Slashdot Mirror

Just look at the difficulties when they were trying to close military bases. Congressmen always wanted to keep "their" base open.

Well I know for sure that the base in my state is needed because those pesky Canadians keep sneaking into our country to use our amazing health care system. We need to keep them and their poutine out to prevent the adulteration of our freedom fries.

Or that seems to be the thinking in congress when it comes to the military. It is really a sad state of affairs when you have the military saying they don't want or need something and they get more of it while at the same time the military is requesting other things and not getting them. A perfect example is this recent story I saw where brand new planes are being flown straight to the boneyard for decommissioned planes in the Arizona desert.

... what it really means is that the US government spent $24 billion less than it would have otherwise.

Unfortunately, no, that is not what it means. The government was still accruing debt while shutdown. We just owe it now instead of owing it a week or two weeks ago.

The government still owes federal employees backpay for the time they were furloughed. They still have to pay out any contractual obligations they are required to pay. They still owe unemployment, disability, and welfare backpay. On the flip side, they may have saved some money on usage based services, and they definitely saved some amount on contractors that are payed by the hour.

In addition to the amount we still spent, the government was not earning money during this time or serving the functions that we pay them for. Nor were those workers (who still earned pay for doing nothing) contributing back to the economy. So not only do we still owe money for the time it was shutdown, but we have less return to show for it. For an example of returns lost while contractual fees are still owed, take the the airshow in San Diego, CA (where I live). The San Diego airshow earned the government about $1.6 million last year, but ended up costing them $600,000 to shut down this year due to cancelling vendors and owing fees for contracted services.

So no, we did not spend $24 billion less. The only way we would have not spent that amount is if the US had actually defaulted on its loans, laid off all of the furloughed employees, and basically ruined our credit. Fortunately, that is not what happened.

That was a very interesting comment. I have not been following this case other than what has seeped in by osmosis, but what you are saying sounds both plausible and very different from the picture the media are painting. I'm trying to track down some of your sources, so I can read more about it (it would have been helpful if you had included URLs in your post).

1. Obama's red line.
2. I can't find the cat video in question on youtube, it seems to drown in videos of the more recent gassing episodes.
3. I think I found a source for the leaked emails, though the paste referred to in that article had been deleted.
4. I found this source for the Feburary home-made Sarin usage by the FSA
5. I this this is the FSA Sarin transport episode. I also did found other similar news from the same source: FSA chemical weapon factory discovered.
6. I found plenty of sources for the kidnapping indicent, including this

That was a very interesting comment. I have not been following this case other than what has seeped in by osmosis, but what you are saying sounds both plausible and very different from the picture the media are painting. I'm trying to track down some of your sources, so I can read more about it (it would have been helpful if you had included URLs in your post).

1. Obama's red line.
2. I can't find the cat video in question on youtube, it seems to drown in videos of the more recent gassing episodes.
3. I think I found a source for the leaked emails, though the paste referred to in that article had been deleted.
4. I found this source for the Feburary home-made Sarin usage by the FSA
5. I this this is the FSA Sarin transport episode. I also did found other similar news from the same source: FSA chemical weapon factory discovered.
6. I found plenty of sources for the kidnapping indicent, including this

Guns aren't easy to make.

Yes, they are. Zip guns are almost trivial, they were commonly made by juvenile delinquents in the 1950s. Indian villagers with simple tools can make guns, while back-alley gunsmiths in the Philippines today turn out not just simple pipe guns but submachine guns. Resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Poland were also able to set up clandestine gun factories.

While most criminal firearms in the U.S. today are diverted from the legitimate market, if that source were ever to dry up it would have very little impact on the availability of firearms to criminals. Folks making meth today would turn their labs into machine shops.

And now with 3-D printing, and CNC milling? Fugeddaboutit.

The number one source of guns for criminals is theft.

No, it's not. Seriously, dude, this is one of those times where a minute with your favorite search engine can save you from looking like an ass...

Make it a crime to have your guns stolen,

...but then, if you believe that being the victim of a crime can itself be made a crime, it'll take more than fact-checking to stop you from looking like an ass.

