The Washington Post has an editorial by Vice President Pence, asking Congress to pass our National Defense Authorization Act for, or of 2020. Which will create a 6th branch of the United States military, called the United States Space Force. It's going to be part of the Air Force, but, this one won't be in the air. It will be in space. And there's no air, there. An excerpt:
Under this proposal, the Space Force would be within the Air Force, similar to the placement of the Marine Corps within the Navy. More than any other organization, the Air Force has been at the vanguard of building the world’s best military space programs. So, creating the Space Force within the Air Force is the best way to minimize duplication of effort and eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Just as the Air Force began within the Army before becoming a separate military department, so too will this first step in establishing the Space Force pave the way for a separate military department in the future. The Space Force is the next and the natural evolution of U.S. supremacy in space.
Also at Chicago Tribune.
(Score: 3, Informative) by redneckmother on Sunday March 03 2019, @06:47PM (27 children)
What happens to all the international agreements to avoid militarizing space?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:01PM (20 children)
Maybe this is the game plan to kick off WW3?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:07PM (19 children)
After voiding the Paris accords, evading the Rome Statute, violating the Geneva Conventions, and reneging on The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, what do you expect from a Rouge state full of Red Pillars and the Stable Genius?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:59PM
Impeachment?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:20PM (10 children)
rouge noun
\ ˈrüzh
, especially Southern ˈrüj\
Definition of rouge
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : any of various cosmetics for coloring the cheeks or lips red
2 : a red powder consisting essentially of ferric oxide used in polishing glass, metal, or gems and as a pigment
rouge verb
rouged; rouging
Definition of rouge (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to apply rouge to
2 : to cause to redden
intransitive verb
: to use rouge
Examples of rouge in a Sentence
Noun
She was wearing too much rouge.
So, from the context, I presume you are referring to Red China?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:38PM (3 children)
Baton Rogue? Sarah Palin "refudiates" you, Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:52PM (2 children)
Red Stick. There are at least a half dozen versions of the Red Stick from Native American lore. I've always presumed that the name is a tribute to an Indian tribe for it's fighting prowess.
Hmmm - not so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Baton_Rouge,_Louisiana [wikipedia.org] This particular "red pole" simply marked the border between two Indian nations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @12:01AM (1 child)
Gotta love American-English. Clueless 'murikans abusing foreign languages.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @12:41AM
Baton Rogue, Runaway! Rogue! As in a stick that has run amok! A wild stick! A stick for the clueless, a clue stick! Which could, or may not be, a cue stick. You need one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:41PM
I thought it was a dig at Trump - didn't he use that spelling in a tweet or something?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 04 2019, @12:03AM
Red Pillars going "whooossh" over your head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday March 04 2019, @06:02AM
Are you talking about something like this? : https://www.amazon.com/AirBrush-Fake-Bake-Develops-Continuous/dp/B001183N9K [amazon.com]
Should give you a nice orange skin tone just like your homeboy.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 4, Funny) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 04 2019, @03:04PM
I bomb your dictionary and launch an all-out assault to steal the plans to find a flaw in them. For I am a member of Rouge One.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @04:10PM (1 child)
You're an idiot, reread the GP's post, that was not a typo.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 04 2019, @04:50PM
*yawn*
Despite the fact that you are "correct", we still had fun with it. You must be the life of every part in your county, right? No one would refer to you as a curmudgeon, would they?
(Score: 5, Funny) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:16PM (5 children)
Well... if Pence sets this up, I expect that men won't be allowed anywhere near women unless they have their wives with them, all operations will be proceeded by prayer, and superior female officers (if any) will be addressed as "Mother" (although of course you can't meet with them for meals alone, regardless of the form of address you use.)
--
I run like the winded.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:53PM (4 children)
He’s such a fool to not eat with women alone. Everyone should be able to be accused of sexual harassment 30 years later!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @03:02AM
Maybe something Islam got right...
(Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Monday March 04 2019, @03:26PM (2 children)
So you are inclined to allow this particular bout of cultural hysteria to prevent you from interacting with half the human race without a chaperone?
