never really wanted to enter into a prolong conflict with the USA, they just wanted to extend a bit figuring that a huge attack like Pearl Harbor would devastate and demoralize us?
Actually, I remember reading that a big part of why the Ottawa Convention was so successful was because basically nobody used landmines anymore. In subsequent conflicts, the USA has more or less observed the ban because landmines aren't terribly useful considering their focus on mobile warfare. I do remember that the main reason they didn't sign on with the Convention was their presence in Korea and the use of landmines along the DMZ, since there's no way those are going away anytime soon -- probably as much out of the sheer impossibility of digging them up as out of utility.
You would think, but I don't think either has enough (spendable) money to make it a good deal. Though Canada could make the claim, "HAHA! NOW OUR COUNTRY IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HUGE (geographically) JUST WAIT RUSSIA WE'RE CATCHING UP!"
Back in the 90s, when I lived in Yokohama, I was thinking of this precise question and thought of--Japan. The country was just coming out of the banking crisis (I think), and was pretty wealthy (at least, there was no gigantic national debt and the economy seemed to be growing). The Japanese could use it--mine the crap out of everything, secure those oil reserves that they've desperately wanted for the last century, open a few hundred thousand new jobs, create an artificial landmass in far west of the Bering Sea for a trade route with Russia....plus, it would give the Japanese not only some of the highest value real-estate in the world, but also some of the lowest.
But I'm pretty sure that would upset the Alaskans more than anyone else taking over. Including Canada.
Wasn't that part of their goal in WWII? In the USA secure both Hawaii and Alaska, and that's about it (maybe a portion of the west coast), but they never really wanted to enter into a prolong conflict with the USA, they just wanted to extend a bit figuring that a huge attack like Pearl Harbor would devastate and demoralize us?
The West Coast portion of that plan, from what I understand, has been widely debunked by both Japanese and American historians as a total load of crap (to put it in comparative terms, the United States didn't have the logistic capability of occupying Manchurian either) and merely fodder for the same people who write thriller novels about the Germans having an atomic bomb and archeologists fighting Nazis. But yes, Hawaii was something considered in the long term (honestly, if you consider how we got our hands on it, you can see what the Japanese were thinking of back then). I think some attempt was made on Alaska, however, the oil fields of the eastern USSR and Indochina/Southeast Asia were far closer and much more practical.
I think (many) Japanese commanders, especially Admiral Yamamoto, hoped Pearl Harbor would be a knock-out blow that would force the US to reconsider its influence in East Asia (with the rising threat of Europe being overwhelmed, etc.). If the war ended a few weeks afterward, with Japan's expansion into the Philippines, etc., that would be considered a favorable outcome, with or without Hawaii. But that is neither here nor there.
Honestly, I can't imagine why the Russians would want it, other than to rub our faces in it. The sad thing is, even after the decline of the USSR, across the Bering Strait, we basically still have the New Jersey to their New York (Vladivostok, the Eastern Federation, etc.). As boring, desolate and unpleasant as those places are, they're still actually human populations living there, along with some semblance of infrastructure. Hell, there are 600,000 people living in Vladivostok proper--that's almost as much as all of Alaska! I have no doubt they already know what we know..."Damn, this place sucks. And we would know, huge portions of our country suck. But not this bad."
Aren't the A-10s starting to have airframe wear & tear problems like the F-15?
Then build more A-10s (and F-15s/16s).
Seriously... they need to demonstrate the benefits of the new design, rather than waving their hands in front of my face and saying "it's got new crap on it." We can put the new crap in the old crap. Some of the old crap we made is pretty goddam good crap, and while the F-22 is a hell of a jump forward, I don't see it in the F-35.
Yeah, I think the landmine thing is because once a landmine is laid down by a force, they don't exactly go back to police it up when the conflict is over.