This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.

If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html

A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.

Couldn't BFC's (Big Fucking Capacitors) be used to store charges? Like the kind you would get from a car stereo dealer?

Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.

A non-inclusive answer is that the energy stored in a capacitor rises with the square of the voltage, so what you want for really high energy density is very high voltage caps. But, along with that, when you discharge them, you're relying on an extremely quick discharge so you get huge amounts of amperage out of them (discharge current = voltage / time) so you also need massive current-carrying capability for the plates and wiring. That means fairly specialized capacitors.

So, basically what you're saying is that it's possible, but difficult and costly at our current level of technological achievement?

What sort of figures should I be looking for here? Like, in this chart, what are the relevant columns? I'm guessing "Rated Voltage" and "Energy." Oh, and of course the "Cap" listing.

Thanks for the info thus far, BTW.

This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.

If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html

A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.

Couldn't BFC's (Big Fucking Capacitors) be used to store charges? Like the kind you would get from a car stereo dealer?

Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.

A non-inclusive answer is that the energy stored in a capacitor rises with the square of the voltage, so what you want for really high energy density is very high voltage caps. But, along with that, when you discharge them, you're relying on an extremely quick discharge so you get huge amounts of amperage out of them (discharge current = voltage / time) so you also need massive current-carrying capability for the plates and wiring. That means fairly specialized capacitors.

This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.

If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html

A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.

Couldn't BFC's (Big Fucking Capacitors) be used to store charges? Like the kind you would get from a car stereo dealer?

Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.

This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.

If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html

A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.

If a smart gun worked 99.5% of the time, go try to market such a device to a law enforcement agency or even the military. Go on. I'll wait.

Now that you've become the laughing-stock of gun salespersons to those groups, what did you learn? You need to vastly boost the reliability of such devices before even thinking of trying to sell them to serious buyers. Once the device failure rate improves by a few orders of magnitude, then try again. The actual number the military is looking for is of far higher reliability than a 0.5% error rate.

BEFORE: Skilled Blue Collared metal workers could make a zip gun.

Skilled metal workers? Zip guns are more like the work of juvenile delinquents and prison inmates. Skilled black market machinists can make much better weapons, like submachine guns.

And if you're going into combat with a homemade lower receiver as your only form of defense you're an idiot.

The first rule of a gun fight is, bring a gun. If the only gun I could get (for some political reason) had homemade components, I'd take it.

Resistance movement in Nazi-occupied territories made Sten submachine guns in underground workshops; today back-alley gunsmiths in the Philippines do the same. If the shit hit the fan I'd rather have one of their guns than no gun at all. (We're not talking zip guns here, we're talking about automatic weapons.)

This sort of work helps ensure that if the shit does hit the fan, some sort of guns will still be available to the general public, regardless of what misguided, ignorant, or tyrannical politicians may want.

The relative number of reserve and National Guard active are not that large compared to the total reserve force. The current goal is no more than three or four deployments over the course of a career - assuming there is a need for that force level deployed to a war zone, which seems unlikely to me.

Managing the Reserve Components as an Operational Force

In January 2007, the Secretary of Defense established total force utilization guidelines that included the planning objective for involuntary mobilization of National Guard and Reserve units and individuals of a “one year mobilized to five years demobilized ratio.” This guideline does not mean that every Reserve member will serve one year out of every six years. . . .

Many skills that are useful to the uniformed military are difficult to acquire through traditional accession policies, are challenging to obtain on short notice, or are only needed for a limited duration. These skills might include cutting edge, technical skills such as those possessed by engineers, scientists, or information technology professionals, as well as specialized skills such as languages and cultural understanding. Flexible affiliation options allow the Services to meet requirements with individuals who may be willing to volunteer for some form of military service for short periods of time or in response to specific emergencies, but for whom traditional affiliation programs are not of interest. Thus, removing barriers that limit Reserve members from contributing more to defense missions is an ongoing and necessary process.

