While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[Thlayli]

I don't have that problem. God frowns on your free verse. BACK TO THE METER.

 

[Symphony D.]

I, as a clerihew,
Tend to be merry; too
Merry, it might, perhaps, by some, be claimed;
But I'm sure that these people are wrong, and need to be grievously maimed.

 

[Grandkhan]

Tim and I a hunting went,
And spied three virgins in a tent,
they so many, we so few,
I bucked one, and Timbuktu.

 

[Symphony D.]

An interesting American phenomenon: martyrizing the armed forces ("suport are truups") while denying them the funds or resources necessary to do their job, thus making them more likely to be combat ineffective (read: die), making them martyrs. Of course we slashed your budget in the name of our fake self-serving ideology. But I mean, we put you on a pedestal, so it's okay, right? Right?

something something similar pattern to sexist objectification of women

 

[Symphony D.]

Someone put some Homestuck graphics to this and randomly change some of the letters to numbers, we'll take the political cartoon market by storm. Look out, Doonesbury, we're coming for you!

1: you see the all-volunteer force leads to the increasing ease of being imperialist because it disassociates the civilian populace from the military because they have no stake or risk involved with military actions

2: ...

1: what do you mean all actors involved wanted this split because the military was sick of dealing with conscripts and civilians were sick of being conscripted no it's a conspiracy

2: ...

1: haha what do you mean the only way to relink the two would be to do something like reimplement the draft or some sort of compulsory government service or actually producing citizens educated on and interested in foreign policy and affairs i mean that's dumb i only point out the problems i don't offer solutions (secretly: i mean really i am an inheritor of the pre-wwii isolationist strain of thought we should just demilitarize what's the worst that could happen it's not like there are historical references to consult on this matter)

 

[Thlayli]

An interesting American phenomenon: martyrizing the armed forces ("suport are truups") while denying them the funds or resources necessary to do their job, thus making them more likely to be combat ineffective (read: die), making them martyrs. Of course we slashed your budget in the name of our fake self-serving ideology. But I mean, we put you on a pedestal, so it's okay, right? Right?

something something similar pattern to sexist objectification of women

Admittedly, less money for our troops is still way more money than anyone else's troops get. Not that it's okay to stiff them, but.

 

[Symphony D.]

Admittedly, less money for our troops is still way more money than anyone else's troops get. Not that it's okay to stiff them, but.

Actually several Western European militaries are unionized and have historically received greater benefits and have had greater leverage over such things as overtime, benefits, and so on, than our forces do. The Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Austrian, Swedish, and Norwegian militaries were all set up this way, as was the FRG. There was at one time a push to unionize the American military. Military wages relative to responsibility have consistently shrunk and although pay and benefits makes up an increasing portion of the budget, the military is losing competitiveness with the civilian job market. Also, really, I was talking about systems acquisition and the logistics train and such, given Congress repeatedly drops the ball on things like Sequestration and BRAC.

Thanks for playing though.

e: Also it amazed me that during the Bush years, (stupid) people were afraid he'd reimplement the draft, when if anything that'd have significantly ******** his Neocon ambitions; meanwhile, some (stupid) people earnestly believed Obama would unionize the military, despite running a broadly similar if rebranded foreign policy.

 

[Thlayli]

I was just talking about spending as a proportion of GDP.

 

[Symphony D.]

That's a really silly way of analyzing how money is being spent, but okay.

 

[Symphony D.]

Have you ever meditated on the irony of Randroids parroting a degenerate version of her ideology describing themselves as "self-made" people?

"I am the master of my own fate let me tell you about the cult that made it all possible!"

 

[Luckymoose]

The people who hate gays are the same who hated blacks are the same who didn't want to end slavery are the same who hated natives are the same who...

 

[Symphony D.]

It all leads to one place.


Link to video.

 

[Symphony D.]

I was just talking about spending as a proportion of GDP.

Actually I want to come back to this more because I hate this kind of way of thinking about these things like it's just "Well, we threw 43EP at the military, what more do you want?"