There used to be a lot of research into ways of setting groups of them off (everything from FAEs sending out a pressure wave to creating small, local quakes), but they never found a reliable triggering mechanism for every variable and just cluster-bombing an area not only leaves you with the possibility of having yet more unexploded ordinance around, sometimes it just relocates the mines rather than destroying them.
Landmines are a horrible, horrible tool. You don't really appreciate how horrible until you go to some place like the Congo or Angola and see school kids with only one leg. Jesus, they have it bad enough there.
GungHo on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Buried munitions are one of the most terrifying aspects of combat. There's a large emphasis on IED and mine training here in the Army. I'd almost say there's more of an emphasis on that and physical conditioning than actually shooting your M16.
I think they should cut Powerpoint from the military budget. Not that it'd make a dent at all, but oh how I fucking hate Powerpoint.
I thought the U.N. has banned the owning and weaponizing of outer space? Like international waters.
Maybe that's why their armed forces are so huge - so no one can stop them when the space battleships take off for mars!
Land mines and cluster munitions are also banned by UN treaty, like that's ever stopped us. (For good reason, things are damn useful)
By presidential directive, permanent mining can only be done for training or in the Republic of Korea where the DMZ has long since been established. Any mines used elsewhere are FASCAM, which complies with the Ottawa Treaty.
Don't know anything about cluster munitions, though.
Don't know anything about cluster munitions, though.
• In ten years, (by the end of 2018) DoD will no longer use cluster munitions which, after arming, result in more than 1 percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments. For further details on the new cluster munitions policy, I refer you to DoD. [The policy’s text can be found at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080709cmpolicy.pdf.]
also, cluster bombs are more effective than single HE bombs for obvious reasons.
I thought the U.N. has banned the owning and weaponizing of outer space?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure suborbital heavy bombers (and Thor, which I'm also pretty goddamn certain NATO has) would fall under the "it's not illegal if they don't catch you" theory of legal compliance.
Aren't the A-10s starting to have airframe wear & tear problems like the F-15?
Then build more A-10s (and F-15s/16s).
Seriously... they need to demonstrate the benefits of the new design, rather than waving their hands in front of my face and saying "it's got new crap on it." We can put the new crap in the old crap. Some of the old crap we made is pretty goddam good crap, and while the F-22 is a hell of a jump forward, I don't see it in the F-35.
Yeah, I think the landmine thing is because once a landmine is laid down by a force, they don't exactly go back to police it up when the conflict is over.
There used to be a lot of research into ways of setting groups of them off (everything from FAEs sending out a pressure wave to creating small, local quakes), but they never found a reliable triggering mechanism for every variable and just cluster-bombing an area not only leaves you with the possibility of having yet more unexploded ordinance around, sometimes it just relocates the mines rather than destroying them.
Landmines are a horrible, horrible tool. You don't really appreciate how horrible until you go to some place like the Congo or Angola and see school kids with only one leg. Jesus, they have it bad enough there.
I saw a machine on Dirty Jobs (I swear it was Dirty Jobs, but it was at least either Discovery Channel or Modern Marvels) that basically eats the earth in front of it with giant chains in order to set mines off.
However, that thing would take a long time to clear an area.
Vacuum bombs to a decent job of cleaning up mines. Oh and as far as I know all mines used by the US become inert after a certain amount of time. While still exlosive it will take some force to set it off.
Vacuum bombs to a decent job of cleaning up mines. Oh and as far as I know all mines used by the US become inert after a certain amount of time. While still exlosive it will take some force to set it off.
I heard that mechanism has a 1/100 failure rate though.
I always find it mind boggling how the Air Force seems to hate the most fuckawesome plane in existence. It is like they want to be laughed at.
I've also seen the Eliminate the Chair Force movement before, from service members I view as credible, so its probably not a bad idea. They suck up huge amounts of resources focusing on a role that is not all that important in modern warfare and for which they are already vastly over-equiped for. And they still manage to shoot friendlies and lose aircraft even despite all this money.
