|
Near Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,931
Last seen: 8 days, 1 hour
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Morel Guy]
#24132949 - 03/03/17 07:02 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We could win a war with any country. Have enough nukes to destroy 10 Earths. What the fuck are we even spending money for.
--------------------
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Near Dylan]
#24132952 - 03/03/17 07:05 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Not every war is it advisable to use nukes. Plus it let's the cat out of the bag. Let's people think it's ok and time for them to use nukes.
With good leadership and policy you don't even need a large army. Most of the military is just training and planning for eventuality. The ability to counter a threat on a map is as good as winning a battle never fought.
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Near Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,931
Last seen: 8 days, 1 hour
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Morel Guy]
#24132964 - 03/03/17 07:14 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We could just tell everyone we're putting another 100 bil into the military and no one would even know the difference
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Morel Guy]
#24133484 - 03/03/17 11:39 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morel Guy said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: if you have no evidence to support your position, then you're probably wrong.
So illogical. Lack of evidence shouldn't take away possibility. In the world of spy verses spy it's good to think of all possibilities.
I didn't say there was no possibility. I'm saying you shouldn't make accusations that you can't back up.
Sure, it's possible that a dragon lives inside the earth. But I wouldn't go around making that claim if I couldn't support it with any evidence.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
|
Bertrand's teapot 
Also, Sagan" "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
--------------------
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
|
No it's not possible that a dragon lives in the Earth. Perhaps your imagination isn't so healthy.
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Morel Guy]
#24134116 - 03/03/17 04:37 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morel Guy said: No it's not possible that a dragon lives in the Earth. Perhaps your imagination isn't so healthy.
Really? Another statement unsupported by facts? Please tell me why that is not possible.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,490
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
I saw that dragon the first time i ate mushrooms. It was huge, and multicolored like a psychedelic poster or something. Its colors were swirling and moving, but its form remained stable. He rose up from behind the santa monica mountains, swooped towards L.A., and circled back to fly low over the beach. Then he just flew of into the northern distance, looking for a way back into the earth, presumably.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: ballsalsa]
#24134897 - 03/03/17 11:34 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
|
This is not magic we are talking about. Military, spying, subversion are an industry. Speculating on knowing the past is not the same as speaking of mythology creatures
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Morel Guy]
#24136145 - 03/04/17 12:48 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Good point.
Circumstantial evidence convicts people all the time, fal.
We dont have enough evidence to impeach Trump, but theres plenty reason to speculate that we could have that evidence in the near future.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: The Ecstatic] 1
#24136215 - 03/04/17 01:14 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We can speculate anything, though. That's what the word means.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 11 seconds
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Morel Guy] 1
#24136291 - 03/04/17 01:49 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morel Guy said: Got about as far as reading there are no threats.
Russia is a threat/foe. They fly nukes around not seen since the cold war. This has been going on for years. They are moving missles closer to Europe and some are in Europe. As well as other troop movments that make their neighbors uneasy or in one case even invaded.
China is increasing their navy. Working on a third aircraft carrier.
Radical muslims want to rule the world.
A number of other situations exist and could exist any time.
Resources are getting tighter. Population is exploding. Weather patterns are changing.
Lot's of security issues. Not going to be solved short term or likely even long term. But for the ages come.
Gonna skip the whole Trump bought by Russia thing and got back on topic...
So, the new number was I believe 58B?
Anyway. Why is Russia a threat/foe? Russia isn't gonna start a shooting war, for the same reason I don't fast for a week and get in the ring with Mike Tyson (in his prime). As of 2014, Russia spends less than 14% as much as the US on its military. Troop movements that affect European neighbors, well, hasn't Trump been saying it's time they pulled their weight? Doesn't seem like much of an argument, considering that a good chunk of that updated 58B number is supposed to come from foreign aid.
China is working on their third aircraft carrier. Oh no. That's really gonna put the fear into the ten US aircraft carriers currently actively patrolling the oceans. We literally have more aircraft carriers than everyone else combined, and every other country capable of fielding an aircraft carrier is currently an ally (at the very least on paper, not even counting economic ties). Unless NK technically has their "aircraft" "carrier" floating. Last I looked into that, I think it was mothballed because it wasn't seaworthy.
Radical muslims may want to rule the world, but they also consist of like, 10k total dirt farmers in the ass end of some desert. I mean the hardcore militant ones that truly believe. I wanted to rule the world too, as a six year old child. Did that make me a credible military threat? Nope. Further, As I mentioned before, radical terrorism is not solved by military spending, because they don't wear uniforms or have centralized bases of operation that can be bombed to dust.
Next, up, I like your "new threats can emerge at any time" angle. What threats are they gonna be? Will aliens invade ala XCOM? Will Katrina come back with her big brother that spent some time in prison? Will the atmosphere become too toxic to breathe? Will the breadbasket of the US decide to polar vortex into the new arctic, while Siberia becomes fertile soil? You kind of touched on that last one with changing weather patterns. The only thing is, literally only one of those threats would be made better by military spending, while every single other one of those other threats would be made worse. Guess which threat is also the least likely?
