It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Strategic Command deletes and apologizes for gung-ho NYE tweet

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Witness2008

It comes from a secret disdain many of them have for the military. They miss the old days of the 60s and 70s when it was cool to treat vets like #. They think we're all dumb, uneducated hicks that waste all of the US's money (hint: the majority of US federal spending is on domestic programs).


Firstly, disdain for the organized and armed goes back into pre-history. When people are scraping to survive, farming and trading and such, the military represent a strain on resources and people who otherwise might have an easier time, get unavoidably pressed into service, depriving them and their families.

Sometimes the outcome of battles have been positive for the community but because you can't un-kill the dead, battles can be lost and the reasons for the battles, in the first place, are usually independent of the lives of the general public, the vast majority of military actions are the enemies of prosperity and peace.


Not sure where you got the idea that I thought disdain for the military was a new phenomenon. That's an awful lot of negativity though without any regard for the positives of having a strong military. Ask Ukraine right now whether they wish they had a military like ours.


Secondly, it is entirely rational and necessary that US Federal spending be on itself. What many disagree with is the proportion of Federal spending that goes to the military. The US spends more money both per capita and in total, than any other nation on Earth, including ones who are actively at war.
This is actually false. The only way you'll get the US to look like it's spending absurd amounts of money on it's military is with dollar-for-dollar comparisons, which is why that's the only way the media ever looks at it. Using any sensible metric, like percentage of GDP, per capita, percentage of federal budget, the US aren't even the top spender in the world (this is specifically why the media only shows it in terms of outright dollars. Yet, for every other comparison between countries, they use percentage of GDP - even the NATO budget, they look at percentage of GDP because if they used outright dollars it makes the other countries look like dirtbags for not spending enough on NATO). There's a link in my sig to a thread about it, if you're interested in getting informed on the topic.


Since the US has no real current military threats


This is also false. I'd advise you to give the National Defense Strategy a read.


wouldn't it be good stewardship to reign in spending in as many areas as possible, especially in areas that do not have an impact on actual security (Things like large scale live munition training exercises). Consider other threat response services like the fire brigades or police. Do they have large scale and expensive multi-state training exercises, or do they trust the individual training and equipment and just get on with the job?


That's actually a terrible comparison. First of all, many police forces do do large scale training exercises this day and age. The police departments of large cities have anti-terrorism units, disaster response units, and all kinds of other operations they train for that are above and beyond their traditional duties. Secondly, neither police nor fire departments have to deal with strategic considerations. I realize I'm talking to a wall here because you don't understand the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic goals (no offense, it's just clear you don't really have any knowledge in this area). You'd have to do a lot more reading and studying on the subject than I can give you in a forum post to truly understand why the US military does what it does.

As far as money, you could cut our defense budget completely in half and we'd still be running huge deficits. Our deficit and debt isn't driven by our military budget, it's driven by domestic spending and social programs.

ETA: I don't know everything about military strategy either. There's a reason we have a school for it that officers have to attend as they advance in rank. Civilians rarely think beyond tactical terms though, and you can't grasp the concepts being discussed here if that's all you think about.
edit on 1 1 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Witness2008

It comes from a secret disdain many of them have for the military. They miss the old days of the 60s and 70s when it was cool to treat vets like #. They think we're all dumb, uneducated hicks that waste all of the US's money (hint: the majority of US federal spending is on domestic programs).


Firstly, disdain for the organized and armed goes back into pre-history. When people are scraping to survive, farming and trading and such, the military represent a strain on resources and people who otherwise might have an easier time, get unavoidably pressed into service, depriving them and their families.

Sometimes the outcome of battles have been positive for the community but because you can't un-kill the dead, battles can be lost and the reasons for the battles, in the first place, are usually independent of the lives of the general public, the vast majority of military actions are the enemies of prosperity and peace.


Not sure where you got the idea that I thought disdain for the military was a new phenomenon. That's an awful lot of negativity though without any regard for the positives of having a strong military. Ask Ukraine right now whether they wish they had a military like ours.


There is no possible way for me to do so.



