FLEA

You did come across as schwacking any and all vessels which is why I got a bit defensive. I agree that targeting merchant marine vessels is legal under certain stipulations, mainly the same doctrine of distinction applicable to targeting law elsewhere. To your second part, necessity and proportionality. These are concepts that are well defined. Anytime I strike a civilian structure, I should be able to 1.) clearly articulate why destroying that structure provided a concrete military benefit by either denying, degrading, or disrupting part of the enemy war machine and 2.) demonstrate that I could not create a similar effect in any other manner that did not involve civilian casualties. If I can do both those--then need to show that the associated effect was so valuable that the overall benefit of destroying the target outweighed the harm I brought to civilians in doing so. The last 20 years has really contorted our scale and perspective of warfare, destruction and targeting. Its one of the reasons Im hesitant to jump into a shooting match with Russia or China until we've had a decade or so to recalibrate our expectations for success and for casualty. The vast majority of Americans are going to be horrified to see what the cost will be to help hold Taiwan. The political reaction to that could be so knee jerk and violent that it withdrawals the American populace from its global position.

I'm never going to advocate targeting civilians. The moral case on that has been established for decades. You can hate that if you want but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. No point in winning a war if doing so only upholds an immoral state. War is fought to preserve culture and values and if our culture and values support the massacre of innocents in the name of convenience then perhaps we deserve to be wiped out. But I don't think that's the case. Hope none of y'all are in the Ukraine thread bitching about apartment buildings being targeted and such..... Cause you know that would be a bad look.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/560-13?OpenDocument A lot has changed in international law since WW2. WW2 was pre-Geneva even and the article 4 concepts of distinction had not been designed yet.

Ah.... yeah.... massacre civilian targets, that sounds like a great strategy. Unless you can prove those merchant ships are supporting their capacity to make war you can't just blow them up with air power. You can blockade them and perform seizure but you aren't going to blockade 9000 nm of coastline with our Navy alone.

Chinese on US soil? Eh.... very low probability. US on Chinese soil? Much higher probability but still unlikely. Historically nuclear deterrence wasn't a factor in great state power competition.

My point is person for person we may outperform our opponents and that in a lot of cases is true. The problem with the China discussion and whether we would win the China conflict isn't a quality of force question though, it's a mass question. We have the largest military in the world but we do not have the largest military in Asia and we don't have the capability in our immediate future to get there without some very strategic partnerships that are extraordinarily risk adverse and fragile. I get nervous with the overconfidence of "well just make it work" after we just got our ass kicked in Afghanistan by Durkas with Cold War AK's. That was was exceptionally costly and painful and it started with a hubris that we would simply overpower the Taliban to the point they couldn't resist. Turns out we weren't capable of that. Every war has its own considerations and problems but I think simply relegating it to a person to person comparison of an individual unit.

What's your solution to solving the massive logistical hurdle needed for us to mass forces in the Pacific with very few land holdings and little support from host countries to provide infrastructure for offensive operations?

Yeah sorry guys. I'm drowning in school work and work work right now and just haven't got back to this yet.

Also, I'll drop this one here: https://www.veteransforpoliticalinnovation.org/

The problem is people are subscribing to a party and not to an ideology that belongs to themselves personally. The parties will always adjust ideology. They are not stagnant. Political parties are political organizations, and like all political organizations their singular motivation is the conglomeration of power--in this sense, by subscribing the largest electorate possible to attain their ends. What this means is, with any political issue, as soon as the party's platform on the issue becomes unpopular, they will move their platform into a position it becomes popular again. We as Americans, will work together better if we recognize that and instead of identifying as Republicans or Democrats, identify our own values. I have no problem saying I'm pro-life, pro-gun but also think we need a more robust social welfare system to help people in the trenches and some comprehensive criminal justice reform. These things make me incredibly unpopular on both sides and I don't care, because I have my own values and my own morals and I'm going to advocate those, I'm not going to advocate a party. But far too often we see people who subscribe to their party and it becomes an "us versus them" mindset. As the party's position changes their position changes as well because its not about values anymore, its about winning and losing and supporting your team.

LMAO.... probably because they all just retired and showed up at his VFW this year.

This made it fucking worth my time friend.

I'd say the AI fucking nailed it lol.

I've seen good ones and I've seen bad ones. Like most positions of trust, the best ones were though who never wanted to be there but were put there anyway, and then stood up and took responsibility anyway. The best ones violently advocated for their juniors, and for enlisted in general. They ensured that our expensive visits to the NTTR weren't just to train our ABMs or EWOs, but also our 1A3s or 1A8s. Likewise, they often tried to filter pay issues and mpf issues themselves before the CC needed to get involved. Sometimes this meant putting on an angry face and putting boots up asses. The REALLY REALLY good ones also found creative ways to mentor CGOs without appearing to be in their chili. Just subtle comments, or inputs. Nothing overbearing, and very very nuanced. I never felt like I wasnt in control with these ones but rather was reassured I was making the correct decisions.

My question is how she got such huge shoulders in #3. I think I have an idea......

I remember going to the international pub crawl in Itaewon for Halloween a few years ago while stationed at Osan and it was fucking crazy. While the event is tragic the fact it happened was 0 surprise to me. The videos are exactly what I remember when I was there.

This one didnt come censored.... i had to do that..... Also worth noting there is an algorithm to correct eyes on artificial faces like above. Ive chosen not to run it simply to save time but cross eyed-ness is rather normal in AI land.

Freaking nightmare fuel here....

Chuck Yeager Riding a Unicorn: Actual photo of Chuck You can notice it actually replicated that his eye squints more on one side than the other (but got the wrong side).

At first I thought "Shoe Clerk" was a miss. Then I realized, nope, ive totally seen these two at my finance office. The 80's grain on 2-4 is actually pretty dope.