- - -

-- a lot of people who have finished their tours are told that they must re-up

I think you're confused. Service members were not told they must re-up, but rather some had their service period involuntarily extended by a "Stop Loss" order due to critical wartime need. Now some service members face the prospect of having their service period involuntarily shortened as the military has started shrinking again.

Stop Loss Special Pay

Stop loss provides a valuable and critical tool to quickly retain and generate forces to surge in a major conflict. However, as deployment schedules stabilize, the department must then adapt and minimize its use of stop loss. The secretary of defense announced in March a comprehensive plan to eliminate the current use of stop loss, while retaining the authority for future use under extraordinary circumstances.

Army Stop Loss Special Pay
Soldiers, veterans and survivors of those whose service was involuntarily extended under Stop Loss between September 11, 2001 and September 30, 2008 can apply to receive $500 for every month, or portion of a month, they served under Stop Loss.

More soldiers will face prospect of early-outs

Correct. Turns out that the 'Raptor' problem is, in fact, related to incorrect inflation of the "Combat Edge" chest corset of G-suits. This incorrect inflation also occurred on F-15s and F-16s but no one noticed. Only on the F-22 was it noticed/significant.

Just in case you think I'm full of shit, here's a citation quoting USAF sources:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/01/air-force-confident-f22-oxygen-riddle-solved.html

With that (apparently 20-year old) problem solved, Raptor is back in the air and back to Top Dog.

You realize that the majority of the debt in the Obama administration was from the wars that the Republicans launched and didn't put on the budget, right?

Citation? The Iraq War cost was $780 billion, or - to put it in modern terms - about 6 months of an Obama deficit. A full 8 years of war is exceeded by 7 months of current deficit spending.

And you do realize that national debt piles up whether items are on-budget or not?

Of course, you're the guy who wanted to compared 6 years of spending to 3, and make the conclusion that we were wasteful during those 6 years and tight during the 3 because the spending in 3 is just under the spending in 6, so...

I owed $40 for a book. I am 100% completely positive I returned my book but their records indicated they did not have it. I refused to pay for it. On graduation day my name was called and I went up on stage, shook a few hands and received my diploma case and inside was no diploma, only a bill for $40. When I joined the US military a few months later, my recruiter paid the balance to get the diploma.

From my understanding, you can join the US military and they will pay all or a portion of your student loans.
Protect and serve, and wipe out some school debt!!
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,44245--,00.html

The questions are sincere, and the answers you've provided are the neat, sanitized for your convenient answers that government spin doctors have been spouting for the last 70 years. Do you honestly think for a second that if we'd taken the Japanese officials to an uninhabited off shore island near japan and with a single device turn it into a 4 mile submarine crater, that they wouldn't have been sufficiently terrified by the spectacle? That they couldn't have connected the dots and that they wouldn't have surrendered by noon the same day? No. We needed to make this a passion play. A very loud and public display of ultimate power. We needed to inform the Soviets we were now the one and only superpower on the planet, and if they gave us any grief we could send them to eternity by the millions all on the same day. Hell, in the same 10 minutes.

Is there any even vaguely SANE explanation for putting soldiers at close range to nuclear blasts, exposing them to both immediate blast effects and long term illness from fallout exposure? I'm sorry but its clear to me that the men in charge had many priorities, but responsibility to human life both ours and theirs doesn't seem to be among them. I personally am sad and dismayed by what appears to me to be a consistent lack of ethical behavior on the part of America's military leadership, and the problems have been evident for a very long time.

use your advanced engineering skills & google it. ;-)

Maybe you should try that yourself: http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-gains-edge-in-military-campaign-donations.html For you lazy ones: From January 2011 until March, servicemembers who gave more than $200 contributed about $333,134 to Paul's campaign, as compared to about $184,505 for Obama and just $45,738 to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, according to an analysis by the center. "But in March, Obama and Paul switched places," Choma wrote. "Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic -- only $8,630."

use your advanced engineering skills & google it. ;-)

Maybe you should try that yourself: http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-gains-edge-in-military-campaign-donations.html For you lazy ones: From January 2011 until March, servicemembers who gave more than $200 contributed about $333,134 to Paul's campaign, as compared to about $184,505 for Obama and just $45,738 to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, according to an analysis by the center. "But in March, Obama and Paul switched places," Choma wrote. "Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic -- only $8,630."

