SurelySerious

As opposed to having them focus on being “warriors” instead of doing their job? I say have them take ownership of what they actually are.

It’s not a non sequitur when you argue that law enforcement should be held accountable according to what you view as moral instead of what is codified as law. That was your entire argument 50 minutes ago. Sure, you can say what you want, but you didn’t merely say you thought it was wrong, you argued others should be held to what you view is wrong instead of what is in the law. It does indeed follow then that we are legally accountable to the law, and not to your thoughts.

You can’t hold law enforcement accountable to your morality, only what is codified as law. If you think there is a disparity, you should lobby your elected representatives.

Legality entails the Constitution inherently, and working off of one’s own morality instead of said legality is vigilantism. If you think the laws are inadequate, you should probably consult your elected officials.

Are we to act on one’s own morality then, or within the law? Because there are plenty of things that different groups of people consider immoral that are legal.

Hagia Sophia: “Erdoğan’s decision to convert the building back into a mosque is thus a dramatic reflection of his slow but steady victory over Atatürk and his secular legacy [and reaching back to the Ottoman past]” A Better Plan for Istanbul's Hagia Sophia.pdf Ah, good. Trying to bring it back like Putin and Soviet “glory.”

Which is I think a bad position to take. As stupid as I think the destruction is, painting your own citizens as a wartime enemy isn’t good. But I also see videos from Portland where people are using guerrilla tactics trying to burn down federal buildings. Clearly some people think the USG is the enemy.

Yeah it’s pretty simple: the image of warrior isn’t helpful in recruiting when most of your people don’t do that thing because you’re probably not reaching the diverse people you need to do modern skill sets that have nothing to do with being a Ranger. Like all the cyber/comm functions that there are probably people who are really good at that we don’t attract because they don’t even bother because most marketing is of dudes running around kitted out in a desert. Yeah, the airpeople is stupid and whatever about the bodywash marketing, but the point is real. The AF is still going to get the 10% of the people it needs to actually go do combat in the skies and whatnot if it were to more accurately assess itself as mostly not-special-operators. Even the Army is 50% support. Taking warrior out of the creed (Or just getting rid of said creed) would not be the end of the world you’re trying to paint. It would probably help the 90% of desk jockeys embrace what they actually do and maybe take some pride in their work so I don’t have to learn finance every time I go TDY. Edit, and totally unrelated to the main point, this is one of the better explanations of the basic governmental relationship from citizen to the military: “I loaned away my power and right to violence to a section of government in return for protection. The military gets to be violent FOR ME in order to reduce violence overall. As part of that same contract, I need to have a role in oversight so that loan of my power isn’t abused and that my tax money is spent smartly. I execute this role by voting for representatives (as a US citizen, that’s my Congressperson, Senators, and the President) so I can go spend my time doing other things.3 This relationship means the military in western democracies are managing up to the people they are responsible to: their (mostly) civilian citizens.4 As a result, they have very different communications goals than a company trying to complete a transaction. Because of this militaries need to make sure that citizens care in an empathetic manner and have a vague understanding of the issues involving the military, so that when I go to the ballot box, or (dare I say) call or write to one of my representatives, I should have vague ideas about the military if they want me to advocate a policy preference. In return, my representatives are supposed to tell my military what to do on my behalf and provide for its needs. Otherwise, I won’t ever develop opinions that I can act on about, say, if the F-35 is a boondoggle5 or should dress shoes be made of plastic for military uniforms. And I especially need to understand these issues when my country goes to war and deploys soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors somewhere.”

For as much as you decry ad hominem and straw man, you sure do a lot of it.

“The term warrior, as a brand marketing term for militaries in western democracies, should be permanently junked; it sells an impossible image for soldiers, marines, airpeople, and sailors to live up to while preventing the civilian population from executing its oversight function.” How many times is that in the stupid creed again, for a force where like 5% of people do war fighting and 80% sit behind a desk?

I think the real well done was RB mx team getting the damaged car ready for the grid. Mercedes is boring, but there was some uncertainty in the midfield, especially with the rain.

Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months. Probably not. To play devil’s advocate: it is a form of not giving consent.

Sounds suuuuuuper receptive to other ideas.

Good points; although single hellfires and airburst 38s/54s are all known to have people walk away from what appear to be direct hits. When SOF take out someone important, they don’t use single weapons.

Disregard my outdated info Orbit. Thanks for the update.

Probably pretty low since they’ll need to cannibalize the boom flight computer to keep the remaining jets airworthy. edit: for those not familiar the -10 boom flight control computer is a diminished supplier item no longer available, and since it ties into the aircraft’s AP and FLCS you can’t just plug in a new model without recertifying the airframe. In my child like understanding.

APKWS is where it’s at.

I’ll buy that aspect. Another bonus is if you 1:1 into the ANG units that already fulfill that mission in the C model, in theory transition is minimal from the amateur perspective.

I thought the EX was much less about Boeing production, and was put on contract because we finally realized the C model may have a sweet new radar but the airframe is 40 years old and ready to crump while we still rely on it for a mission. Politicians from MO probably have the view centric to the production line and jobs, though, so maybe there is that perspective.

No, no. We get that. He’s questioning the lunacy of it all.

So back to the point of we provide nearly all the medical innovation. It’s a bit like NATO. We do all the spending to provide the blanket of defense, incur the wear and tear on equipment, and spend lots on people. The other member countries spend a lot less and probably look like their military models are way better because it doesn’t take as much money, but they get the same level of relative security. If you go to a system that disincentivizes medical innovation, what then? Edit: our life expectancies are also lower because a lot of Americans choose to make unhealthy life decisions like being overweight. Medical systems can only work so many miracles.

Light Attack is supposed to be low cost. Have you read the white paper on how much commercial satellite bandwidth costs for RPAs? It’s Raptors money. While we conveniently never report that in the cost per flying hour, most countries can’t afford it. OCO funding hides that pretty well.

That; the whole show digs all the way back to development of CAS concepts in WWII and Bronco in Vietnam etc.

Clark, just watched a show on the Smithsonian Channel about the OV-10 and their role in Iraq 2015 using APKWS. I know it’s not Scorpion, but good stuff.

That about describes the mental status of most WSOs, physically present in the airframe or not, so it’s been demonstrated at multiple RF vuls. Shots fired!