EDIT: I guess you could fix starvation due to the Midwest becoming a frozen wasteland and Siberia becoming fertile soil by annexing Russia. Worked great for Iraqi oil.
As for population explosions and tightening resources, that's better solved by funding Planned Parenthood. Wars have a tendency to cause, well, baby booms.
Edited by Kryptos (03/04/17 01:51 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Kryptos]
#24136320 - 03/04/17 02:03 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The days of aircraft carrier viability for war are coming to an end. In the next 20-50 years, most war will occur with small arms and hand to hand combat. Technology will become less and less of a factor.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Enlil]
#24136361 - 03/04/17 02:24 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ya bjt there is so much shit on the war board already. Doesn't matter what will actually happen. They have to plan for what could happen to counter that. An aircraft from an aircraft carrier could reach into the midwest. That may be easier than occupying land for a land base. Essentially that is the practice of air support and air strikes. But who knows
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 11 seconds
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Enlil]
#24136455 - 03/04/17 03:06 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morel Guy said: Ya bjt there is so much shit on the war board already. Doesn't matter what will actually happen. They have to plan for what could happen to counter that. An aircraft from an aircraft carrier could reach into the midwest. That may be easier than occupying land for a land base. Essentially that is the practice of air support and air strikes. But who knows
An ICBM could also reach into the midwest, and NORAD ain't gonna be able to do shit to stop it. Last time they tested their ICBM interception system, the DoD literally redefined the term success because it was such a catastrophic failure.
Speaking of airstrikes and catastrophic failures, ever read up on the test flights of the new USAF flagship air superiority fighter? Apparently it's not even remotely superior, too unwieldy to be a fighter, and has trouble staying in the air to begin with, even after spending over a trillion dollars on development. An extra few B's won't change much at all.
Point remains: any country that is capable of fielding the kind of military equipment that isn't leftover scrap from the 60s and 70s cold war stockpiles also has no reason to start a shooting war with the US. So far.
Quote:
Enlil said: The days of aircraft carrier viability for war are coming to an end. In the next 20-50 years, most war will occur with small arms and hand to hand combat. Technology will become less and less of a factor.
I don't know if I fully agree with this. I think the new meta when it comes to warfare is a further extension on the WWII Total War principle. Technology and equipment will still play the major roles, and will still win the battles that matter, but I believe that both sides will send effectively suicide troops into the civilian population for the sole purpose of sowing fear, discord, and most importantly, to keep the cameras focused on the small arms and hand to hand combat, as opposed to the carpet bombing runs that are leveling entire cities. Information is easy to come by in the modern age, and I think using cheap diversions such as a few Spec Ops suicide squads to dominate news cycles will allow a nation to more effectively hide its human rights violations in other theaters of combat. the country that does this best will win.
EDIT: This is based on the "Hearts and Minds" idea that failed horribly in Iraq because we assumed that their culture would want to immediately live like the US. ISIS has been using it much more effectively, succeeding in having half the world running scared of a few dudes out in a desert with some AKs.
An interesting interview I once read with a marine colonel or major or something that's not quite general but enough that he ran a base. One of the main points that he made was that his first approach with the civilian population failed, because he was sending out his police supplements clean shaven (therefore not masculine, and no authority in middle eastern culture) and with pistol only (which is great in a place like the US, but not so great when the pistol is a symbol of being disappeared in the middle of the night by the secret police). He immediately ordered his troops to carry assault rifles while on duty in a police capacity, and to grow out their facial hair. Apparently, those two changes immediately made the civilian population much more at ease.
Edited by Kryptos (03/04/17 03:40 PM)
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Kryptos]
#24136535 - 03/04/17 03:45 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ya but the Pentagon will always want to dream bigger and more costly. It's an industry that's a beast. Beast that always wants bigger balls and usually has penis envy.
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,490
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Enlil]
#24136744 - 03/04/17 05:11 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: The days of aircraft carrier viability for war are coming to an end. In the next 20-50 years, most war will occur with small arms and hand to hand combat. Technology will become less and less of a factor.
Naval superiority is paramount in terms of keeping other assholes on their own side of the ocean. It allows the U.S. to dictate the terms of international trade to some degree, and provides the means by which an enemy state can be blockaded.
I don't see these things changing fundamentally in the next 50 years, though i would concede that most actual combat (in terms of numbers of engagements) does and will involve small arms. I would like to hear your reasoning with regard to melee combat. Not too many bayonet charges in the last 100 years, and i can't think of a reason that things would swing back in that direction.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: Enlil]
#24137066 - 03/04/17 07:14 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: We can speculate anything, though. That's what the word means.
Well, sure, but the more circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the speculation.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: 35 Billion increase in military spending [Re: The Ecstatic]
#24137072 - 03/04/17 07:16 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If there's circumstantial evidence, speculation isn't necessary.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|