Seems... extreme. But hey, if you live in that much fear, by all means, join the space force, I guess. 😊
--
Before you louse something up, THIMK!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 04 2019, @04:35PM (1 child)
Y'know, it's amazing.
Here I am all white and male, and yet, I have never been accused of sexism or racism.
I wonder if not being sexist or racist has anything to do with it...
(Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Monday March 04 2019, @06:13PM
Oh yeah? Well, you just try putting on a little innocent blackface and going out and grabbing some chick in a friendly way by her covfefe... you'll see how quick your non-sexist, non-racist ass lands in the fire!
Humph.
--
Don't use "beefstew" as a password.
It's not stroganoff.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 04 2019, @02:56PM
The Geneva Conventions have been routinely violated since Guantanamo and torture were normalized under Bush & Cheney. Those practices were continued by successors.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:33PM (1 child)
That ship has sailed before. Russians have had a space force (since the 70s?), and the us had had space command within the air force.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:44PM
This fact is just completely ignored every time this topic comes up.
Space Force is mostly a money shuffle and rebranding until otherwise noted (such as an announcement is made that weapons or troops are being stationed in orbit). We already have secret space missions conducted by the Air Force, and they could launch weapons if they wanted to.
Treaties are pretty much unenforceable unless you have a consensus to impose sanctions or are willing to go to war over the matter. The U.S. can break them or withdraw from them with impunity, e.g. the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty [nbcnews.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by linkdude64 on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:20PM (2 children)
Do you really think Xi or Putin will be sitting at his desk one day and say something like, "Let's get an upper hand on the American GPS system....*GASP* Oh, no! The treaty!...The treaty!...over..powering...me...Let's just be peaceful instead!" and have their breath freed by the Power of the Treaty?
A locked door keeps out honest people, and that's what the treaty is. The only countries OTHER than the US who want to put weapons in space right now are China and Russia. And NK. If you think "being a role model for the kids" i.e. European countries is important at this point, then you are welcome to submit to the rapes and murders Europeans are experiencing right now. For the people who want to survive, raising a defense is a very unkosher, yet very natural, organic, non-GMO behavior. China and Russia either have plans that have been uncovered, or are already in violation of said treaty without question. "Muh weapons of mass destruction" was an excuse for active warfare over resources. This is not a war for resources - space has no resources. This is a technological arms race only, that won't result in mass deaths, only - hopefully - leaps in innovation that will then trickle out into the public domain over time, while likely remaining a nuclear stalemate as presently is the case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @07:17AM
And Iran.
And Israel. Israel needs it to have leverage over the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @07:42PM
Stop projecting.
Yanks don't like to do the right thing unless cornered. However I notice that Russia *has* kept to their signatures.
I used to be a fan. Now I believe that Churchill was right in his estimations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @05:46AM
Is the other big less friendly nations building one covertly?
Agreements aside, if your frenemies are doing it covertly and you're not then you're being naive. Whether you should follow suit and do it covertly or officially is a different matter.
Do we really think the Chinese and Russians are just sending people and stuff up there with zero military purposes/agenda?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @06:48PM (17 children)
I'm sure the Space Force is their highest priority right after funding that wall and an enormous tax cut that will pay for itself and more through the power of compound interest *waves hands*
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Sunday March 03 2019, @06:53PM (8 children)
Pay for itself? We're already $15-20 trillion in the hole. The trick is to dig as far as possible and then declare all debts void.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @06:57PM (3 children)
All that debt is denominated in U.S. Dollars. Guess who prints U.S. Dollars? The United States.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:34PM (2 children)
We'll switch to Buttcoins at that exact moment.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:07PM
Too late, Pornhub cornered that market.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 04 2019, @02:59PM
At that moment the look on the faces of all the crooks who have squirreled away trillions of US dollars in offshore accounts would be one for the ages. It could only be exceeded by the look if they were arrested after having lost all that loot.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:22PM
If only we had a leader who was well versed in declaring bankruptcy and reneging on his debts.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @04:12PM
The national debt isn't anywhere near the point where it's a problem. The real issue is that what we're doing with that money. If we rolled back the Trump and Bush tax cuts and cut our military spending back to pre-9/11 levels, we'd be running a surplus of over $150bn without cutting services that people actually care about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @07:06PM (1 child)
The trick is to dig as far as possible and then declare all debts void.
