Started By
Message
re: Why is our military deploying again?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:49 pm to adawgj
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:49 pm to adawgj
The oligarchy needs an excuse to jack gas prices back up over the summer. So far no legitimate reason exists, so they've got to create something for the journalists to point to as the reason for the higher prices.
0
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:18 pm to Robert Goulet
Not even Putin has a set of balls big enough to start a nuclear war. Even assuming the US does decide to shelf the MAD doctrine, any international goodwill he might have with legitimate nations would evaporate and he'd be looking at an extremely pissed off US military backed by nearly every standing Army in the world, sans Iran and North Korea. Even China has too much invested in the US to stand for that shite.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:48 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Camp Lemonier could be a likely destination for you.
Sounds about right considering it's next to the airport. I wouldn't mind Djibouti. Talked to AF guys who've been there and it wasn't too bad.
My unit is going as support to a larger unit. Not sure who. I wouldn't mind being separated from the main group since I don't know any of the command with these new folks.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:51 pm to Wanderin Reb
quote:
I'm not excited about it because we're the most tactical version of ATC we have (TTCS).
Sounds like a blast.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:35 am to adawgj
quote:
but he insisted that they are responding to a serious issue.
Your friend simply doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.
There's nothing too special going on atm.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:50 am to Wanderin Reb
quote:
My unit is supposed to be going to Kuwait in March of 2015, but I've heard rumor that my section would be going somewhere in Africa - which makes me think Lybia.
I'm not excited about it because we're the most tactical version of ATC we have (TTCS). If we're going somewhere separate from the unit then it's gonna be somewhere with shitty conditions.
The Horn of Africa (specifically Djibouti). It's been the oft-forgotten third front in the GWOT.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:57 am to Robert Goulet
quote:
They still have a more than capable nuclear arsenal that they are pouring money into to update further. Pure speculation on my part, but don't be surprised to see that Cold War heat back up real soon.
And their economy is being strangled.
Like I said: Without their nuclear arsenal they have -no military presence- against the United States.
Their tanks, aircraft and navy are all dated.
Aside from special forces (which may not even be that good, I've seen them slip in a few world competitions -- the last being held in a friendly nation in China) they are only scary to their region.
They won't do shite with their nuclear weapons, and it's only a matter of time before, economically, they lose their grip.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 5:13 am to Korin
quote:
The Horn of Africa (specifically Djibouti). It's been the oft-forgotten third front in the GWOT.
Yeah it was surprising to learn all the activity that goes on there.
You never really hear much about it though.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:51 am to Korin
quote:
The Horn of Africa (specifically Djibouti). It's been the oft-forgotten third front in the GWOT
By the media maybe but not by anyone else.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:57 am to Wtodd
quote:
By the media maybe but not by anyone else.
Seems like flawed logic.
How do you think the majority of people get any information at all on these situations?
Media doesn't talk about it. Average joe doesn't have any avenue to gain that information. "Anyone else" wouldn't know then.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:01 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Like I said: Without their nuclear arsenal they have -no military presence- against the United States.
Their tanks, aircraft and navy are all dated.
Aside from special forces (which may not even be that good, I've seen them slip in a few world competitions -- the last being held in a friendly nation in China) they are only scary to their region.
Don't underestimate them. Dated? Some, but they also have some new equipment, too. And don't forget the sheer numbers. They, like China, have overwhelming numbers in terms of planes, manpower, etc. As much of an advantage our Eagles and Raptors (and we only have 100 something F-22s) have, they can only carry so much in the way of ordinance. Don't get lulled into thinking that technological superiority will automatically lead into battlefield superiority. Could we win a fight against them? I have no doubt, but what would that cost be? As much as this crappy adminstration has throttled our military, we couldn't survive a drawn-out fight with another super power, and definitely not if another (i.e. China, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea, whoever) decide they want to abide by their Russian pacts...
