Leaderboard

I just watched this video on the PC-24. It does some pretty heavy lifting in advertising for the PC-24 but dammit it does make me wish we had these to replace the T-1. I would have loved to tried landing on SPRO type fields, grass fields, compacted dirt, etc. This could be adapted into a syllabus that really gets everyone ready for real world scenarios where we might be island hopping or landing on unprepared fields after a hurricane/earthquake before the Air Force spends more money teaching this in their MWS. I know this is about the budget but if the training came first, this would be a great trainer.

Who is justifying that?

300BO with subs and suppressor. Ballistically similar to 45ACP at short range (superior at longer ranges) with less recoil than a blowback action. Hopefully allow me to talk to my wife and kids and cops immediately afterwards without temporary or permanent hearing damage.

I think it was 2013 or so I first flew with the Aussie E-7. 13 years later and here we are. Screwed indeed.

So even with this funding and the fact it’s already flying missions with allies we can’t field one until 2032 ? Our process is screwed!

There is another part of the response that in my opinion is more important than the impact on hearing....fine motor skills. "The fight-or-flight response significantly impairs fine motor skills by redirecting blood and resources to large muscles for immediate survival, reducing blood flow to extremities, and shifting cognitive focus from complex tasks (like writing or precise movements) to basic survival, leading to clumsiness, poor dexterity, and decreased accuracy in fine motor tasks like handwriting or detailed work, especially as heart rate increases." It WILL impact your accuracy...the best way to overcome is through training. Another reason I prefer a weapons with more ammunition.

Right, but if my ears aren't physically damaged, I have a better chance of bouncing back quickly. I've certainly experienced the auditory exclusion while hunting and overseas. I can't do a lot in the moment to stop that, but I can avoid breaking my tiny ear hairs. The ones on the inside. Not the outside.

Less awful than saying the border is secure when thousands brazenly crossed daily for months under the eye of LE told to let it happen

God bless little European Texas

Read my post again, for comprehension this time. I'm trying to help some out there understand the higher math behind the political theater going on. We don't "just leave NATO" That's not happened once yet and I doubt we'll be the first. We're not going to invade Greenland (we don't even need to, Denmark is more than happy to pay for basing changing we ask for), and we're probably not going to leave NATO, even if other do. However, the wide receivers on the team needs to know they're not the O-Line, they're not the TE, and they sure as shit aren't the QB. To those who pay attention to the history of nations, what's happening right now is what that 'define the relationship' conversation looks like between allies. I fully expect some things will change out of this, but stop with the black-and-white good-and-evil right-and-wrong bullshit. Act like an adult who thinks with critical analysis in mind, not just so you can response with your party line. We've already got news anchors doing that, please don't join them. Turn off CNN and/or Fox news and start recognizing that you and I don't hear 1 percent of the high level conversations that occur around these events. More importantly, quit reading your own rhetoric into other peoples statements. You sound like a weepy melodramatic 5th grader trying to tell a sad story while blubbering. It's embarrassing.

Your original post, before you edited it, came out pretty forcefully in support of the US continuing down this path with some statements that aren't supported by facts. You mentioned Eminent Domain as a way for the United States to "acquire" Greenland. That's not a legally accepted way that nation states exchange territory. I'm no lawyer, but it took all of 10 seconds on Google to figure that out. It sure sounds better than annexation or invasion though, which is what this will be if Denmark and Greenland continue to tell us hard no and we press the issue. You also mentioned this situation being our "Golan Heights" or it being comparable to that annexation. Israel captured the Golan Heights in war, then annexed it in 1981 from a country who had attacked it several times with intention of the destruction of the State of Israel. No such threat is currently present or even progged to be present from the territory of Greenland. Why would we do this? Do you really believe your statement above that Greenland needs "freedom"? The current administration has offered several very generic reasons for the US acquiring Greenland, depending on which way the wind is blowing that day. We've heard "we need it for security", to "Russia and China will take it if we don't", to "Golden Dome", to "they have lots of rare earth minerals", to "Arctic sea lanes are opening" to "I haven't gotten the Nobel Peace Prize" amongst others. The 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement between the US and Denmark, already gives the US very wide latitude to establish bases and conduct military activities across Greenland. The administration has offered no (that I'm aware of) concrete unresolved security concerns with respect to Greenland. Agreement listed here: Avalon Project - Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, April 27, 1951 Neither Russia nor China is currently capable of projecting the hard power beyond near proximity to their respective borders that would be required to seize Greenland by force. China has made several attempts to invest and/or purchase various interests in Greenland. That effort was blocked during the first Trump administration in a collaborative effort with Denmark and so far China's attempt to build a Polar Silk Road has been a failure. Background here: Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security Golden Dome. Currently a concept on PPT slides. No hard explanation has been given as to why Greenland would matter to this. Most of the concepts presented thus far have been space based. We already have Early Warning and Ballistic Missile/Bomber coverage from there, Alaska, Canada etc. And from point #1, if we wanted to build additional facilities, we already have an agreement in place to do so. 0 Rare Earth minerals have been extracted from Greenland. 0. They do have two known large deposits, but the environment and lack of infrastructure have been major impediments. Even with the warming temperatures up there, development will take a long time to see results. Also, Greenland's parliament passed a law banning development in one of them (the Kvanefjeld field) due to it being full of uranium and, shockingly, they don't want to pollute their country. Chinese investment attempts were stopped. Same link used in #2: Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security Russia does have a large fleet of polar icebreakers (including 8 nuclear powered) to exploit the Arctic sea lanes. The US currently has 3, count'em three, polar icebreakers, two of which were built in the '70s. US shipbuilding is currently in the toilet, so much so that we're buying icebreakers from Finnish shipyards (a NATO ally). Canada also operates a large icebreaker fleet and is expanding. If we rupture the NATO alliance over this, will those assets and new ships still be available to us? Who knows, because there's no way to know. NATO’s ‘Arctic seven’ find strength in numbers | The American Legion Nobel Peace Prize. Such a retarded fucking reason to blow up NATO I can't even address it. Right now polling in both the US and Greenland show that each countries' respective populations are against this: US voters widely opposed to taking Greenland by military force -- even most Republicans - ABC News Does Greenland Want to Be Part of the United States? We're demanding that a long-term ally give up a large portion of land. If they agree to sell it, bully for everyone, our free market economy is functioning. But they aren't, and we're currently using not so veiled threats of military force to take it from them. Our government has offered no concrete explanation as to why and is threatening long term Allies with economic and military consequences if they don't play ball. So I'll end on, once again, why are we doing this? None of the given explanations are developed or even make sense. Do you really want to occupy or annex a country that doesn't want us there just to take their natural resources? That's pretty close to some of the worst parts of the 19th and 20th centuries colonialism and/or quests for autarky. This isn't worth the dissolvement of NATO, and it sure as hell isn't worth us fighting Allies (kinetically or otherwise).

Threatening to beat up your playground sidekick to get his lunch money is slightly better than actually beating him up. The entire Greenland thing is asinine (in addition to being immoral) not one of the justifications makes any sense. Much like narco boats, they are all sophistry. This, like Venezuela is about Monroe doctrine.

Greenland doesn’t need shit. This is fucking ridiculous.

If you think your unit (or larger organization) is fucked without you, you have been misled. Everyone is a replaceable cog, including every single black border pipe hitter. Take pride in the good things you accomplish in your career, work hard at what matters, but don’t think for a second you’re the lynch pin that holds the whole thing together - you’re not. Operate with that mentality and you’ll be much less stressed and happier.