So here's what jerks in Congress don't get about the military budget: we have a certain number of platforms (e.g., F-16, M1A2, Nimitz class, etc) that require a certain bare minimum amount of money to run and maintain in order to keep our forces at a certain level of readiness and to retain perishable skills (e.g., B-52 bomber crew conventional and nuclear mission proficiency). We also have certain future requirements we have to invest into (e.g., LRSB, KC-46, Gerald R. Ford class, M1A3, etc) to extend or replace these systems out into the future. We have logistics costs. We have personnel costs. There is a level beyond which you cannot cut funding any more and have these things continue to work as intended or as necessary. There is a level beyond which you are faced with a choice: reduce overhead [eliminate systems (e.g., A-10, U-2), terminate development (e.g., CSAR-X), close bases (e.g., BRAC), reduce personnel, etc] or reduce readiness.

The United States is past that level with the effects of Sequestration. There is not enough money for our military to do what it needs to do to be fully functional with what it has. Given that a military is a nation's insurance policy against unforeseen and unforeseeable events, I don't think I need to belabor the point of why reducing readiness is bad.

That leaves reducing overhead. So, for example, USAF wants to retire the A-10, because it's a one-trick pony whose mission can be filled by other systems and eliminating an entire system saves a lot more money than reducing several systems. Congress, lead by the spittle of idiots like Sen. Kelly Ayotte, whose husband was an A-10 pilot, says "No, you can't do that," because she (and people like her) thinks her B.A. in Political Science and J.D. and a few anecdotes makes her better qualified to determine what the Pentagon needs than all its officers and acquisitions officials.

This is, of course, nothing new, Congress often saddles the military with things it doesn't want or need in the name or pork barrel spending, and denies it things it does want or need. They want to preserve bases or manufacturing in their districts. The difference is that this time, the people who are demanding the military not cut anything... are the same people who forced the military into this situation in the first place by imposing Sequestration. (And who threatened to tank the global economy by defaulting. And who tried their damnedest to ruin the US's credit rating. And who...) These people then get up and drape themselves in the flag, droning on and on about how much they love our troops, when they have done everything to screw them (and by extension, the United States) over at every opportunity, primarily because they have an irrational hatred for Obama (hint: it's because he's black) and his policies, that are remarkably similar to what they themselves have proposed and implemented in the past (e.g., Romneycare, 90s healthcare reform debate), again, because Obama is black.

So we're stuck reducing readiness.

These same people who have just 1. taken an axe to the US military budget, 2. refused to let the US military do what it needs to do to operate within that reduced budget, and 3. who astoundingly claim to be pro-military in spite of all that, then turn around and 4. throw $225 million at Iron Dome, a system made in Israel, by Israeli companies, using Israeli workers, for Israel (and Singapore of all people), when Israel is not a poor nation and in fact enjoys a GDP per capita higher than Italy (and really, only "needs" Iron Dome because of a situation it itself helps perpetuate). To be fair, the Democrats joined in on this one too, because AIPAC is an evil corrupting influence that will call you an anti-Semite if you dare besmirch Israeli policy. These people also 5. demand we use military force everywhere we possibly can, in Iran, in Iraq, in Syria, in Ukraine... ("omg y wil obummer no deploy militaree we hav kripled to start wwiii wid russins??? wut a koward, i wud have started ww3 in 2011" - John Sidney McCain III, Inner Thoughts, 2014)

And they don't want to pay for any of it, because they're principled deficit hawks.

In other words, Congress is unwilling to give the American military what it says it needs to do its job protecting America within the confines that Congress itself has set, but they will throw unneeded money at Israel, and will constantly try and throw the American military at any problem they can even though they themselves have directly undermined its ability to be of utility. But that's okay because suppert are truups. We'll set you up to fail and send you off abroad to see that it happens but we'll be sure to say a few nice words when you come home in a coffin!