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 7:03 am
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:05 am to Mizzoufan26
quote:
Seems like flawed logic. How do you think the majority of people get any information at all on these situations? Media doesn't talk about it. Average joe doesn't have any avenue to gain that information. "Anyone else" wouldn't know then.
Fair point. Let's say the media doesn't harp on every week. The talk about once or twice and then it's on to the next story but your average joe still remembers that we're there.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:22 am to Wtodd
quote:
but your average joe still remembers that we're there.
I think you may have a skewed vision of this as you are in Tampa. Having a high special ops presence out of Macdill that area may be more aware.
I would seriously doubt the average joe has any knowledge though. I have buddies that have told me stories about deployments there to which I said, WTF upon first hearing.
Maybe I am just stupid, but maybe not.
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 7:31 am
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:25 am to Mizzoufan26
You're not stupid; you probably just missed the 1 or 2 times it was on the news.
As far as me being in Tampa, you make a good point.
As far as me being in Tampa, you make a good point.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:40 am to adawgj
It's Kabul
Eta close friend who's a Green Beret was just deployed.
Eta close friend who's a Green Beret was just deployed.
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 7:42 am
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:36 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
They won't do shite with their nuclear weapons, and it's only a matter of time before, economically, they lose their grip.
I don't think you and the other gentleman who commented understand the purpose of those nuclear weapons. Saying they won't use them is most likely true and I won't disagree. But just like our 300 ICBMs and most of the rest of our nuclear triad, they are there as a deterrent. They most likely won't ever be used but if someone gets a wild hair, they would get obliterated.
Depending on the location and circumstances, I have little doubt we'd win a conventional war against them. But not sure if you've noticed, it's been awhile since we've fought one of those wars. We are obviously more into bullshite occupation campaigns.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:57 am to Robert Goulet
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Please use F-35's
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:02 am to Robert Goulet
I agree that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, in most cases. I think that Putin's biggest driving factor is how he will go down in history. He wants to be a hero, not the guy who kicked off a nuclear war that killed the majority of the world's population. Unless we invaded Russia and started indiscriminately killing everyone that we came across, I don't think he's that unstable to unleash Russia's nuclear arsenal.
That said, I do think that eventually you will have an unstable religious fanatic gain access to a nuclear weapon (or even worse, a stockpile) and it will leave the world leaders with a difficult decisions to make. I do believe it's matter when, not if, a nuclear weapon is launched; I just don't think it will be a prominent power like Russia, China, or the US that pulls the trigger first.
That said, I do think that eventually you will have an unstable religious fanatic gain access to a nuclear weapon (or even worse, a stockpile) and it will leave the world leaders with a difficult decisions to make. I do believe it's matter when, not if, a nuclear weapon is launched; I just don't think it will be a prominent power like Russia, China, or the US that pulls the trigger first.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:09 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Don't underestimate them. Dated?
Yes, every expert on the planet including Russians admit that their technology is no where near contemporary times. The only thing they have is anti-aircraft defense -- that's it.
Their spending is 1 to 6 against the United States.
quote:
They, like China, have overwhelming numbers in terms of planes, manpower, etc. As much of an advantage our Eagles and Raptors (and we only have 100 something F-22s) have, they can only carry so much in the way of ordinance.
Unlike China, they have a growing number of complete dissent -- half of their military will quit when they can't be fed. Even China will side with the United States along with NATO. China may aid a little here and there, but their economy is directly tied to America's.
quote:
and definitely not if another (i.e. China, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea, whoever) decide they want to abide by their Russian pacts...
China won't, Pakistan for fricking sure won't do anything, North Korea can't sustain conflict for more than 6 months (this is being generous) and Iran has no Navy to control the seas -- which is where the majority of our strength is.
Not only would we beat Russia to death with their own arm, we could do it alone. That we have NATO and a host of other countries that would join our side is just icing on the cake.
The attrition would be economic and material and they are not self-sufficient in either respect.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:15 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
North Korea can't sustain conflict for more than 6 minutes
FIFY
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News