So if you add it all up, you get:

$350,867 for Paul
$220,953 for Obama
$54,368 for Romney.

use your advanced engineering skills & google it. ;-)

Maybe you should try that yourself: http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-gains-edge-in-military-campaign-donations.html For you lazy ones: From January 2011 until March, servicemembers who gave more than $200 contributed about $333,134 to Paul's campaign, as compared to about $184,505 for Obama and just $45,738 to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, according to an analysis by the center. "But in March, Obama and Paul switched places," Choma wrote. "Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic -- only $8,630."

use your advanced engineering skills & google it. ;-)

Maybe you should try that yourself: http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-gains-edge-in-military-campaign-donations.html For you lazy ones: From January 2011 until March, servicemembers who gave more than $200 contributed about $333,134 to Paul's campaign, as compared to about $184,505 for Obama and just $45,738 to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, according to an analysis by the center. "But in March, Obama and Paul switched places," Choma wrote. "Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic -- only $8,630."

So if you add it all up, you get:

$350,867 for Paul
$220,953 for Obama
$54,368 for Romney.

use your advanced engineering skills & google it. ;-)

Maybe you should try that yourself:

http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-gains-edge-in-military-campaign-donations.html

For you lazy ones: From January 2011 until March, servicemembers who gave more than $200 contributed about $333,134 to Paul's campaign, as compared to about $184,505 for Obama and just $45,738 to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, according to an analysis by the center.

"But in March, Obama and Paul switched places," Choma wrote. "Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic -- only $8,630."

In any conflict of such an magnitude, where the US military is outnumbered, things like logistics, troop movements and proper command structure will play a MUCH more important role than what guns the each side has. You can't really argue that a rag-tag militia can compete with a trained army in these aspects.

You assume that the military would even remain cohesive enough to fight off the "rebels". If the shit hit the fan, and the military was mobilized against it's own citizenry, I'm betting a hefty number of our soldiers would lay down their weapons and refuse any order to pick them back up again.

There are veterans joining the Occupy Wall Street protests now. Organizations, such as Oath Keepers, are attracting more and more attention from active duty military every day. The Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically states that all lawful orders are to be followed, and in the wake of massacres like Mai Lai, soldiers have a duty to disobey any unlawful order, i.e., any order that would restrict the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Of course, as we all know, when it gets to that point, it's game over anyway. But I wouldn't be as concerned about our own military. I strongly suspect a good number of them would be crossing the lines, especially when the propaganda begins to fall short, which it would in no time if they were to start rounding up American citizens, or disarming them.

Captcha: indolent

That one was (presumably) landing. Landing crashes with UAV's aren't all that uncommon.

Actually, YES. Military veterans who can't operate a car due to blinding or paralysis or leg amputation, for starters.

So, that would only prevent them from getting a driver's license. They can get no other form of ID?

Republicans have also been on the forefront of trying to get as many absentee military ballots thrown out as possible,

If it's a giant Republican conspiracy, then why did Congress pass a law supporting absentee military ballots that Obama has been slow to implement? http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/07/obamas-bumblers-damage-military-voting-rights

since the rank-and-file are paid shit wages thanks to the machinations of those same Republicans and tend, being poor and supporting families on wages that require public assistance (fully 40% of the US military families are so poor they qualify for food stamps!),

Not true: "A 2003 Department of Defense study, the most recent available, found that 2,100 active-duty members received food stamps in 2002...The fact that some enlisted members and even a few officers received (food stamps) was more a result of larger household sizes and living in government quarters than an indicator of inadequate military compensation." http://www.military.com/news/article/2011/food-stamp-use-at-military-commissaries-up-sharply.html

Oh, and let's not forget the machinations of Republicans trying to make it as difficult as possible for military spouses to vote in the state they live in when their spouse is shipped to another "home base" in another state. My aunt was disenfranchised by the lying Republican assholes for 5 years due to all that crap.