No, the trick is to dig as far as possible, and then take away everyone's earned benefits (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) that we've paid into all our lives and use the stolen money (it IS our money, after all, even if it is held in trust by the government, for loose definitions of "trust") to help offset the cost of the tax custs the Republicans gave to the very rich.
End result: the rich don't have to pay their fair share, they empty our social security and Medicare accounts to cover the cost, and we're all told to "just go off and die" when we get too sick or too old to continue slaving for the very rich, and making them even richer while we struggle, paycheck to paycheck.
But, but, but ... her emails. And abortion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @07:33PM
Don't forget the R-lite position of "taxation is theft!!@!@!!!"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:47PM (4 children)
Trump will be the President for the next 46 years.
Donald Trump 6 more years 2024
Donald Trump Jr 8 years
Ivanka Trump 8 years
Eric Trump 8 years
Tiffany trump 8 years
Barron Trump 8 years
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:59PM (3 children)
First female president? Check.
First autistic president? Check.
We're in for a surprisingly diverse half century.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:04PM
Hopefully, one day we will all be republicans and work together to help the rich help us become like them, rich too.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:34PM (1 child)
First insane president? Check.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:46PM
You won't even try to debunk this, it is impossible:
https://qposts.online/assets/images/787e5ffe940cfef8adc1c7e8ec3df641d208b1256e42baa4ca59f78e4d5e5c8d.jpg [qposts.online]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:57PM (1 child)
"tax cut". LOL.
My taxes are a lot higher than last year, much more than my increase in income would justify.
I guess I am just not wealthy enough to benefit from Trump's gift to the ultra-wealthy.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tibman on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:13PM
Don't worry, you'll get to keep enjoying that tax cut for a few more years before your taxes go up...
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/feature/analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act [taxpolicycenter.org]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday March 03 2019, @10:03PM
...he's going to make the Martians pay for it.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:39PM (25 children)
We need to be unifying our military, nor further fracturing it into separate silos and command structures. Smarter Every Day just did a half-hour video with an interview of a four star general talking about how much more important it is today to use the whole military together in sync.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:52PM (5 children)
What evidence do you have that changing the Air Force Space Command into the Space Force is going to significantly hurt its efficiency?
Want some unity? Close all overseas bases that aren't paid for by the host country, and halt all foreign military operations. Trim the fat or station the troops in the U.S.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @12:50AM
Yes, yes, yes.
Because, you know, the nations of the space pay to have the US troopes stationed there.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 04 2019, @01:30AM (3 children)
The people of Okinawa have been trying to get their base closed down for years, but the US and the Japanese central government just won't listen to them.
I am pretty sure that's a common sentiment in Germany also.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 04 2019, @03:06PM (2 children)
The US suffered 75,000 casualties taking Okinawa in WWII. In a sense, they paid in blood for the territory the base is sitting on. Same deal with Germany.
If the locals don't like it, then they shouldn't start wars as they did because there are consequences for defeat. By historical standards they should be grateful they even still exist at all. At the time US propaganda pushed for their extermination. Admiral Halsey was famously quoted, "Before we're through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @04:08PM
Bad, but not quite 75,000 bad?
https://www.historyhit.com/casualties-battle-of-okinawa/ [historyhit.com]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 04 2019, @07:02PM
Has nothing changed since 1945?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:36PM (17 children)
It's possible for a four star general to be full of shit. Is the good general competent to decide the proper deployment of an aircraft carrier task force? That would, of course, include the air wings currently stationed aboard the carrier(s). Is he also competent to deploy a Marine division, bearing in mind the differences in the missions and training of Marines versus army grunts? Is the general cognizant of the logistics demands of a naval and marine force? The army simply doesn't do things like the naval forces do - they aren't required to, and it would be a waste of their time and effort to emulate our methods.
