U.S. military dominance ‘no longer assured,’ says House committee

[there4eyeM]

Unmanned weapons and high tech are cheaper and certain to be the next generation. So, of course, the military will continue with what was advanced the last time.
Building a new tank just because Russia did is the height of absurdity. These big behemoths will seem like dinosaurs in a snowstorm on future battlefields.
Heavy, expensive, unmanueverable fighter planes will be swept from the skies by multitudes of remotely controlled aircraft that put no pilot in danger, can turn rings around conventional fighters and probably remain airborne for days.
But, the really effective strategy is one that never results in war.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

Imagine if those people didn't get any assistance at all. Where would we be then?

Yes... Imagine that.

Then imagine the TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM THOSE PEOPLE by a thoroughly corrupt system of government. And imagine the frustration of Bernie Maydoff as he was separated from the exquisite opulence for committing an imperceptible fraction of the same exact thing that the government that charged and convicted him of that same crime they have been committing for 70+ years.

Now the reasoning that causes this criminalty is the same that causes all criminality ... All evil. It's the same thing that causes all forms of sociopathy. And that is Relativism. The mental disorder that causes socialism.

Our founders were privileged to live during the birth of our exceptional nation... We're privileged to live at its demise.

And imagine millions of poor people living,defecating, and dying right on your doorstep.

Just wait a couple of years at the most and you won't have to imagine it.

If people like you ever gain power, I don't doubt that that is true.

Well of course... Because money is a figment of the fertile imagination of the Federal Reserve and can never be effected by the laws of nature... Therefore catastrophic consequences can never be realized due to abusive, criminal management of massive economic programs over four generations.

Ergo... It's mean people like me who will be responsible for the aged not having their money returned to them, because I promised them that they should trust their government, because it's always looking after their interests while knowing dam' good and well that the people managing their retirement money were spending it like a crack head in
a crack sellin' w h o r e house.

Because I opposed the the program and the criminal asshats that SPENT THE MONEY like it was their OWN!

(Reader ... The above reasoning is what RELATIVISM looks like up close and dirty. It has no means to recognize truth...)

 

[Skylar]

Imagine if those people didn't get any assistance at all. Where would we be then?

Yes... Imagine that.

Then imagine the TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM THOSE PEOPLE by a thoroughly corrupt system of government. And imagine the frustration of Bernie Maydoff as he was separated from the exquisite opulence for committing an imperceptible fraction of the same exact thing that the government that charged and convicted him of that same crime they have been committing for 70+ years.

Now the reasoning that causes this criminalty is the same that causes all criminality ... All evil. It's the same thing that causes all forms of sociopathy. And that is Relativism. The mental disorder that causes socialism.

Our founders were privileged to live during the birth of our exceptional nation... We're privileged to live at its demise.

And imagine millions of poor people living,defecating, and dying right on your doorstep.

Just wait a couple of years at the most and you won't have to imagine it.

If people like you ever gain power, I don't doubt that that is true.

Well of course... Because money is a figment of the fertile imagination of the Federal Reserve and can never be effected by the laws of nature...

Yeah, but your 'laws of nature' are just whateverr you choose to believe. Any part of nature that you don't like, you ignore. Making you the basis of your beliefs. Not nature.

For example: in nature there is rampant predation on the very young, the very old, or the sick. Do you think that predation of the aged and ill are 'natural law' that we are bound to?

If not, why not? I mean, they're observations from nature. They meet every criteria of your 'natural law'. But you don't like them. So you ignore them. And if you can arbitrarily dismiss any portion of nature that you don't like, then its not 'nature's laws'. Its your subjective opinion.

(Reader ... The above reasoning is what RELATIVISM looks like up close and dirty. It had no means to recognize truth...)

But you're a relativist, Keyes. You make this shit up as you go along based on your own personal beliefs, society, cherry picking, culture, or personal context.

That's pure relativism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unmanned weapons and high tech are cheaper and certain to be the next generation. So, of course, the military will continue with what was advanced the last time.
Building a new tank just because Russia did is the height of absurdity. These big behemoths will seem like dinosaurs in a snowstorm on future battlefields.
Heavy, expensive, unmanueverable fighter planes will be swept from the skies by multitudes of remotely controlled aircraft that put no pilot in danger, can turn rings around conventional fighters and probably remain airborne for days.
But, the really effective strategy is one that never results in war.