Yes, I'm sure there is a giant conspiracy to prevent your aunt from voting. I don't think it takes 5 years to establish state residency anywhere.

South Korea is the free Korea. You know it is free because it has military bases of a foreign nation (the US) which is blessed by God scattered all over it. This law is good because it protects South Korea from the evil North Korea, whose military bases are only staffed by Koreans - they have no foreign military bases protecting their freedom. If South Koreans can go online and criticize the government without entering their national ID number, this might hurt freedom. Some South Korean freedom-haters tried to have elections in 1980. Thankfully, the military government went in and massacred all of these freedom-hating communists. Thankfully, US Ambassador Gleysteen and General Wickham authorized martial law in Gwangju after the massacre, for humanitarian reasons as they put it back then. I know North Korea is the evil Korea and South Korea is the great, freedom loving Korea, with US troops backing it. In fact five years ago, soldiers from the US air base were making friends with the local people in Gwangju. Keep showing those pictures on US TV of North Korean tanks and Kim Jong-Il whenever North Korea is mentioned, propaganda in the GDR was a little more subtle.

Ok, ill bite

The average combat load in WWII was about 45lbs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=combat+load+WWII

The average modern combat load now is close to 80 lbs
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,106567,00.html

Further, I would wager that the troops were moving about more in North Africa since there isn't much there worth defending from an Axis or Allies viewpoint. In Iraqistan we are fighting against the population and for the population at the same time (like the Viet Kong). This requires permanent presence as opposed to obliterate and move tactics.

Also, while temperatures both reach similarly very hot, Kabul Afghanistan is at about 6000' elevation, which exposes it to more solar radiation and provides less airflow to cool everything.

If you bothered to use your brain for a 2#$!% minute, you would realize a few things:

1) Soldiers are not out there because they wanted to, they decided to serve their country so you could stay home and play your video games. If they did not sign up in enough numbers, they would force you to serve as soon as they run out of volunteers. Remember every time that a soldier gets killed or looses his legs because of a bomb, that it could had been you out there had he and many others not volunteered.

Or cause it is the only job they can get as there are not that many opportunities around. Or to pay for college. Or cause they are members of the Green Card Brigade.
As for "your ass there instead" - there is always Canada. That is, unless your dad can arrange for you to "serve" behind a desk somewhere.
Or to dick around in a military jet.

2) It is good to know military budget goes into medical research that can also be used to save civilians in, say, burning buildings and not entirely to develop new guns and bombs.

$9.7 billion budget divided over 5 million beneficiaries, 27,000 soldiers and 28,000 civilian employees, another 20,000 active-duty medical soldiers in field units, plus over 30,000 medical soldiers in the National Guard and Army Reserve.

That is only 1.29% of the $721.3 billion DOD budget, which is again only between 49.7 and 68% of the annual US Military budget.
So it's actually more like 0.64 - 0.87% of the total military budget, for 2011 alone.

Just to illustrate how ridiculously little that is...
A person making ~$50k a year, who would donate $50 each month to medical R&D - would do more for medical research funding, per dollar earned, then the entire military and defense budget of the United States of America.
That is less than $2 a day.

Like this, where the materials used were the wrong ones and caused even survivors to go through difficult tragedies.
weylin

Are you actually not aware that UAVs are regularly used to perform military strikes, or what?

No, just pointing out that the number of UAV flight hours dedicated to strike missions is a tiny percent of all UAV flight hours ref2 ref2 (500,000 flight hours per year, 92 projected attacks in 2010 at ~10 hour mission per attack is 920 hours - so 0.1% of flight hours on attack). It's the equivalent of saying that all planes are only used for bombing while ignoring every other aspect of aviation.