Secondly, it is entirely rational and necessary that US Federal spending be on itself. What many disagree with is the proportion of Federal spending that goes to the military. The US spends more money both per capita and in total, than any other nation on Earth, including ones who are actively at war.
This is actually false. The only way you'll get the US to look like it's spending absurd amounts of money on it's military is with dollar-for-dollar comparisons, which is why that's the only way the media ever looks at it. Using any sensible metric, like percentage of GDP, per capita, percentage of federal budget, the US aren't even the top spender in the world (this is specifically why the media only shows it in terms of outright dollars. Yet, for every other comparison between countries, they use percentage of GDP - even the NATO budget, they look at percentage of GDP because if they used outright dollars it makes the other countries look like dirtbags for not spending enough on NATO). There's a link in my sig to a thread about it, if you're interested in getting informed on the topic.


Since the US has no real current military threats


This is also false. I'd advise you to give the National Defense Strategy a read.


I am not talking about past or future threats. I used the word "currently". No country is actively threatening to go to war with the US at this time.

Potentially, a country might possibly try, or perhaps a terrorist group, but it would be very damaging for them and not necessarily as damaging for the US.



wouldn't it be good stewardship to reign in spending in as many areas as possible, especially in areas that do not have an impact on actual security (Things like large scale live munition training exercises). Consider other threat response services like the fire brigades or police. Do they have large scale and expensive multi-state training exercises, or do they trust the individual training and equipment and just get on with the job?


That's actually a terrible comparison. First of all, many police forces do do large scale training exercises this day and age. The police departments of large cities have anti-terrorism units, disaster response units, and all kinds of other operations they train for that are above and beyond their traditional duties. Secondly, neither police nor fire departments have to deal with strategic considerations. I realize I'm talking to a wall here because you don't understand the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic goals (no offense, it's just clear you don't really have any knowledge in this area). You'd have to do a lot more reading and studying on the subject than I can give you in a forum post to truly understand why the US military does what it does.


You have no way of knowing what I know, or don't.

I might just as validly say that because you seem to be in the military, that you have no knowledge of the real world.


As far as money, you could cut our defense budget completely in half and we'd still be running huge deficits. Our deficit and debt isn't driven by our military budget, it's driven by domestic spending and social programs.


As it should be.


ETA: I don't know everything about military strategy either. There's a reason we have a school for it that officers have to attend as they advance in rank. Civilians rarely think beyond tactical terms though, and you can't grasp the concepts being discussed here if that's all you think about.


In my time as a defense contractor, I came across something that seems pervasive only in the military.

We called it "the golden hammer".

Basically, fairly mundane stuff (like a hammer) was produced to military engineering specifications that were vastly beyond practical requirements. The result was that items (like hammers) were being produced at vast and unreasonable cost.

I personally watched as a small metal part, made of normal steel extruded rod, approx 1/4" x 1/4" x 1 1/2" with a single beveled side, was produced to exacting standards (Two 10,000ths of an inch tolerance and similarly accurate angular measurements). It was described as "Latch".

It cost us the equivalent of about $300 Australian dollars per unit to produce and and we produced hundreds of them.

In an uncharacteristic non-compartmentalization of information, I looked at the accompanying engineering drawings and discovered that it was just to hold up food trays out of the way, behind aircraft seats!

Expensive military doesn't mean better military - remember the golden hammer!




posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You could say that about me, with no evidence to support such a claim. On the other hand, your posts here easily support my claim about you. This post further reinforced what I said. No one currently threatening us with war doesn't mean you downsize the military. Last time we waited for conflicts to start before we ramped up military production, we got WW1 and WW2. Since we've kept our military large, there have been only small regional conflicts. The wars we haven't fought are the benefits of that. Not to mention R&D takes a long time. Waiting until a conflict starts to try to R&D the best technology will get a lot more of our people killed than needed to be if we kept up with technology as it advanced. It's money well spent, and it's not like we don't spend trillions on everyone else's pet projects too.