You can make an equally valid argument for eliminating all the medical specialists, and unify all of those specialists into something called "health care providers".
Or, in this technically inclined crowd, we can make an equally valid demand to eliminate things like "electrical engineer", and instead just educate all engineers to the exact same standard.
When the day comes that we actually need a space force, none of our military branches training standards will cut the mustard. I've mentioned a couple times already that the Navy is best positioned to step into that role, and the Marines are best positioned to step into the role of Space Marines. There are many similarities between the historical and the future missions performed by both the Navy and the Marines.
The army is out, and so is the air force. Neither has any experience in operating a physically self contained plant in hostile environments for extended periods of time, while at the same time facing a hostile military force. The Air Force might keep a plane aloft for a month - the Navy can keep a ship or submarine at sea for years when necessary.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:38PM (7 children)
"Or, in this technically inclined crowd, we can make an equally valid demand to eliminate things like "electrical engineer", and instead just educate all engineers to the exact same standard."
Let's run with that. Say your company designs some electromechanical device; could be a Roomba, could be an aircraft, whatever. Does it make sense to split your company up, to have one company for mechanical engineering, another company for electrical engineering, another company for sales and marketing, another for QC etc.? Or is it more efficient to have them all under one roof and a unified command structure working together? When designing a drive system, do you want the mechanical engineer working in isolation and emailing occasionally with the electrical engineer who's doing the same thing, or do you want them in the same room working together?
My father, now retired, is both a ME and an EE, and was often used as a lynch pin between ME teams and EE teams; for military projects early in his career, then for medical later. Our generals need to do the same thing. With a global battlefield you don't just have naval engagements or air engagements or land engagements anymore; you have mixed domain engagements. It seems obvious to me that the high levels of command need to be able to effectively, rapidly, and fluidly mix the forces of the various domains on demand.
Here, see if you disagree with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE [youtube.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @10:10PM
This one - definitely yes. For tax avoidance. Register this company offshore, sell your product to it at cost, pay no taxes in the factory country. The offshore company markets and sells the product. Of course, you own both companies. Microsoft does [seattletimes.com] something like that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @10:41PM (4 children)
I'm listening to the video right now. I've paused it to start my comment.
What I hear the general describing is "combined arms". In the history of warfare, combined arms is a pretty new concept, in some ways. True, there were armies that integrated archery, cavalry, and infantry pretty effectively. But, combined arms didn't get real recognition until the advent of artillery and armor, and then, finally, aircraft. The general is merely describing combined arms, and incorporating "cyber" into it. For purposes of warfare on earth, "space" is just an incremental extension of "air". So - up to this point (12:34) there are no new concepts, or even ideas presented. Unpausing . . . pause again at 14:29. Sun Tzu very effectively covers the aspect of defeating an enemy's will, thus avoiding the need for an armed conflict. This Brown's description of pre-battle social media maneuvering fits right into that. Unpause . . . and at 15:30 we get to what is probably the biggest single development in modern day warfare. The SPEED of conflict. Consider the War of 1812. The Battle of New Orleans should never have been fought, because the war was over before the battle commenced. Stuff happened slowly 200 years ago. Travel and communications were limited to the speed of sailing ships, and travel by horseback. Radio and telegram were shocking developments in warfare - and what Brown is calling cyber is just as shocking. But, it isn't a new realm, as Brown is claiming. It is, after all, just communications, and the idea is to disrupt and to demoralize the enemy, all according to Sun Tzu's teachings.
Long paragraph, huh?
At 16:46, Brown is talking about a "revolutionary impact". Here, I do disagree with him. Shocking, perhaps, but I won't accept the term "revolutionary". All of the changes he is describing are just incremental expansions of already existing battlefronts. The speed at which those fronts develop is shocking, but again, not revolutionary. If there truly is a "revolutionary" aspect here, it is that an entire campaign might be decided without any physical human casualties - ESPECIALLY civilian casualties. Going back in . . .