Air Force Planning Giant Spy Airship
http://www.military.com/news/article/March-2009/air-force-planning-giant-spy-airship.html

ILC Dover has extended its contract with Lockheed Martin to provide lighter-than-air "aerostats", very similar to a blimp. The aerostats are used in Afghanistan and Iraq to provide surveillance and communication for U.S. troops.
http://whyy.org/cms/news/regional-news/delaware/2010/06/24/delaware-company-builds-unmanned-airships-for-u-s-military/40647

Iraqi conflict brings increased interest in military airships
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200307/ai_n9258465/

And in case you were wondering, it's not just the US that's interested in modern airship technology. China has plans for them too.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4649479

Pilots were already in lofty isolation from much of the battlefield in World War 1, as were long-range artillerists.

Although you reference WWI, it isn't true that pilots were isolated, just not as muddy. In WWII, we lost ~160,000 airmen, and 33,700 planes. Kenneth K. Hatfield (2003). "Heartland heroes: remembering World War II.". p.91 (wiki reference)

Current UAV operators in the AF actually suffer PTSD. http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news. While there is the typical response of "there's no crying in war", etc, most of these guys are fighter pilots with combat experience who were kicked over into the Predator world against their will. They are not the ones who couldn't hack being shot at in the first place.

As for the parent poster, I'm glad we're mechanizing the battle field. I'd rather have every possible advantage over the bad guys that I can have. War is not about fair fights, it is about bringing so much pain and suffering to bear that the enemy simply loses the willpower to continue. It would be good for Congress to remember that before declaring war in the first place, and for the President as he executes the war. If that philosophy were brought fully to bear, then hopefully no one would want to start a fight in the first place, because the consequences are too high. (Now, let the down modding begin)

Nuclear arms have formed the backbone of US deterrence strategy for six decades and although the strategy worked during the Cold War, military leaders say they need weapons in their arsenal to deter adversaries who assume that the United States would refrain from taking the extreme step of ordering a nuclear strike. Now the Washington Post reports that as the White House pushes for cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a powerful nonnuclear weapon to help fill the gap as a new form of deterrence against terrorist networks and other adversaries. Military officials say their current nonnuclear options are too limited or too slow because unlike ICBM's, which travel at several times the speed of sound, it can take up to 12 hours for cruise missiles to hit faraway targets and long-range bombers likewise can take many hours to fly into position for a strike. "Today, unless you want to go nuclear, it's measured in days, maybe weeks" until the military can launch an attack with regular forces, says Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "That's just too long in the world that we live in." The new missile system, known as Prompt Global Strike weapons, could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. However military officials are struggling to solve one major obstacle: the risk that Russia or China could mistake the launch of a conventional Prompt Global Strike missile for a nuclear one. To alleviate the risk of an accidental nuclear retaliation, defense officials have described how a land-based missile could be configured so it is incapable of carrying a nuclear payload and use a trajectory to its target that would not threaten other nuclear weapons nations.

Quote from your first source "Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found. " Link two is about pre war reports of the non existant mobile chemical labs from the notorious UN speech and a single truck filled with dual use equipment. A few quotes from that "Our missile experts have no explanation for how such a trailer could function to refurbish antiaircraft missiles and judge that such a use is unlikely based on the scale, configuration, and assessed function of the equipment. " "These laboratories could be used to support a mobile BW production plant but serve legitimate functions that are applicable to public heath and environmental monitoring, such as water-quality sampling." I would hardly call that a smoking gun. Following the sources of the third article leads to this http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,103631,00.html?ESRC=coastgnews.RSS "It contains this useful quote about the weapons in question. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. " So where are the factories you claim were found, because they aren't present in your sources.

Thanks for the info. I went and had a look around to read some more, and found this: http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news Still not sure that indicates that there are a lot more cases of PTSD, but still, thanks for the heads up.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html

Rail gun are here. They are just big.

The U.S. military has some weapons which are much better than many video game weapons. Video games need "balance", so players aren't given weapons that are too "powerful". DoD doesn't have that limitation.