I'm well aware of the waste there is in the military, like in any government-run agency. That's a product of a number of things which are present in every government program. That's why "let the government do it" is a bad solution to any problem, unless it's something you absolutely can't do through the private sector. The military would be such a thing, unless you think it would be a good idea to actually make war an industry and privatize the entire thing like mercenaries. Now, I'm all for trying to minimize waste to save money, and we have several programs in DoD aimed at doing just that. But cutting the military budget just because you think the money would be better used elsewhere and don't understand our strategic posture is not a good idea. You really should read the document I suggested, but again, it appears you're not interested in actually getting informed on this subject.

You've gotten several things factually wrong in this discussion and haven't recognized or acknowledged any of them. You could learn a great deal from the current and former military members here, but it appears you have no desire to do so. It looks like you just want to spout off whatever talking points you think support your anti-military position, even though what you've mostly been doing is showing your inadequate knowledge to even engage on this subject. Get in one last uninformed reply. I'll be moving along. At this point the thread is dead and I'm just talking to you, and you're neither knowledgeable enough on this subject to hold a real conversation with nor open minded enough to learn.
edit on 1 1 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


As a veteran myself, my opinion is this: that post should never have been tweeted. For one, it wasn't funny like I think they were trying to make it, and two, it just seems to lack professionalism. Its a waste of time and resources and in this day and age everyone will get offended anyway. Just keep that stuff under wraps. Yeah, everyone knows we can blow stuff up, but is it necessary to flaunt? Its like who has the biggest _____! WHO CARES!



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

Yeah but
I am a private citizen not a government body who can and has killed many people

"In times square they drop a big ball but we are ready to drop something bigger"
If that doesnt cause you an issue then well done to you



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Why have a military be proud of what they do every day? We should instead seek to demoralize them. Because that's not dangerous at all.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I am pretty sure they wanted to drop a nuclear bomb for new years to show a force.
Either way that was tasteless.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


As far as military spending goes, I'm sure it would decrease by major amounts if the U.S taxpayer weren't protecting a lot of other nations around the world. Is it O.K if we taxpayers spend more on the military if that means having the new technology that can be deployed in order to actually save more lives during conflict?



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: chr0naut

You could say that about me, with no evidence to support such a claim.


Which was precisely my point. You also have no evidence about me to support your point.


On the other hand, your posts here easily support my claim about you.


Do they?

I was challenging your (and others) posts.


This post further reinforced what I said. No one currently threatening us with war doesn't mean you downsize the military.


Yes, it does.

When should a country review military budget, with a view to achieving savings, in the middle of a war?


Last time we waited for conflicts to start before we ramped up military production, we got WW1 and WW2.


Neither war was because of the unpreparedness of the US.

The First World War began in 1914, the US entered the war in 1917. The Second World War began in 1939 the US entered the war in 1941. Years late to the defense of the free world, in both cases and not a matter for national pride.


Since we've kept our military large, there have been only small regional conflicts.


That's just a matter of history. I don't think you can attribute it to 'the protection of military might' because it definitely hasn't stopped any of the 370 or so other conflicts since the close of WW2.


The wars we haven't fought are the benefits of that.


Which wars haven't you fought?



Since WW2, you guys have been more gung-ho than any nation, ever.


Not to mention R&D takes a long time. Waiting until a conflict starts to try to R&D the best technology will get a lot more of our people killed than needed to be if we kept up with technology as it advanced. It's money well spent, and it's not like we don't spend trillions on everyone else's pet projects too.


The rate of technological growth is accelerating to levels far beyond those during wartime.

One might argue that war had only a minor effect on technological growth and that it is a symptom rather than a cause.


I'm well aware of the waste there is in the military, like in any government-run agency. That's a product of a number of things which are present in every government program. That's why "let the government do it" is a bad solution to any problem, unless it's something you absolutely can't do through the private sector. The military would be such a thing, unless you think it would be a good idea to actually make war an industry and privatize the entire thing like mercenaries.


I was suggesting that there be a reevaluation of military spending.

Regardless of privatization, or not, the secrecy surrounding militarily technology also means an absence of adequate oversight. It is inefficient, open to corrupt misuse and always will be.


Now, I'm all for trying to minimize waste to save money, and we have several programs in DoD aimed at doing just that. But cutting the military budget just because you think the money would be better used elsewhere and don't understand our strategic posture is not a good idea. You really should read the document I suggested, but again, it appears you're not interested in actually getting informed on this subject.