At 18:40 Brown is describing what the Navy/Marine forces have had for 500 years or so. We've always been able to strike at sea, then ashore, reembark, and be prepared to strike ashore again the next morning, hundreds of miles away. Today, the speed at which we can move, the speed at which we can gather intel, would be shocking to commanders from 100 years ago - but still, it is mostly incremental gain. The increments might be geometric, but still, incremental. We have always been unpredictable, from a landsman's perspective. We have always been difficult for an enemy maritime commander to predict, as well.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:12PM (3 children)
Didn't mean to click "submit" yet.
At 19:59 Brown is talking about "empowering" people. Then he goes on to describe what he means. Well - I heard that same speech in - ohhh - 1976 I think it was. Soon after I was promoted to 3rd class petty officer I was introduced to the concept of delegating authority to the lowest level of competence. (But, remember - you can delegate authority, but you can never delegate RESPONSIBILITY!)
20:30 Brown is describing how fast things develop, and the commander can no longer actually command all the pieces. But - every geek and nerd on this site already knew that when they watched WarGames, in 1983, or whenever they watched it. Military commanders who were honest could and would admit the same thing a couple thousand years ago, which is why those commanders always encouraged individual initiative. (never mind the egocentric fools such as the not-a-real-general Custer)
21:55 Brown admits the obvious - this video is propaganda - surely it didn't take anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size this long to figure that out.
23:00 "the ability to thrive in ambiguity and chaos" Brown has just paraphrased Marine Corps doctrine.
27:15 The real gem of this video. The final takeaway. Let me rewind and listen to that again. "The biggest threat right now is division. They're gonna find the division within our society and they're going to try to amplify it."
FFS, that our politics today. Or, let me be more specific - that's our Progressives today. That is our DNC in their ongoing attacks on our president.
Final analysis of the video? It's political. I'm hearing a repeat of all the arguments within the Army Air Corps, justifying the creation of a separate force from the Army. And, it doesn't wash with me.
Politics. Someone, somewhere, thinks that they can end up as top dog, if all the forces are combined. There are no truly convincing arguments here.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 04 2019, @01:58PM (2 children)
Why are wars fought? You said the Battle of New Orleans (in 1815) was unnecessary, fought only because the slow communications of the time were not up to quickly delivering the news that the war was over.
But a whole lot more war and fighting than that is unnecessary. For instance, the American Civil War was stupid and unnecessary on a lot of levels. The South first tried a "velvet divorce", tried to make an agreement to split the nation, without war, but with the threat of force backing the demands for a split. The North refused to accept such proposals, and so the South made good on the threat to use force. Then the way the aftermath of the initial battles (in particular, First Bull Run) were handled seemed more calculated to inflict maximum humiliation than hold the door open for an agreement and a quick end to hostilities. The North was put in a position where they could not back down without the whole world seeing them as a bunch of wimps and incompetents. It was supposed to be an easy war because the South was so greatly outnumbered, but the quick dash to the Southern capital that so many thought might be more of a parade, with no real fighting, didn't turn out that way. Afterwards, people just had to drag questions about the North's manhood into the disagreement, mock the North, wouldn't keep things respectful. Maybe by then it was too late for any other course, and no matter how respectful the South was (short of yielding the issue), the North had to show the world they were for real and could fight, lest foreign powers start getting certain ideas.
One of the best ways to get ahead is simply to watch from the sidelines while others beat the crap out of each other. That's pretty much how WWI was for the US. One of the craziest things about going to war over the assassination of the Archduke was that he wasn't much liked, by anyone, not even by his uncle, the Emperor! War could have still been avoided, but due to his advanced age, the Emperor pretty much had to delegate the official response to a younger generation, who proved to be a bunch of hotheads, making demands that the Emperor thought extreme, perhaps too extreme. Yet he went along with it. And then, the Kaiser in particular was downright eager to get into a war.
