the modern day us army: manpower, budget and 'employment'

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
There's an argument to be made that, those expenditures benefit our society more than any other expenditure could.
Not really. Only if we faced an actual agressor Since 1945 we had to go make them up.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1,171
They're called, Patriots.

Some people consider it a sense of duty, & very honorable to serve their country. I for one, am glad they do. It ain't for everybody but, we'd be in a world of hurt without those that do.
or mercenaries 4 the US oil interests
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
or mercenaries 4 the US oil interests
Actually Gulf Oil in the 1970s paid the Cuban Army to protect their off shore oil rigs in Angola.
At least according to the press it was French and Russian firms that benefited from the US overthrow of Saddam.
Kirk's Raiders
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
You know we have mini nuclear weapons in the field or low yield nuclear weapons pick you titled for them. These weapons are more dangerous than the city or silo killers. They are designed to be between 50k to 5k in blast power. The Navy just put some on a sub and the airforce has them as well... These weapons could be used gunboat diplomacy leading to bigger nukes being used... they made using nuke easy to use because maybe you are only taking out a couple of blocks of the city...

WHY>>> https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30123767/low-yield-nuke/

The Pentagon reaffirmed its determination to field a new nuclear weapon designed to allow the U.S. to match Russian and Chinese nukes on the battlefield. In an interview with Seapower magazine, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood stated that the nukes are necessary to counter Russian plans to use low-yield nuclear weapons early in a conflict, frightening its enemies into a ceasefire. According to Seapower:

“Rood said the need for the new low-yield weapons came from intelligence reports of Russian emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons earlier in a conflict, “and the mistaken belief that they have the ability to use a low-yield

nuclear weapon earlier in the conflict in a way to deter response.” He cited Russian President Vladimir Putin’s public statements advocating the early use of low-yield nuclear weapons “as a way of deterring an adversary.”

WHY>>>

But proponents of the low-yield warhead overlook or dismiss a few key concerns that make the W76-2 an unrealistic military option.

First, the imagined target for such a weapon is yet unclear. For most military units and installations, conventional weapons would be a more viable option. For more “strategic” targets like cities or hardened bases, anything but a full-sized nuclear attack would risk failure. What value does a low-yield warhead have if its primary mission is poorly defined? Further, even if an ideal target did present itself, the value and urgency in striking would need to be such that crossing the nuclear barrier would be well worth the precedent it sets.

Second, launching low-yield missiles would create a so-called “discrimination problem.” Since US nuclear submarines will carry both the low-yield and the full-size options, it would be impossible for a potential adversary to determine which kind of warhead a ballistic missile would be carrying until it impacted, leaving no reasonable room to recognize the comparative nuance of a low-yield strike. With a very short window to decide where and how to retaliate, an enemy may just as well assume the worst, and choose a full-sized response.

Third, launching a ballistic missile from a submarine risks revealing that submarine’s location instantly, making it an extremely high value target for a rapid enemy response. Since American ballistic missile submarines are primarily tasked with a “survivable second strike” deterrence role, divulging the whereabouts of any of them at the beginning of a nuclear war would be foolish.

Such tactical circumstances not only invite a huge degree of risk when it comes to mission success, but also provide a likely avenue for rapid enemy escalation—the very opposite of the low-yield warhead’s declared mission. Without confidence and clarity in each of these areas, the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon may in fact produce a much greater amount of destruction, even before the warhead has reached its target.

Finally, critics worry that military planners will be tempted to use the low-yield warhead not for deterrence, but for a first strike. Such concerns were initially dismissed out of hand, but recent news coverage gives them more credibility.

WHY>>>https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23413644/air-force-adjustable-bombs-dial-a-yield/

The navy ones are one ballistic missile because those are impossible to shot down...

Making war easier like drones make killing easier...
In the case on conventional wars, bombs need to be ever larger and more destructive. But the irregular wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere have flipped this notion on its head. What's needed is not more power, but the ability to place smaller bombs more accurately to minimize harm to civilians and other noncombatants.

The new mini-nukes have dial a yield ability...

The Air Force wants conventional bombs to have a “dial a yield” mechanism, borrowed from nuclear weapons, that allows a bomb to explode with full force, something less than full force, or to not explode at all. Sometimes a small explosion is a better explosion, because it would allow the military to bomb targets in closer proximity to civilians without killing them.

General Lee quoted: “It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.”
― Robert E. Lee

It seems between mini-nukes and drones we are growing fond of war...

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
The world has gone M.A.D.. I do not know why Russia, China, and us want to get back into a nuclear arms race again. We all know there are no winners when nukes are used.


I know the Rus want to terrorized through EU and fear China's growing nukes. I know China wants to be considered a nuclear power so they are catching up with west.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
The world has gone M.A.D.. I do not know why Russia, China, and us want to get back into a nuclear arms race again. We all know there are no winners when nukes are used.


I know the Rus want to terrorized through EU and fear China's growing nukes. I know China wants to be considered a nuclear power so they are catching up with west.
It is THE ultimate threat...until The Borg return.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/science/manhattan-project-nuclear-spy.html

or type in the title of the article and you should be able to sneak in. ;)

Fourth Spy at Los Alamos Knew A-Bomb’s Inner Secrets
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1,171
modern day US(eless) Army a bunch of illpayed henchmen at disposal of an illtempered PotUS
 
Top