You've gotten several things factually wrong in this discussion and haven't recognized or acknowledged any of them. You could learn a great deal from the current and former military members here, but it appears you have no desire to do so. It looks like you just want to spout off whatever talking points you think support your anti-military position, even though what you've mostly been doing is showing your inadequate knowledge to even engage on this subject. Get in one last uninformed reply. I'll be moving along. At this point the thread is dead and I'm just talking to you, and you're neither knowledgeable enough on this subject to hold a real conversation with nor open minded enough to learn.


Yeah, you are probably right, I'm an awful ignorant, opinionated and bigoted person. Typically for me, I don't particularly care about what label you wish to attach to me. Water off a duck's back.

But then, every thing you have said about me might also be directed straight back at you (I have done so a few times).

The thing is, people are actually dying at this very moment due to things like preventable disease, illegal (and legal) drugs and crime. Money spent on these issues will absolutely now save lives at risk, right now! Money spent on possible threats is, for the most part, wasted in comparison with the real and present threats than cannot be resolved militarily.

So, do you seek to save a real person, or do you wave a speculative document (which I have read) that ignores the tremendous waste of money inherent in 'the military industrial complex', at me again?

edit on 1/1/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: chr0naut


As far as military spending goes, I'm sure it would decrease by major amounts if the U.S taxpayer weren't protecting a lot of other nations around the world. Is it O.K if we taxpayers spend more on the military if that means having the new technology that can be deployed in order to actually save more lives during conflict?


I agree.

But guns and bombs are not particularly effective at resuscitation.

Safer more efficient transportation, agricultural equipment like tillers and harvesters, water management systems like well digging equipment and de-salinizers/purifiers, medical equipment and medications and healthy non-perishable foods are useful tech that can save lives, but they only do so if shared out.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Safer more efficient transportation, agricultural equipment like tillers and harvesters, water management systems like well digging equipment and de-salinizers/purifiers, medical equipment and medications and healthy non-perishable foods are useful tech that can save lives, but they only do so if shared out.


Ya. O.K. That should all help if China or any other country decided to pick a fight with us. Oh ya, we Americans and our tax dollars already do all of those things for other nations.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I saw the tweet and the video numerous times. Clue (not an atomic bomb) There was no way in the tweet that said anyone was going to drop bombs on us and definitely not NYC Times Square. I do not understand where any human being on this planet sees otherwise that actually read the tweet. I got "Just in case" ... we have a bigger ball IF needed is what I took from it.

I read many of the tweets after the post and it was like "omgerd" their gonna kill us all at Times Square", so I didn't look further.

I used to work near Tinker AFB and watched these bad boys fly out right over my head...most awesome thing I've seen. I love batwings.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   
There's a time and a place to gloat about the military and it's toys.

Holidays ain't it. That was so far from classy it borders on scraping the bottom of the barrel to look witty.



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: chr0naut



Safer more efficient transportation, agricultural equipment like tillers and harvesters, water management systems like well digging equipment and de-salinizers/purifiers, medical equipment and medications and healthy non-perishable foods are useful tech that can save lives, but they only do so if shared out.


Ya. O.K. That should all help if China or any other country decided to pick a fight with us. Oh ya, we Americans and our tax dollars already do all of those things for other nations.


Why would China want to fight against the US?

The US can't even build a wall. China got that much sorted 2.5 millennia ago. They could advise.


edit on 2/1/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
What do you think the military is for?


It's so NORAD can track Santa and his sleigh every Christmas Eve.


It's almost fun to watch Civilians that don't have a clue.


originally posted by: Nyiah
There's a time and a place to gloat about the military and it's toys. Holidays ain't it. That was so far from classy it borders on scraping the bottom of the barrel to look witty.


You do realize we're sitting on the edge of a Second Cold War, right? Hiding our head in the sand doesn't help either.

Sorry if the kids were scared, tho.
edit on 2-1-2019 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   




edit on 3-1-2019 by FlyingFox because: freedom



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 12:13 AM
link   
"Dropping bombs" could just as well be a metaphor. That's how I took it.







 
21
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join