Here's a clue... Warfare is about killing people and breaking shit.

While I do not disagree that what you're saying is true; that the Military is looking to build remote controlled everything. The net result in that, MUST... (Meaning that there is no alternative possible) result in ENDLESS, MORE VIOLENT, MORE COSTLY WAR.

And why it that? Because there's no downside to sending remote controlled whatever to kill people and break things.

Now, as Artificial Intelligence will naturally and quite inevitably be used to control many, if not all of those remote killing and breaking things... the brightest people on earth; most notably the people who pioneered AI, are scared shitless by that concept. And the reason that they are scared, is that they realize that there is no respect for principle in the world anymore and because of that... its inevitable that the unprincipled idiots that take their work and through their grope for 'the easier way', the design their own destruction.

SOooo ... at the end of the day, rough, determined men will be required to win wars, by taking ground and keeping it... from the Remote Controlled Idiots who threaten civilization through their unprincipled approach to every aspect of human life.

 

[there4eyeM]

When the guys with the new toys have defeated the guys with the old toys, the winners will stop fighting.

 

[orogenicman]

Unmanned weapons and high tech are cheaper and certain to be the next generation. So, of course, the military will continue with what was advanced the last time.
Building a new tank just because Russia did is the height of absurdity. These big behemoths will seem like dinosaurs in a snowstorm on future battlefields.
Heavy, expensive, unmanueverable fighter planes will be swept from the skies by multitudes of remotely controlled aircraft that put no pilot in danger, can turn rings around conventional fighters and probably remain airborne for days.
But, the really effective strategy is one that never results in war.

Here's a clue... Warfare is about killing people and breaking shit.

While I do not disagree that what you're saying is true; that the Military is looking to build remote controlled everything. The net result in that, MUST... (Meaning that there is no alternative possible) result in ENDLESS, MORE VIOLENT, MORE COSTLY WAR.

And why it that? Because there's no downside to sending remote controlled whatever to kill people and break things.

No downside? Certainly there is a downside, and that is that our leaders can now wage any kind of war they wish and claim that in doing so, they are saving lives, which, of course, is not true.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is often claimed that war is waged to save lives, if only the lives of those on the waging side.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unmanned weapons and high tech are cheaper and certain to be the next generation. So, of course, the military will continue with what was advanced the last time.
Building a new tank just because Russia did is the height of absurdity. These big behemoths will seem like dinosaurs in a snowstorm on future battlefields.
Heavy, expensive, unmanueverable fighter planes will be swept from the skies by multitudes of remotely controlled aircraft that put no pilot in danger, can turn rings around conventional fighters and probably remain airborne for days.
But, the really effective strategy is one that never results in war.

Here's a clue... Warfare is about killing people and breaking shit.

While I do not disagree that what you're saying is true; that the Military is looking to build remote controlled everything. The net result in that, MUST... (Meaning that there is no alternative possible) result in ENDLESS, MORE VIOLENT, MORE COSTLY WAR.

And why it that? Because there's no downside to sending remote controlled whatever to kill people and break things.

No downside? Certainly there is a downside, and that is that our leaders can now wage any kind of war they wish and claim that in doing so, they are saving lives, which, of course, is not true.

Hmm... There's no downside to a Leader, wherein he sends drones to kill people and break things. As long as the people he's attacking aren't voting against HIM. Thus... the whole 'eternal (never ending) war'

I didn't think that it was sufficiently complex to have to break it down. But ... I hope that helps.

 

[there4eyeM]

When has there been no war since at least 1937?

 

[there4eyeM]

For the power-drunk, people are merely a resource to be used or lost. Drones are hardly a change.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For the power-drunk, people are merely a resource to be used or lost. Drones are hardly a change.

But in the United States... the power drunk still face election. And with Drunken Power comes EGO and EGO needs a positive Legacy and Positive Legacies aren't formed around large loss of human life, in poorly defined, futile war. And knowing that, we still see it happening, right?

Drones solve that problem. Now...using that natural law... will drones help reduce war or increase the likelihood of it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

US military dominance of what? There isn't a nation on this earth that could harm us if we spent half what we spend on the military.