WWII is another one in which the weaker side started the hostilities, questions about the stronger side's resolve and gumption were thrown around, and ultimately the war was fully joined and the weaker side went on to lose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 04 2019, @02:58PM (1 child)
Why are wars fought? It often seems to be a form of population control. Except - the wrong gender suffers the losses. Someone is going to mock that, someone else is going to say it's sexist, but a nation's fertility rate has almost nothing to do with the number of men available. It all depends on the number of women able and willing to procreate.
Your weaker side/stronger side bit at the last?
Retrace the events of WW2. Make just a couple changes. Japan never attacks the US, and Germany never attacks the Soviet. Both were terrible blunders, on the part of the Axis. Then, imagine that the Nazi's were more successful in keeping the fate of the Jews secret. The history of the world might be very, very different. The Axis wasn't all that terribly weak, after all. Without the British Empire's influence in the region, the Ottoman may have even reconstituted itself - but if not, the Middle East would still look very different than it does today. And, much of that would have allied itself with the Axis. I don't think many of us in the Western World would have liked history very much, if the Axis hadn't blundered so badly. The idea gives white supremacists big woodies though.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 04 2019, @06:50PM
> seems to be a form of population control.
Bingo.
> Except - the wrong gender suffers the losses.
Oh no, in simplistic the "it's a man's world" view, that's the correct gender.
In that view, when it comes to children. women go for quality, men more for quantity. Life is precious vs life is cheap. This divergence in attitudes makes sense from a biological point of view. In patriarchal societies, life can fall into a pattern of constant war to bleed off the overpopulation. If wars are being won, then the young have room to expand. If not, then the young men are dead and have no need of room, and the young women will not make trouble, whether they go on to live out childless lives, emigrate, join a harem, or whatever. Win or lose, overpopulation problem solved, for that generation.
This is what the US is up against in Afghanistan. And I think at a visceral level, Republicans understand this better than Democrats do. But, many would rather play too, than try to stop that game, or simply stay out. Some even want to bring on the Clash of Civilizations. This internal disagreement along with others about the objectives in Afghanistan makes it hard to accomplish much there. 17 years and counting, and it's still not over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @07:27AM
Depends. If the customer is US Government, then ultimately having those functions distributed amongst several Congressiinal districts is...important. Even Amazon...er
... Blue Origin figured that one out.
I bet BO & ULA get the new EELV contract. ULA because... and BO because Congress will ultimately be happier with it's footprint in the long run. Would love to see more Falcon Heavy launches... but probably not going to be fo DOD or NRO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:41PM (7 children)
Guess you forgot about D-Day.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:30PM (6 children)
Uhhhh - how so? D-Day didn't require any of the services to surrender their separate commands to another service. D-Day epitomized coordination and cooperation between the services. An Army officer had overall command of the operation, and Air and Naval officers subordinated their commands to that Army officer, voluntarily. All subordinate officers and enlisted fell into line, and carried out their missions. How have I forgotten D-Day? Didn't the President of the US and the Pentagon hold authority over each and every officer, enlisted, and civilian involved in the war effort before, during, and after D-Day? Every commissioned officer in all of the services are commissioned by the same Congress, are they not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @12:05AM (5 children)
The Army is capable of amphibious operations as are the Marines. You didn't go to Canoe U did you?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 04 2019, @12:25AM (4 children)
*rolleyes*
How does the Army and the Marines get to the amphib landing? Hint: It's an entirely naval operation, until the infantry leaves the confines of the Gator Navy hulls. At which point the Army or Marine commander assumes command. And, yes, that shore commander assumes command of Naval Gunfire Support (NGFS) and logistics. He doesn't get full command of the task force, but he does get a nice chunk of it. There's established protocol for all of that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @12:46AM
Ohboy! Don't you miss the days we were all fighting Nazis, side by side? Punching those bastards in the face! Loved it, no matter what branch or nation of the Alliance you were in!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @01:10AM
Now you're forgetting the role that the Coast Guard had in piloting some of those landing craft.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @01:27AM (1 child)
Don't recall any Marines bring involved in D-Day.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 04 2019, @09:18AM
I won't say that there weren't any Marines there - but they certainly did their share of landings across the Pacific. Given the choice to participate in the Normandy landing, Iwo Jima, or Guadalcanal, a rational man would probably just flip a coin. I can't see anything to recommend one above the others. Probably, there were fewer biting insects and reptiles at Normandy. Malaria and other jungle diseases would be less of a problem at Normandy.
