Stoker

In my mind, it's pretty much because they didn't fight back in 2014. There is a plausible (if not legally legitimate) argument for Russia to own Crimea - it was the least Ukrainian part of Ukraine (thanks to successful ethnic cleansing on the part of the Soviets). Within Ukraine, there wasn't nearly as much appetite for conflict with Russia - a good chunk of the country thought they should be oriented towards Russia, not the West. I've read a couple of the opinion polls done in Ukraine now about the war - the country is united to a level you wouldn't believe if someone told you the poll was done in the US. Something like 90% of the population is convinced they'll win the war, and virtually all of the pro-Russian sentiment is gone (not least because the people with pro-Russian sentiment were likely drafted by the Russians and sent to their deaths).

Aww, shucks...

We've sent $75 billion of aid total, and that includes near-expired or obsolete equipment and ammunition donated at book value. The war is almost certainly a net positive for the US economy - Europe is buying gas from us instead of the Russians, the developing world is getting their grain from Iowa instead of Ukraine, and the entire world is buying American military hardware instead of post Soviet crap or indigenously developed "better than nothing" gear.

You don't think it might strengthen Ukrainian troops' resolve? Their are still areas of the world where the words "US president" has meaning and respect.

We've given them something like $20b so far, but it's really all about the accounting. If an artillery shell costs $500 and has a shelf life of 20 years, does giving an artillery shell that's twenty years old to Ukraine count as a $500 cost? IIRC virtually all of the early equipment we gave to Ukraine was either obsolete already or due to be replaced in a couple years. Stingers, humvees, MRAPs... I can write a report about how these cost X to produce and we gave them to Ukraine but that doesn't account for the fact that they were destined for the scrapheap. If you were king of defense appropriations, how much would it be worth to you if you could buy a magic button that crippled the Russian military for a decade or three?

Jeb is too much of a policy wonk to survive in today's politics. No one gives a crap about how you're going to increase the effectiveness of program x by y percent. They want to hear how you'll punish people who think differently and spend money on people who think like them.

Well I guess that's why we have elections. The "keep helping people kill Russians" party did historically well during the last midterms.

The money and effort we spend supporting Ukraine will effectively terminate the ability of our second greatest foe to threaten European security at a less than nuclear scale for the next twenty years or so. I think we should spend commensurate with how much we value that goal. I don't know, man, I'm just a guy who flies planes, not a senior staffer on the Appropriations committee. I guess my point is, the people who moan and complain about all the money we're spending on Ukraine are either willful or ignorant puppets of Russian information shaping efforts. If someone from your political party had a magic deal where, for 2% of Federal spending a year, they could reunite Europe behind a pro-US banner, crush one of our biggest enemies, generate new markets for US energy exports, and protect 45 million people from subjugation, oppression, and extermination, would you say that is a good deal?

All spending has diminishing marginal utility. There's definitely a point where the "dead Soviets per dollar" ratio doesn't justify spending more. But we aren't close to it yet.

For what it's worth, looking at the internal numbers the great FO oversupply at the regionals should be gone by the end of the summer if not earlier. Of the excess FOs, it seems like about 25% are upgrading or leaving for an LCC every month.

For anyone who complains about the cost of the war effort to the US, and points to the US debt... you do realize that the money we're spending on Ukraine is a rounding error compared to Federal spending and liabilities, right? I realize this sounds absurd, but $14 billion just isn't a lot of money. We've basically spent the cost of one Ford-class aircraft carrier to cripple our second most powerful foe for at least a generation. That's a good deal, in my book.

Interesting thing about the North Korean medals, remember that they're effectively an aristocracy based on loyalty to the regime. If you're in the military, you wear the medals your dad and grandad won, to show how you come from a long line of Kim supporters.

That memo reads like it's written by someone who doesn't actually believe that rapid global mobility is a tool in the strategic bag just like blowing people up is. Read about the Berlin Airlift and the strategic dilemmas a bunch of transport aircraft were able to create for the Soviets, and options they created for the US, and none of those pilots were shooting pistols at targets or flying like cowboys. The ability to deliver a couple thousand tons of cargo a day, safely, is a unique and war-winning capability in the right circumstances - we need to play to our strengths, not pretend we're ACC light.

The freight rail unions going on strike would have crippled dozens of industries across the country that don't have any alternative to get their material inputs, and even getting within four days of the start of the strike would force all of the rail companies to take actions that would have ripple effects for weeks. A single airline union going on strike takes down one airline of many, with plenty of transportation alternatives as Southwest's latest debacle has shown.

I think there's a legitimate Arsenal of Democracy case to me made on top of the realpolitik aspect. It just feels damned nice, for once in the past seventy years or so, to be on the side of a no shit more or less democratic and free people who are more than willing to put their own asses in the firing line on behalf of their country. We've spent trillions and tens of thousands of American lives in defense of people who couldn't find the will to fight for their country with two hands and a map. What a cruel joke it would be if we gave the Afghans our support for twenty years but couldn't be bothered to help Ukraine.

The idea doesn't work because the same defense we purchase can act as a fleet in being to defend South Korea, Taiwan, Europe, Israel, and a bunch of other places all at once. Whereas if we subsidize Poland the Chinese can be reasonably certain the Poles won't be coming to Taiwan's aid. So you'd need to duplicate the spending a bunch of times around the world.

The RLA is way less relevant to a new hire than the ins and outs of the contract. From the outside, it's easy to know what the hourly rate is, but really hard to actually get that that number is just a multiplier and the contract will determine how many times a month you hit that multiplier.

Remember that scene from Casino where they drive Joe Pesci out to the cornfield?

It's funny because when the C-17 program was struggling, there was talk of just buying 200 more KC-10s to have more tanker and cargo capacity, at the expense of airdrop and austere fields.

Gas comes out of a boom a lot faster than a hose and drogue. That matters when you're refueling bombers who want a lot of gas.

That works fine until you've got three Pacific coronets going on at the same time and there's nowhere to park.

We're converting to the Space Shuttle. At least, that's the rumor I'm starting, because it makes about as much sense as the "everyone is turning into the Guard" rumor.

We don't "ask the American people" what they want. That's not our system. Some states have elements of direct democracy, but our federal government has zero. Intentionally. The people get to vote, and their elected representatives get to decide how to spend that money, and if the legislature decides to delegate how to spend the money to the executive, well, consider that the next time you vote.

Spending a few billion to kill Soviets is one of the best investments out government has made in a long time.

There's no guarantee of anything. I think generally you'd be sent to the IRR (technically in the reserves, but you don't show up, ever, or get paid) until your two year commissioning service commitment is done. I've heard of people being reclassed to other career fields but that's highly dependent on what leadership thinks of you and what the Air Force needs at the time. Why reclass a disgruntled failure pilot when they could pick a deserving prior-E?