We're not going anywhere. No other service has refueling capability, long range bombing capability or space capability. People just get their prejudices or don't think things through all the way. Like the suggestion to remove our Korean and Japanese bases. Do that, even if North Korea doesn't level Seoul, and kiss Taiwan's ass goodbye.
Why does the Air force hate the A-10 cause fighter jocks are in charge. What do fighter jocks want Air to Air fighters. The changing of the Chief of Staff was a huge step at breaking this myopic culture.
The latter two capabilities go to the Navy, the first one gets split between the Navy and the Army. The point is not to simply eliminate the AF without making any changes to the other services.
You could do that but now you've got those communities competing with funding dollars against the core competency of the service. Think about it, the navy could buy a new carrier or build a satellite, which is the navy going to lean more heavily twoards? It's nice to think that they'd be pragmatic, but when a ship captain who doesn't understand the benefits of a missile warning satellite, but knows carriers real well is making the decisions, you're going to have problems. Having separate services has benefits, you could combine sevices, but I think in the end you'll have what is effectively separate services anyway.
Mishra on
"Give a man a fire, he's warm for the night. Set a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett
Vacuum bombs to a decent job of cleaning up mines. Oh and as far as I know all mines used by the US become inert after a certain amount of time. While still exlosive it will take some force to set it off.
I heard that mechanism has a 1/100 failure rate though.
Well it has to become inter eventually since the fuse (I am guessing this is how it is armed) is run off a battery and the battery will eventually die.
Not saying land mines are not terrible, but it isn't quite as bad as it is made out to be.
I always find it mind boggling how the Air Force seems to hate the most fuckawesome plane in existence. It is like they want to be laughed at.
I've also seen the Eliminate the Chair Force movement before, from service members I view as credible, so its probably not a bad idea. They suck up huge amounts of resources focusing on a role that is not all that important in modern warfare and for which they are already vastly over-equiped for. And they still manage to shoot friendlies and lose aircraft even despite all this money.
Everyone shoots friendlies, do not be an idiot. Yes the Air Force is over equipped and probably needs to be sized down a lot but that does not mean they are useless. The Navy and Army are over sized in different ways as well but that is the point of the military. We have to be ready for any kind of attack at any time. The Air Force maintains a large deterrent force that is a huge political tool. China mouthing off again? Fly some long range bombers next to them to flex some muscle, the navy does not have that power. Hell I think the Navy has been embarassed a few times by China proving how out of date our fleets are getting.
No one has the long range capablities of the Air Force, or the logistics and mobility. Also the Air Force I think is in charge of cyberspace, which is critical. Sure these could be handed over to other branches but why? There was a reason why the Air Force was made its own branch in the first place, Army commanders do a terrible job managing air power compared to people commanders who know exactly how to manage air power.
Posts
Man, we should just let the Army have the goddamn things. Change the "Air Force" to "Aerospace Force" and tell them to go conquer the moon.
I don't like the idea of the USAF experimenting with anti-matter though.
Obama: I am raising the defense budget by 4%.
Repubs/Media: YOU'RE CUTTING THE DEFENSE BUDGET WHAT YOU CANT DO THAT
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I think. I'm not entirely sure that's feasible for a nation-state.
Not if we want to maintain a particular ideology, or any allies. Also the idea is ethically gross.
We could have stopped Darfur with probably 5% of the military force used in Iraq
I guess we'll just have to resort to Plan B: sell Alaska.
Isn't that the backstory of DOOM/DOOM II? Like, literally?
Maybe that's why their armed forces are so huge - so no one can stop them when the space battleships take off for mars!
PS4: Voranth
Land mines and cluster munitions are also banned by UN treaty, like that's ever stopped us. (For good reason, things are damn useful)
Yes, they are highly effective civilian killing machines.
Yes, but before that they are extraordinarily good enemy soldier killing machines. I mean, I can understand why people want them banned, but I can't even express how much harder life would be on front line infantry if they couldn't use landmines to defend their positions. I don't even know how it would be done, would require brand new doctrine, and I don't think even then it would be as effective.
