HeloDude

How many do we need? Well, since we have launched exactly zero missiles with a nuclear warhead at another country, then I would say we need...probably a lot less than we have now.

So you suggest to leave open the largest missile field, which in essence, is the most expensive to support with security, supplies, maintenance, etc. This make no sense from a fiscal standpoint. I'm in favor of closing one of the 3 (at least at the beginning) and going from there. As Breckey has said, the flying there is pretty sweet, but I don't think the higher ups should make a decision based on where Huey pilots would rather fly. I don't disagree that the 1 Rep and 2 Senators from Wyoming would fight hard to keep their base open and only be ok with moving nuclear assets if there was a another mission/assets available for replacement (same with MT and ND). And this is why our fiscal situation in our country is so f'ed up...it's rarely about meaningful overall cuts but rather shifting funds here and there but only on the margins.

I agree with everything you said...except your analogy. The Air Force is not locking down a 'best of the best' or 'top talent'...they are locking down a skill-set to perform a mission, no more, no less. I would be curious to see what would happen if the AF decided to not give out a bonus for 2 years...one year for people to be shocked, and one more year to show it wasn't an accident. As as far as commitments go, I bet Big Blue could raise the commitment to 13 years and they'd still not have a problem getting qualified (as well as quality) young guys to accept the service commitment as long as it meant that they get to go to UPT, get paid to fly military aircraft, and even have a chance at flying those super awesome shiny F-22's. Thank about it...how many of us at 17-18 were concerned about a longer commitment (compared to the standard commissioning commitment) as long as it meant we were going to get to fly? Even when it came down to us 22-23 year olds going to UPT, most of us (at least not me and my friends) were not too worried about the 10-year commitment, even when we saw it go from 8 to 10 when we were half way done with ROTC. Are the 22-23 year old kids thinking much differently than we thought 12 years ago? Going to the 10 year commitment was a smart move for the AF. They no longer had to offer excessive bonuses to all the pilots (some guys signed 14 year long bonuses).

From what my brothers at Global Strike have been telling me for years (AF Space prior to 2009), is that the plan is to close Malmstrom if they would ever close one of the 3. As for FE Warren, they don't have an Herks, much less a runway to fly them. Grant it, they support the ANG C-130's next door, as well as the AD Sq (as far as I know?), but it seems to me that FE becoming a pure 130 base most likely wouldn't happen. Just my guess.

I checked the Defense Budget that got signed the other week and once again the bonus authorization was in there. I have the same curious questions about the bonus being offered to the VSP/RIF eligible AFSC's. My bet is that they will delay the bonus until they are done with all the RIF's and then offer the bonus to all eligibles.

I'm not a missileer (thankfully), but from my understanding...it takes a lot less time and money to train a missileer than it does a pilot, and also, it takes a lot more time (and money) to successfully season a new pilot to an AC, Flight Lead, and IP/EP than it does to appropriately season a missileer. I'm not against bonuses per se, but this doesn't seem like an issue that bonuses will solve. Has there been talk of a 'stop-loss' for missileers in the past?...if their retention right now is that poor, so poor that they cannot complete their mission, then maybe there should be. From what I can tell, a lot of these problems have more to do with morale/job satisfaction. So if the AF wants to throw some money at them, sure why not, but again, I don't believe by itself that it will change much. There's a reason pilots get a bonus and most other officer career fields don't: The Air Force is scared to death to see what happens if they don't give out the bonus. Just my $.02

Insurers downgraded on ObamaCare fears This isn't the big storm that is coming this summer/fall, but I believe it's a sign of what is to come. If the GOP led House has half a brain (not so sure these days), then they'll attach a provision to the upcoming debt ceiling extension that forbids the federal government from bailing out the insurance companies (or recouping any losses) from this mess, unless a new full vote on the bailout occurs. If the Dems in the Senate don't vote for it and/or Obama won't sign it, then they can be tied to supporting bailouts for the big insurance companies. Besides, if the program is as awesome as what we've been promised, then the insurance companies won't need any bailout money.

I just lol'd.

How could he not negotiate correctly?? He was an O-6, which clearly means that he is superior in each and every way compared to the vast majority of others.

Baltimore has one of the highest murder rates in the country, as well as overall crime rate...but I agree, focusing on charging $.10 per grocery paper/plastic bag is an important thing to do. Being that I don't ever plan on purchasing groceries in Baltimore as long as I live, hell, why not make is $1 a bag? $10 a bag? If they want people to stop using new ones, then the sky's the limit! https://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-01-21/news/bs-md-ci-bag-fee-20140121_1_american-progressive-bag-alliance-bag-fee-plastic-bag-usage

...anddddd this thread has turned into AAD's.

We've already done what you have suggested. They have the means to put down an insurgency...and if they can't, then we're just wasting our time because if they can't stop one now, then they won't be able to stop one later with our 'training'. If they really want our help, then they can send their instructors over here and we'll play the 'train the trainer' game (as I'm sure we're already doing on a limited basis) and can see how that goes I guess. I enjoyed instructing, advising, and working with those guys...it was a shit ton of work too and at times I actually miss it (and miss the guys). But as a people, they (the Iraqis) have to be willing to accept the risk and take some losses if they want to keep what they have. We have huge problems here, and I just don't believe that spending millions (potentially billions) more on the Iraqis will improve our own nation. Just my $0.02

Sorry, Lear--should have been an 'up-vote'! We need a way to re-vote haha.

Broncos vs Seahawks?