• The Grid Square Removal Service. When a Multiple Launch Rocket System unit is loaded up with rockets with submunitions, it fires 12 rockets, each of which carries 518 submunitions, each of which explodes into a rain of fragments. This kills anything unarmored in a 1km grid square. In the U.S. Army inventory for years. Some Iraqi army units were wiped out with those things.
• The FireFinder radar. Shoot at a U.S. Army unit with an indirect fire weapon, and one of these will see the incoming projectiles, calculate the location of the gun, and pass that information to the U.S. Army guns, which will duly plaster the shooter. Within one minute. Standard equipment for Army and USMC artillery units. The technology dates from the 1970s, but in newer versions, it's been shrunk down to a size a HUMMV can carry.
• The XM-25 "smart" grenade launcher. Useful when someone is shooting at you from behind cover or from a window. Just point at the side of the window, and click a button to get the range with the laser rangefinder. Then fire a round though the window. The round goes through the window, and, with its timer set automatically, explodes 1-2 meters just inside, in the right place for killing the sniper. Finally, a practical weapon that shoots around corners.
• The Combat Engineer Vehicle, another reason the "Dune" approach to desert warfare won't work. These are tank chassis, with the armor, equipped with a bulldozer blade. They're used for removing obstacles. In the first Gulf War, they were used in Kuwait against dug-in Iraqi troops. They didn't bother shooting at them. They just bulldozed sand over their fighting holes, burying them alive.

"If you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it." As insurgent groups have figured out, the only way to succeed against a modern military force is to have a population in which to hide, one which the US isn't willing to exterminate.

Let's not just assume that these pilots are so "completely detached from the inhumanity of it all". There's a psychological cost to be paid, even if they aren't there in the flesh. I dunno, check out something like http://www.military.com/news/article/two-worlds-of-a-drone-pilot.html?col=1186032310810&wh=wh/

I wouldn't be suprised if Patriot has shot down more friendly units than enemy missiles. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#2003_invasion_of_Iraq

That's one US F18 and one British Tornado in a single war alone, vs. how many missile threats protected against? I'm not sure if it had any friendly fire hits in earlier wars.

I'm intrigued to know if there's better potential in kinetic weapons like this:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html

I'm intrigued to know how effective countermeasures would actually be against a mach 8 dumb but accurate projectile? As I understand it the fastest missile in the world is a Russian ICBM at around 10,800mph, which still leaves this mach 8 projectile (~6000mph) a little on the slow side, but would it be enough to take out such an incoming threat still?

Of course, then there's laser tech, but these rail guns seem to be a bit further ahead in the technology game than they are in terms of production level feasibility.

And then there is this story which utterly contradicts whatever point it was you were trying to make.

Laptops aren't meant to be armor. The military (or whoever it is in charge of making these decisions) is mostly uninterested in providing adequate armor to the troops. Your little anecdote is a great advertisement for Panasonic, but not really a ringing endorsement of the military.

There's still a lot of work for human pilots, and there probably will be for at least another generation. The first UAVs that can handle manned-aircraft combat tasks are just now being deployed, and in many ways they're Not There Yet. Are you suggesting that air forces should stop training pilots now on the assumption that drones will take up the slack?

It's also worth mentioning that current-generation UAVs like the Predator are fully human-controlled by remote.

Related, interesting link: http://www.military.com/news/article/human-error-cited-in-most-uav-crashes.html

its a bit of speculation for sure, but...

F-22, Mach 2.4

http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89685/f-22-raptor.html

Compare the F-22 to say, the Mig-25... Mig-25 could hit Mach 3. It was bad for the plane, for sure, but it could do it. I would think the F-22 could hit Mach 3, depending on what its afterburning thrust is. probably burn the paint off, but, hey, the skin is almost all titanium.. its not gonna melt.

would there be a tactical advantage of doing so? maybe if you were running....

Old news.