Woah. Not even close- Darfur is a huge can of worms. I know some people in that community (the 'intervene in Darfur' one) and even they say it'd be extremely complicated.
That's odd. I was just reading a book on the landmine ban in American politics, and one of its central claims is that the military was lukewarm on the subject- the Pentagon was basically willing to just concede it to Clinton, but the President didn't want to press the issue since he'd already forced zero-yield testing on them.
Really the military argument is at the margins- we haven't used them since Vietnam. We brought a bunch to the first gulf war but they ended up a waste of time and effort, without a single confirmed kill on the enemy. Either our extremely mobile warfare doctrine or counter-insurgency don't have much use for landmines; the first because their stationary and the second because it kills too many civilians.
Also, claymores are fuckawesome.
And I know I'm using that word a lot....there's a lot of RFCS in the military.
Armies that don't care at all about their PR don't pick them up afterwords. And armies that don't care about their PR aren't going to give a shit about a UN mandate anyhow. I always thought the arguments against land mines by the Western world to be fairly weak in light of the current realities of war.
And yes, the idea of eliminating the air force isn't just to burn all the planes to the ground and wash our hands of it. Its to move appropriate capabilities into the army and navy where there are different training regimens and fighter jocks aren't considered golden gods. So CAS would primarily go to army, strategic bombing to navy, etc etc.
Wait, so...the Navy doesn't consider fighter jocks to be golden gods?
But he's Duke Mitchell's kid!
I would say this is easily as executable, probably more so, they extortion. Specifically, extortion leading to our country becoming a pariah-state of mercenaries/pirates/other cool dudes and putting us at war with the rest of the world.
(I'm putting my money on the rest of the world. I like me them odds!)
And who's going to object? The Alaskans? All 690,000 (rounding up) of them? There are more people in freaking Gwinnett County, I'm sure the rest of the country wouldn't object if they all started revolting.
Hmm....I wonder who we could sell it to, however.
*is completely derailed*
Russia or Canada seems like the obvious buyers.
You would think, but I don't think either has enough (spendable) money to make it a good deal. Though Canada could make the claim, "HAHA! NOW OUR COUNTRY IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HUGE (geographically) JUST WAIT RUSSIA WE'RE CATCHING UP!"
Back in the 90s, when I lived in Yokohama, I was thinking of this precise question and thought of--Japan. The country was just coming out of the banking crisis (I think), and was pretty wealthy (at least, there was no gigantic national debt and the economy seemed to be growing). The Japanese could use it--mine the crap out of everything, secure those oil reserves that they've desperately wanted for the last century, open a few hundred thousand new jobs, create an artificial landmass in far west of the Bering Sea for a trade route with Russia....plus, it would give the Japanese not only some of the highest value real-estate in the world, but also some of the lowest.
But I'm pretty sure that would upset the Alaskans more than anyone else taking over. Including Canada.
The West Coast portion of that plan, from what I understand, has been widely debunked by both Japanese and American historians as a total load of crap (to put it in comparative terms, the United States didn't have the logistic capability of occupying Manchurian either) and merely fodder for the same people who write thriller novels about the Germans having an atomic bomb and archeologists fighting Nazis. But yes, Hawaii was something considered in the long term (honestly, if you consider how we got our hands on it, you can see what the Japanese were thinking of back then). I think some attempt was made on Alaska, however, the oil fields of the eastern USSR and Indochina/Southeast Asia were far closer and much more practical.
I think (many) Japanese commanders, especially Admiral Yamamoto, hoped Pearl Harbor would be a knock-out blow that would force the US to reconsider its influence in East Asia (with the rising threat of Europe being overwhelmed, etc.). If the war ended a few weeks afterward, with Japan's expansion into the Philippines, etc., that would be considered a favorable outcome, with or without Hawaii. But that is neither here nor there.