(Score: 5, Funny) by jelizondo on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:44PM
I’m sure you’ve heard the joke before, but for the benefit of those who haven’t…
You have to be careful when talking to the different branches of the Armed Forces: If you ask the Army to secure a building, they’ll set a defensive perimeter around it; if you ask the Navy, they’ll send an Ensign to make sure the lights are off and the doors closed; if you ask the Air Force, they’ll come back with a rent-to-buy agreement.
(I don’t remember to whom it is attributed, I think it was to Eisenhower.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @04:15PM
Why? They serve different functions, even if you did roll them all into the same force, you'd still wind up with those issues. The real issue is that we still aren't providing the marines with their own budget item.
I guess you could arguably eliminate the army, because it's doesn't do anything that the marines don't do better, other than producing large numbers of semi-qualified soldiers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:48PM (3 children)
When there is money to be made, some new force will have to be created. Infrastructure, education, worker protection be damned.
Also, no one remains dominant forever. Every empire falls.
Or maybe khazar jews are behind this militarization of space?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:14PM (2 children)
That summary of US politics explains so much about you racist fuckwads. Sadly a huge number of non-asshole conservatives got caught up in the propaganda machine and have no idea what they are actually supporting.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 04 2019, @03:25PM (1 child)
At this point you should be careful about repeating that kind of assumption uncritically. The Republican Party has significant support among Latinos, ~30%, which has been growing steadily. Support among Blacks, which has been non-existant in recent decades, has been reported in the double digits (~17%), because of the historically strong employment numbers for their demographic. If the Republican Party is all about racism, why would that many non-white voters be coming around to support them?
Democrats, for their part, are quite racist and sexist. They were always cagey about how they did it, but in the last two-three years they have thrown back the mask. The Identity Politics frame that informs their rhetoric, and has done so for decades, is one that controls various groups through fear without producing any real improvement to their lot. Blacks have voted Democratic overwhelmingly for 70 years, but in many ways their lot has worsened. If Democratic policies were actually meant to uplift Blacks then they would be the top performing demographic in every blue city, but the opposite is true.
And of course there is the Masters-of-the-Universe angle that complicates all discussion like this. The same interests control both parties. Both parties vote unanimously for the policies that really matter to the question of who really controls the country, ie. tax and finance bills. Everything else is allowed to play out see-saw in a kabuki performance meant to distract the populace and keep it divided and warring with itself, instead of waking up and dragging the Masters of the Universe to the guillotines as they must be.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @04:17PM
Latinos can't be racist, that's news to me. If they're not racist, then they're some of the dumbest people to walk the face of the Earth. One of the main pillars of the GOP over the last 30 years has been that foreigners and people of color are bad.
Also, the GOP seems to focus far more on Mexicans than Latinos in general. Likewise, Muslims are an even bigger target.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:03PM (1 child)
It must be FAKE NEWS if it is in the Washington Post. After all, they are hardly credible. /s
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:24PM
It was really magnanimous of Jeff Bezos to allow God's Chosen President to bloviate in the Bezos Post.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:22PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olyBDfHAjOk&feature=youtu.be [youtube.com]
What a piece of shit, and doing crimes in plain view does not magically make them OK.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @01:17PM
hahaha.
the peaceful commercial space industry is working toooo good.
time to "make problems" in space so the military/industrial complex can provide
"protection" with tax payers monies for those that dont want to compete
fairly but have a direct line into the ear of policy makers ...
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 04 2019, @03:07PM
The Emperor really should have an Imperial Fleet.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 04 2019, @03:27PM
"Service Guarantees Citizenship [wikiquote.org]"
Washington DC delenda est.