FLEA

Sorry did I miss it? Was a NATO partner attacked by Russia in the last two months?

Opposing Russia is nowhere in the NATO charter. Not all NATO countries are staunchly anti-Russia.

Agree. I don't mind being in NATO if we spend the same as Iceland. Let's do that. We can still help Europe, well just help them as much as they help themselves.

He says as he forgot about WW1s lessons on strung out and complicated alliances with no defined objectives.

You're nitpicking. The idea that support for NATO is a mainstream left opinion over a mainstream right opinion is a 100% fact. 87% would be considered mainstream by any reasonable person.

Why yes actually. That is 100% true.

It's the size that's mostly problematic. Things like FIVEEYES are good because there is a cultural connection that ensures the defense of similar values and the agreement is small enough to keep quagmires small. The problem with NATO is it's too big to succeed. If simply making bigger alliances was the secret to world security we would just ally everyone. But we are not doing that. Turkey may or may not approve the new ascension. I can see them going either way. If they approve it, it would be at cost of a significant quid quo pro. I don't fault Turkey for this. They are acting in their interests. But I think there is a prevailing myth that our interest is directly tied to the size and might of NATO when in fact the alliance offers diminishing returns the larger it gets.

https://www.newsweek.com/turkey-poised-deliver-massive-win-putin-nato-expansion-1706518 Stuff like this is why I feel this alliance is sometimes a waste of time. You have one state that doesn't agree with the other 30 and now your entire strategy is uprooted. Furthermore, there isnt much we can do about it. Even if we were to find the legal mechanism to remove Turkey from the alliance, it would be extraordinarily difficult to do. Turkey has really strategic terrain to the alliance and not all of the 29 remaining states may think they should go. If only one supports Turkey, than Turkey stays. How do you hold resolute and appear resolved when the internal politics of your own organization are in turmoil. This is not the only thing going on with Turkey as well. Turkey's activities in northern Syria and against Syrian Kurds who helped defeat ISIS is extremely troubling.

https://coffeeordie.com/bronze-star-kabul-evacuation/ Phenomenal Navy O-3 I owe some friends lives to. Super happy she was recognized.

https://www.sciencealert.com/transplanting-poo-from-a-younger-mouse-could-help-stave-off-the-effects-of-aging They know about the spice..... The slice melange....

One thing I've found particularly interesting about the recent SCOTUS opinion, the complete LACK of coverage on typically liberal CNN. Seriously, I check CNN daily for headlines and it has not headlined once on their website. When Chris Licht replaced Jeff Zucker as CEO he said CNN would be stepping back from politically polarizing content and I thought "haha, yeah ok." But I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt now. The vast majority of their web publishing has been focused and emphasized on Ukraine. There are Roe v Wade articles that generally lean left on CNN but they are down in the footers and usually don't get a photo or bold face. Is it possible some semblance of sanity is coming to the US?

Makes me think of this.... Ever been to the Philippines.... 🤮

I would argue that you could add the current protest at SCOTUS justice homes onto that list since I recently learned it is actually against federal law to protest outside the home of a justice deciding a case. (Considered judicial intimidation, same as jury intimidation) I said I wouldn't wade into a Roe v Wade discussion but I am baffled by the tolerance and even encouragement of this behavior.

I'm not 100% certain TBH. I was under the impression that it was all adverse information for O-4 and above, and any adverse info that resulted in significant media attention for O-3.

Not sure what you mean. I was responding to dream bigs RUMINT on 5 year windows. It just doesn't jive because obviously disciplinary action could be outside those 5 years and would by law be required to meet the promotion board. That's directly contradictory to his post in which his RUMINT was that only disciplinary actions within the scope of the 5 year windows would be reviewed.

Primarily by combat arms users in the army. But doesn't 3M also make some of spongies we as aircrew use? This might be a case to follow if you have hearing loss....

I find it hard to believe only because right now federal law says promotion boards for officers must see ALL disciplinary against an officer. I believe that was passed as part of the 2018 or 2019 NDAA.

Agree. We also need to mask all strats and records from a prior promotion board on a subsequent promotion board. Basically, once you promote, you get a clean slate. People don't get to ride a good record early in their career up through Wing command. Similarly, having a rough start doesn't automatically preclude you from making an amazing turnaround later.

Unfortunately 11Rs are their own worse enemy in the AF. Been in the community for a while and the "bus driver" culture runs very strong. Was ridiculed by an evaluator as a young copilot for reading our 3-1 once. I'm not saying this is Demonrats case, but by and large the pilot community in many 11R aircraft attempts to remain as little engaged to the mission as possible, but then laments when positions like squadron and predominantly go to ABMs or EWOs.

Yeah but wing strats mean very little. I was top 5% of my YG for years only to find out when I went up for school that about 25% of the wing was top 5% of their YG. The amount of gamesmanship that goes on behind the scenes with stratification is frankly asinine.

Not really going to wade into this debate but, if you are a pro-choicer, please don't be this ginormous fucking stupid. https://www.foxnews.com/media/conservatives-roast-comedy-writer-mourns-miscarriages-delete-account This infuriates me. My wife had two miscarriages. The second one nearly led to her successful suicide. It took years for her to get over that and she still wakes up with nightmares on occasion about it.

Sort of yes and no. It's not good for conservatives, but this wasn't really part of their strategy. It's a SCOTUS decision and SCOTUS doesn't get to plan the timing of their decisions. So while the timing is unfortunate, amounting it to their strategy really isn't. The Conservative side of SCOTUS could have tried to rule in a different direction but that creates more layers of stare decices that has to be cut through. They also couldn't have controlled the deliberate leak of a draft ruling, which supposedly is disinformation since we are calling leaks that make things look bad disinformation now, I dunno?

Honest question to Demonrat. Since the SCOTUS decision was illicitly leaked does that story comprise disinformation now that should be suppressed? Why isn't the media suppressing this like the Hunter Biden laptop or the Hilary Clinton emails? Shouldn't this be wiped from record until the election like those stories were?

You are at exactly where I am on this; and yes, familiar with all of the above including proposed solutions to some of those issues. As you've mentioned some significant engineering hurdles that still need to be solved. The question is, is the E-7 truly a bridge while we solve those, or will it become a distraction that leads to kicking them further down the road. You mentioned the Pacific. I think the Pacific shows the truest need for the next generation because distributed sensors can provide a wider footprint and a singular COP. But you are correct, lots of logistics hurdles there.

I think his point is..... Take cavalry vs tanks in WW1. Cavalry charged into tanks and died, and a lot of leaders recognized the era for cavalry was over. But the AF sat on their swivel chair and said "nah..... Out cavalry just aren't fast enough to reach the tanks before they get shot, we need faster cavalry!" And so they spend millions of dollars investing in breeding and stock selection and breed 10% faster cavalry. Send them to battle, and they still get slaughtered. So then the AF said "well clearly they still aren't fast enough! Let's make a new generation that's even faster!" And they invested more millions into equine genetic research and genome mapping and cloned some cavalry that were 5% faster. Then sent them into battle and they all got slaughtered. And rather than realize the age of cavalry was over, the AF said, "ok industry, we are serious, faster cavalry is a requirement, what do you have out there?" But at the end of the day.... It was never about the horses speed, it was about recognizing that tanks offset the playing field and we needed something new to replace the cavalry, not just better cavalry. That's sort of what I see happening with the E-7. The AF is convinced it just needs a better or newer AWACS. It may not recognize that with modern fighter sensors, the entire concept of the AWACS may not be needed, and may be a liability. There is potentially something else that provides C2 functions but in a different manner than airborne crews and surveillance.