No problem. The whole reason we stayed there for 8+ years was to help a new government get on its feet without the risk of being toppled by an insurgency and to also train their military to be able to defend their government against such an insurgency when we left. The Iraqis are more than capable of defeating a relatively small insurgency. They (Iraqis) are extremely resourceful when they chose to be. Going back to doing their job for them will keep them from growing to the point where they need to be militarily. And if they fail because they couldn't figure out something that they are capable of doing, then so be it. When they become a safe haven for terrorists wanting to invade/harm our homeland (and actually attempt to do so), then I'll be concerned, but until then...not so much. Same goes for the Afghans...with the caveat that I don't believe they have a chance against the Taliban when we pull out. Time will indeed tell.

I'm still tying to figure out what a '30 caliber-clip' is? Maybe he's referring to clips used in the he original M1 Garand that were chambered in .30-06? Though that doesn't make sense when he's holding up an AR-15. And as for a carbine that can fire 3600 rounds in a minute...wow. I'll take 2 of those! An idiot indeed.

I am not overly familiar (and haven't researched in detail) the timely effects of using marijuana, so I don't know. I will guess that if someone smokes a joint on Friday night, that they're anatomically fine to fly on Monday, but again, that's just a guess. I have You guys are still missing my point though--the leader of the military said that it's no more dangerous than another substance (alcohol) which we're allowed to consume on our free time as long as we're not coming to work still under the influence of the substance (ie 12 hrs, etc). So why then is our military randomly searching folks to determine if you smoked a joint 2 weeks ago (I'm assuming the mind altering affects have worn off by then) if the leader of the military thinks it's no different then what we don't get randomly tested for (alcohol)?

I think they lengthened Taji's runway after I left that gem of a place several years ago...but according to this, I think the Reaper needs a little bit longer of a runway. Then again, what do I know...and besides, what's a 'runway'? I say allow the Iraqis to take care of their own country. They're more than capable now, if they truly want to make it better.

It 'should' be easy shit. But when senior officers and politicians have allowed an over aggressive PC culture to take over, then nothing is easy when every stupid complaint of being offended is considered worth investigating. I'm being a little facetious, but this is what has taken over. A bottle of scotch says that if NFL teams are allowed on tabs (again, Flight Med troops were wearing NFL jerseys last year at work), that someone will complain about the 'Redskins' being offensive. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if a college team bearing the word 'Indian' or 'Chief' would also not be allowed...the Seminoles might also be banned. The Vikings and Fighting Irish will be ok though.

Well played, sir. I ran out of 'up votes' for the day, else you would receive one. But who really believes Arkansas would ever be superior to Alaska in anything?

What's wrong with sports teams logos? You might call it 'advertising/marketing' for a specific team, but I call it morale! What about college flags/emblems? What about State flags? You made a big deal on here several months ago about the picture of the wife in the bikini on one's work desk,blah blah blah...whatever, it's a stupid done deal. So I say, if you can have it on your desk (in plane view), why can't we wear it as a 3/4'' x 1.5'' tab on our left arm? I'll concede that I agree we should have a professional appearance both in and outside the office while in uniform...but if the higher military authorities will allow you to march in a gay pride parade in your uniform, then I don't see the problem with wearing a tab displaying the University of Illinois in a non-offensive manner (other than that they pretty much suck at football). By the way...would you consider this 'acceptable'? (some love for M2)

You missed the entire point of my post. The President is in command of our military. He can easily tell his Generals to stop doing testing for marijuana, regardless if it is legal or illegal to smoke it. He has now said he doesn't think it's any worse than alcohol, which is perfectly fine for me to drink at night and on the weekend. So why are they still going out of their way to 'catch' people who are not coming to work under the influence? Nobody is talking about allowing people to come to work high or drunk, there are already processes to investigate/punish folks for that violation. But if an airman of age got drunk 2 weekends ago, why is that any worse then getting high 2 weekends ago when the President (again, the boss) says it's the same thing?

So once again, the President makes remarks but it doesn't turn into action. If he, as the Commander in Chief, truly believes that alcohol and marijuana are on the same level when it comes to the dangers of the substance (I happen to agree) then why doesn't he stop testing for weed during piss tests?? They don't check to see if I was wasted drunk the weekend before, so why are they screening for something the head boss thinks is no worse than what is allowed? I'm not saying you don't bust people for driving while stoned, etc...but then stop trying to catch people with it in their system. It's in violation of the UCMJ/law to come to work drunk, so just bust people accordingly.

If troops in Flight Med get to wear sports jersey's during football season, then I don't see why we shouldn't get to wear tabs with a sports team name/logo. Though I'm sure those who root for the DC NFL team will get a call from MEO (just joking...or am I?). As for who decides what is acceptable, it sounds like from the AFI that it is up to the Sq/CC...which means that anybody above the Sq/CC can tell him/her that it's not acceptable (since that's how it goes for everything else). And as for enforcing the standard, well of course you will be required to take a picture of the tab, make an eSSS and route the tab for approval to your Sq/CC, and then will have to keep the signed copy of the approval letter on your person at all times. I'm sure a new form will be developed specifically for the process.

If you want to get technical about it...if he got the LOC for intentionally not following an AFI, why should the LOC suddenly become null and void just because the uniform policy changed? And if he was repeatedly told to remove it, and did not, it means he was being insubordinate. As much as I hate a lot of the regs, it's still the military. And for the record--I thought the original uniform changes 2-3 years ago were total BS, and I would have a hard time agreeing with a supervisor/CC giving out an LOC for a morale tab unless it was blatantly obvious that he was being insubordinate. Sorry, I have to play devli's advocate sometimes! Stoleit--we need the story here! And hopefully it involves naked chicks while being TDY. ETA: Just saw Stoleit's pic after I submitted my post. Still potentially a story about naked chicks while TDY??