Honestly, I can't imagine why the Russians would want it, other than to rub our faces in it. The sad thing is, even after the decline of the USSR, across the Bering Strait, we basically still have the New Jersey to their New York (Vladivostok, the Eastern Federation, etc.). As boring, desolate and unpleasant as those places are, they're still actually human populations living there, along with some semblance of infrastructure. Hell, there are 600,000 people living in Vladivostok proper--that's almost as much as all of Alaska! I have no doubt they already know what we know..."Damn, this place sucks. And we would know, huge portions of our country suck. But not this bad."
Seriously... they need to demonstrate the benefits of the new design, rather than waving their hands in front of my face and saying "it's got new crap on it." We can put the new crap in the old crap. Some of the old crap we made is pretty goddam good crap, and while the F-22 is a hell of a jump forward, I don't see it in the F-35.
There used to be a lot of research into ways of setting groups of them off (everything from FAEs sending out a pressure wave to creating small, local quakes), but they never found a reliable triggering mechanism for every variable and just cluster-bombing an area not only leaves you with the possibility of having yet more unexploded ordinance around, sometimes it just relocates the mines rather than destroying them.
Landmines are a horrible, horrible tool. You don't really appreciate how horrible until you go to some place like the Congo or Angola and see school kids with only one leg. Jesus, they have it bad enough there.
I think they should cut Powerpoint from the military budget. Not that it'd make a dent at all, but oh how I fucking hate Powerpoint.
By presidential directive, permanent mining can only be done for training or in the Republic of Korea where the DMZ has long since been established. Any mines used elsewhere are FASCAM, which complies with the Ottawa Treaty.
Don't know anything about cluster munitions, though.
• In ten years, (by the end of 2018) DoD will no longer use cluster munitions which, after arming, result in more than 1 percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments. For further details on the new cluster munitions policy, I refer you to DoD. [The policy’s text can be found at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080709cmpolicy.pdf.]
also, cluster bombs are more effective than single HE bombs for obvious reasons.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure suborbital heavy bombers (and Thor, which I'm also pretty goddamn certain NATO has) would fall under the "it's not illegal if they don't catch you" theory of legal compliance.
I saw a machine on Dirty Jobs (I swear it was Dirty Jobs, but it was at least either Discovery Channel or Modern Marvels) that basically eats the earth in front of it with giant chains in order to set mines off.
However, that thing would take a long time to clear an area.
edit: it seems like it might have been this thing
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/hydrema.htm
You could do that but now you've got those communities competing with funding dollars against the core competency of the service. Think about it, the navy could buy a new carrier or build a satellite, which is the navy going to lean more heavily twoards? It's nice to think that they'd be pragmatic, but when a ship captain who doesn't understand the benefits of a missile warning satellite, but knows carriers real well is making the decisions, you're going to have problems. Having separate services has benefits, you could combine sevices, but I think in the end you'll have what is effectively separate services anyway.
-Terry Pratchett
Not saying land mines are not terrible, but it isn't quite as bad as it is made out to be.
Everyone shoots friendlies, do not be an idiot. Yes the Air Force is over equipped and probably needs to be sized down a lot but that does not mean they are useless. The Navy and Army are over sized in different ways as well but that is the point of the military. We have to be ready for any kind of attack at any time. The Air Force maintains a large deterrent force that is a huge political tool. China mouthing off again? Fly some long range bombers next to them to flex some muscle, the navy does not have that power. Hell I think the Navy has been embarassed a few times by China proving how out of date our fleets are getting.
No one has the long range capablities of the Air Force, or the logistics and mobility. Also the Air Force I think is in charge of cyberspace, which is critical. Sure these could be handed over to other branches but why? There was a reason why the Air Force was made its own branch in the first place, Army commanders do a terrible job managing air power compared to people commanders who know exactly how to manage air power.
I'm not saying get rid of the Air Force.
I'm saying get rid of the distinction between the branches, completely.