 

[Stephanie]

Well, that was the plan under Obama and his promise to TRANSFORM America

And just think he still has a year and half left to bring us down to our knees

you voted for it. how amazing

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, that was the plan under Obama and his promise to TRANSFORM America

And just think he still has a year and half left to bring us down to our knees

you voted for it. how amazing

Thanks for that disturbing image.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

US military dominance of what? There isn't a nation on this earth that could harm us if we spent half what we spend on the military.

That's because we are responsible for the defense of those nation, asshat.

 

[Dragonlady]

Other than the US, what nations are the responsibility of the US in terms of defense? You have NATO, but that means if a NATO member is threatened, ALL members of NATO are to assist them. Assisting them doesn't mean you're responsible for their defense. Sovereign nations are responsible for their own defense. NATO members are required only to assist in that defense.

The sad truth is that all of that money spent on the military means that those in power like to play with their army toys. After an isolationist doctrine for the first 40 years of the 20th century, the US has been at war almost continuously since the end of WWII.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Other than the US, what nations are the responsibility of the US in terms of defense? You have NATO, but that means if a NATO member is threatened, ALL members of NATO are to assist them. Assisting them doesn't mean you're responsible for their defense. Sovereign nations are responsible for their own defense. NATO members are required only to assist in that defense.

The sad truth is that all of that money spent on the military means that those in power like to play with their army toys. After an isolationist doctrine for the first 40 years of the 20th century, the US has been at war almost continuously since the end of WWII.

ROFLMNAO! Now isn't that precious?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

US military dominance of what? There isn't a nation on this earth that could harm us if we spent half what we spend on the military.

Don't need much for a EMP and the Pentagon Recognizes it

Pentagon Finally Admits The Truth About EMPs Off The Grid News

America’s military commanders are worried about the possibility of an attack on the United States by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon – so much so that the Pentagon plans to spend nearly $1 billion to move the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) communications into an EMP-resistant bunker.

“Because of the very nature of the way that Cheyenne Mountain is built, it’s EMP-hardened,” NORAD’s commander, Admiral William Gortney, told the media.

Cheyenne Mountain outside of Colorado Springs is the location of a giant bunker where NORAD’s headquarters was located from the 1960s until 2006. NORAD is the organization that guards the United States and Canada from missile attacks.

The Cheyenne Mountain bunker was designed to protect NORAD’s equipment from Soviet nuclear missile attacks during the Cold War.

The Defense Department has signed a $700 million contract with Raytheon to install modern communications equipment in the facility.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The US spends 47 cents of every defense dollar on earth

I guess that is not enough

The warmonger right believes that by trying to bankrupt us with military spending, they can along the way destroy the liberal agenda to take care of Americans here at home.

Yes... 500 billion spent to insure US military dominance... is bankrupting the US, but the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO SUSTAIN PEOPLE NO LONGER IN THE U.S. WORKFORCE IS NOT.

Relativism kills!

US military dominance of what? There isn't a nation on this earth that could harm us if we spent half what we spend on the military.

For a great defense you are always going to have to spend 10 times more not less darling , EMPs are not that expensive that could kill 3/4 ths of the USA

From WSJ

James Woolsey and Peter Vincent Pry The Growing Threat From an EMP Attack - WSJ



In a recent letter to investors, billionaire hedge-fund manager Paul Singer warned that an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, is "the most significant threat" to the U.S. and our allies in the world. He's right. Our food and water supplies, communications, banking, hospitals, law enforcement, etc., all depend on the electric grid. Yet until recently little attention has been paid to the ease of generating EMPs by detonating a nuclear weapon in orbit above the U.S., and thus bringing our civilization to a cold, dark halt.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When I am talking EMP, I know exactly what I am talking about being a industrial maintenance guy

We were so close missing it in 2012, the Canada 1978? Black out was nothing to this solar flare in 2012


The solar storm of 2012 that almost sent us back to a post-apocalyptic Stone Age - ExtremeTech

While you didn’t see it, feel it, or even read about it in the newspapers, Earth was almost knocked back to the Stone Age on July 23, 2012. It wasn’t some crazed dictator with his finger on the thermonuclear button or a giant asteroid that came close to wiping out civilization as we know it, though — no, what nearly ended us was a massive solar storm. Almost two years ago to the day, our most bounteous and fantastical celestial body — the Sun — kicked out one of the largest solar flares and coronal mass ejections ever recorded. And it missed Earth by a whisker