Small UAVs May Recharge on Power Lines
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158240,00.html

FYI: I really do like your stances. 1) Even in the military, there is a time and place for using such methods of arbitrary leadership. When I was a supervisor, I basically told my troops to talk to me and let me know their thoughts on things. When the time came, though, they had to jump when I said jump. So, I guess we agree, it's a matter of the circumstance? 2) I'd agree with you about corruption being out of place in a democracy, but that's an ideal. Granted, corruption is not the same as having different goals or ambitions than what you may have voted for. There are cases of out and out corruptions, such as Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's action. The more cynical of us think his mistake was getting caught. There are murmurings of the mayor of my county being backed by large companies to make decisions which are bad for small businesses. That may just be the folks that didn't agree with her, though. 3) The US Military, and it's equipment, being in bad shape is different than being better than the opponents. Older planes take more time, money and people to maintain. Granted, that's not to say battles are going to be lost soley on that matter, but when it gets down to it, the military buyers would like to decide what their budget goes towards.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,135018,00.html
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123089011

Some links, as requested. I hope they match what we're talking about enough for you.

And the Air Force cut the funding for the system that would detect these types of collisions: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,121142,00.html

Crimes like peaceful protesting, you mean?

First of all, one's "peaceful" (such as rock-throwing so common among Arab youth) is another's "violent" (each rock is, actually, a deadly weapon — especially, when thrown with a sling). Or potentially violent. But violence during a protest is a simple matter for the local police.

Where FBI can be more justifiably involved, are cases of serious (even if non-violent) disruptions, such as when protesters chain themselves to the rail-tracks to stall transportation of nuclear waste. Or damaging military equipment? Preventing such sabotage before it happens and punishing the conspirators (and would-be saboteurs) is a perfectly legitimate job. Another is protecting the military bases — both from mere disruptions and from actual threats.

Who can be sure, whether the mouth-foaming youth is "peaceful" or preparing to bomb the recreation hall? If there are credible suspicions towards the latter (and public expressions of sympathy with an enemy: "Al Qaeda has won! Kill the pigs!" — though not illegal, are one of the tell-tale signs), then an investigation is warranted, however peaceful the suspects have been so far.

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=cw_f_ivybells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells

Now it is true that modern cables will be mostly fiber, but do not doubt if they wanted to, they could get in easily enough

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164071,00.html

"In the beginning, many people were skeptical, but after seeing it demonstrated on patients and the benefits achieved -- especially in the area of pain -- the majority of physicians embraced it and learned how to use it in their practice as an adjunctive therapy," said Colonel Niemtzow, who is the consultant for alternative and complimentary medicine to the Air Force surgeon general.

If the Army is embracing acupuncture, I wouldn't be so quick to lump it in with the sugar pills and diluted solutions.

http://www.military.com/news/article/iraq-has-its-own-battle-of-the-bulge.html

I wonder where you are getting those numbers. Here's some numbers from the USAF a few years back. The average age of the Officer Force is 35 (probably about the same now) and the average age of the enlisted force is 29 (maybe slightly lower now, but this is after 5 years of post-9/11 recruitment). I know the numbers will vary based on service branch, but these are likely relatively indicative of the other services. A destroyer commander at 25 is rare but not impossible, and a general at 33 is definitely possible although also rare. Also keep in mind that there are far more officers who never make it past O-4 than there are officers who jet up to O-6 and beyond early in their careers. Note also in those stats that only close to 13% of officers in the USAF are under 26.

Duct tape by any other name, is still so very sweet. As long as you aren't using it on ducts. Which ironicly, it's completely inappropriate for.

Sounds like a good idea but personally I am against it. It is a disease of the modern society that everything you do has to be fun. If you make everything "fun", people will be more likely to refuse doing something because it lacks fun. People need do things because they need to do things. ...
Note, I didn't post this because it is fun, I posted it because I felt like I needed to respond to you.

I'm of mixed nature. I don't mind them putting the http://www.military.com/ASVAB into a game. Honestly, I'd say a large percentage of school already greatly rewards those that can put up with needless boredom. Having a little fun in life isn't a sin. Actually, I find it funny those that think almost any form of "fun" or others having fun should be declared a moral sin or declared illegal.

Life's a bitch as it is. If I can't find some/any fun in it now and then, what would be the point? O.k. we are living in a golden age utopia there isn't anything wrong with that per se. You know what the next really big thing is? WOW or any of its like tricking it's users into obtaining at least a high school education.