The fact that we spend the most money in the world on defense in absolute terms doesn't really mean a goddamn thing in the face of this because if our forces are hollow, all that money is really just being wasted. If we spent the entire budget of the Department of Defense, about $600 billion, on purchasing exclusively 5.56mm ammunition, one could still claim that we spent the same percent of GDP on defense, but it would not have represented an effective or intelligent purchase. And that is why looking at this from that level is terrible.

tl;dr Republicans hate the military and hate America and most of their Congressional activity can be understood as screaming "I FEEL YOUR EMBRACE AMERICA, I LOVE YOU, I LOVE YOU SO MUCH" while repeatedly stabbing both in the eyes. Ted Cruz is a communist agent sent by Fidel Castro and Paul Ryan is a KGB plant.

 

[Daftpanzer]

Hypothesis: politicans = (approximate to) corporations and banks. Corporations and banks want indefinite militarisation / military adventurism (for profit) but don't want to pay for it (or the conditions that allow it). Therefore resulting in the state of affairs Symphony described.

 

[Shadowbound]

Hanlon's Razor is more appropriate.

 

[Kozmos]

Hypothesis: politicans = (approximate to) corporations and banks. Corporations and banks want indefinite militarisation / military adventurism (for profit) but don't want to pay for it (or the conditions that allow it). Therefore resulting in the state of affairs Symphony described.

Corporations (except defence contractors) and banks usually don't profit that much from it. By all means peace is much more profitable.

 

[Symphony D.]

Daft just because the Chinese are dropping leaflets doesn't mean you should believe everything you read.

 

[Kozmos]

I wonder how it would be like today if MacArthur used the bomb.

 

[Symphony D.]

Going by this:

On 9 December MacArthur said that he wanted commander’s discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theatre. On 24 December he submitted “a list of retardation targets” for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the “invasion forces” and four more for “critical concentrations of enemy air power”.

In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: “I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria”. Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then “spread behind us - from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea - a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North.” He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: “My plan was a cinch” (12)

[...]

Although Ridgway said nothing about a cobalt bomb, in May 1951, after replacing MacArthur as US commander in Korea, he renewed MacArthur’s request of 24 December, this time for 38 atomic bombs (13). The request was not approved.

The US came closest to using atomic weapons in April 1951, when Truman removed MacArthur. Although much related to this episode is still classified, it is now clear that Truman did not remove MacArthur simply because of his repeated insubordination, but because he wanted a reliable commander on the scene should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons; Truman traded MacArthur for his atomic policies. On 10 March 1951 MacArthur asked for a “D-Day atomic capability” to retain air superiority in the Korean theatre, after the Chinese massed huge new forces near the Korean border and after the Russians put 200 bombers into airbases in Manchuria (from which they could strike not just Korea but also US bases in Japan) (14). On 14 March General Vandenberg wrote: “Finletter and Lovett alerted on atomic discussions. Believe everything is set."

The Yalu would probably still be contaminated. Given the warhead counts were:

1950 - US: 369 | USSR: 5
1951 - US: 640 | USSR: 25
1952 - US: 1,005 | USSR: 50
1953 - US: 1,436 | USSR: 120

I think MacArthur was actually right that the Soviets wouldn't have done anything. At least not immediately. Who can say from there. This strikes me as more interesting:

This was Korea, “the limited war”. The views of its architect, Curtis LeMay, serve as its epitaph. After it started, he said: “We slipped a note kind of under the door into the Pentagon and said let us go up there . . . and burn down five of the biggest towns in North Korea - and they’re not very big - and that ought to stop it. Well, the answer to that was four or five screams - ‘You’ll kill a lot of non-combatants’ and ‘It’s too horrible’. Yet over a period of three years or so . . . we burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too . . . Now, over a period of three years this is palatable, but to kill a few people to stop this from happening - a lot of people can’t stomach it” (19).

 

[Kozmos]

That is probably likely. I imagine that future proxy conflicts might possibly be averted at least until USSR reached a parity of some kind in its delivery systems.