Herochat

The Green New Deal

therock

  • ********
  • 9165
  • +65/-65
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #60 on: April 04, 2019, 06:00:01 PM »
Yea we can have new military tece, and smart one

Cut massive amount of waste. It not an all of nothing. We don't have to keep adding trillions blindly

Because the question to the military do you want more money fir something it will almost always be less

Asking them to spend it wisely and not stripping the military. 

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6962
  • +107/-27
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #61 on: April 04, 2019, 07:25:17 PM »
I thought you were going to explain why my position on China was wrong........

OK, here's where we  get into the weeds a bit

The military has defined global warming as a major military priority.

Climate change, while still devastating to the US, isn't an existential threat as it is to poorer nations subject to drought, famine and subsequently terrorism or transnational criminal organizations or developed nations that have major coastal developments that would be threatened or nations like Holland, which could be underwater.

In short, I think the military understand fully the larger scope of what climate change represents as a threat.

I am not convinced that a Democratic mandate would understand that and coordinate with the military in the national interest.

Our current crop of pretenders to the White House are ideologues who, as you mentioned, are big on showboating and short on detail.

Worse, AOC is a double major in Economics and International Relations, she SHOULD understand this to some degree. If she does, and she's still floating politically charged proposals that are meant to fire up the base on big rally war cry's that have little meat on the bone then it means she's a smart politician who may choose far-leftism over practical governance

So, I'm worried that leftist symbolism at a time when I see serious gaps in military preparation is a worry.

The left is all about social issues, social programs meant to fix things, cutting military spending etc........

I'm not opposed to social safety nets, or any of the government policies required for a healthy nation. I see them as short-term cures for an inherently ineffective situation, but it's better than what we have now.

[bTL;Dr

I don't want some chest-beating far left SJW's cutting the military to throw a bone to left-leaning voters even if the military itself flat-out said we need the extra ash to bolster weak spots and come u with real solutions for climate change and not symbolic legislation that does nothing
Your entire argument assumes this is a zero sum situation, when it's definitely not. We waste BILLIONS buying equipment the Pentagon has repeatedly told multiple Congresses we don't need because it will cost jobs to stop manufacturing obsolete shit.


You can fix spending and appropriate money elsewhere to develop legitimate training and job opportunities instead of this nonsense.

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10523
  • +1141/-119
  • Knives in the senate house?
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2019, 08:01:11 PM »
Are things like the Zumwalt even ever going to be used? They're too expensive to risk losing in a war. Which was the case with the dreadnaught-class battleships of a hundred years ago, proving that history does in fact repeat itself.


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6962
  • +107/-27
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #63 on: April 04, 2019, 08:44:48 PM »
The Zumwalt was a huge mistake and I just looked it up to see how much we lost. I thought it was still around 5.5 billion per unit but it's like 7.5 billion wasted on each one of those cool looking shitpieces.

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10523
  • +1141/-119
  • Knives in the senate house?
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #64 on: April 04, 2019, 09:05:52 PM »
It costs one million dollars for every round fired from one of its cutting edge guns. Amazing. A million per round. It isn't just too expensive to risk losing it in battle, it's too expensive to even use in battle.





Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6962
  • +107/-27
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #65 on: April 04, 2019, 09:14:43 PM »
It costs one million dollars for every round fired from one of its cutting edge guns. Amazing. A million per round. It isn't just too expensive to risk losing it in battle, it's too expensive to even use in battle.




Part of the problem is railguns are cool as fuck and likely the direction most of our projectile weaponry is heading instead of huge shells.

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4394
  • +7/-1
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #66 on: April 04, 2019, 09:18:39 PM »
Quote
Your entire argument assumes this is a zero sum situation, when it's definitely not. We waste BILLIONS buying equipment the Pentagon has repeatedly told multiple Congresses we don't need because it will cost jobs to stop manufacturing obsolete shit.


You can fix spending and appropriate money elsewhere to develop legitimate training and job opportunities instead of this nonsense.

Well, technically you can but I think the private sector's links to the military are a particular weak point.

I see areas where there should be massive upgrades which are being scuttled:

F-35 and F-22 are the two best air fighters in the world (IMHO) and in air-to-air, the F-22 is tops hands down. No one is building out a supply chain and the F-22 is being phased out because it can't get spare part or maintenance.

The F-35 is a polemic aircraft, to say the least, but I personally consider it to have three different classes. F-35A, F35B, and F-35C are all different mission capable fighters but they all share a common thread: stealth and the ability to take off vertically and land on short runways.

Pretty ideal if you were fighting in the Pacific theater and had to adapt to losing a runway (carrier) or had to face serious anti-air capacity (S-400 Russia)

The price tag is 88 million per plane.

In practical terms, you're building out a high-tech, nigh-untouchable stealth machine, placing it on a nigh-invulnerable, untouchable aircraft carrier surrounded by battle groups and sending it off to fight China or Russia

One SAM - or a 6-figure missile, can destroy an 88 million dollar plane - that would be disastrous to morale and a symbolic victory to the enemy

Aircraft carriers are so intertwined with US military power that it's frightening to think one - ONE torpedo - could theoretically bypass a battle group, and sink 70-90 planes and kill 5,000 troops. In military terms, it would be like a nation losing one of its key cities

I don't know how you trim the fat after contracts have been doles out like jobs programs and the last few years have been dedicated to equipping our allies with F-35's and running joint ops

The smart thing would be to - yes, trim the fat somehow

Put money into the technology needed to make sure that we can protect carriers, F-35's outfit F-22's with spare parts and enhance our cyber warfare divisions and develop the technologies that are clearly going to be the military of the future

Hypersonic missiles (once those are really developed - its a whole other ballgame)
Drone swarms - protects fighter craft)
Anti-drone units - protects carriers
Cyber capabilities - if a hacker division can jam communications
Space-Warfare - it will all come down to this

Regarding military waste, a lot of vet friends have told me horror stories about basic infantry.

Things like M-1 tanks not having armored undercarriages.

Procurement should be leaner

SpaceX proved just how well economic and common sense planning can save money in military-grade operations.

ULA charges the US military 150,000 million$ per launch. At the same tonnage, SpaceX gets about 90$ million.

Truth is, I don't really know where we can be less wasteful. I'd love insight on that

I know what the military needs to level-up and I know weapons systems well

So, where do you think you'd trim the fat?

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6962
  • +107/-27
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #67 on: April 04, 2019, 09:20:25 PM »
I'll get to that later tonight or tomorrow. There's actually a lot we can do.

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4394
  • +7/-1
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #68 on: April 04, 2019, 09:25:24 PM »
I just saw railguns

Yeah, that's a whole class of military technology where we can't afford to fall behind. The cost of R+D is awful, but once the tech works you can turn every boat in the navy into something more

and it also lowers the costs considerably. Railguns fire kinetic weapons - projectiles fired so fast they're essentially bullet/missiles fired from an electromagnetic gun with no real cost per missile.

The technology is so powerful that it mostly works when the gun is placed on land. On ships, its so powerful that its recoil damages the ship itself and it overheats after a few shots fired

Another military tech that could be really valuable are lasers. They're difficult to use due to cloud refraction but as an anti-drone weapon attached to a theoretically smaller mini carrier they would be phenomenal

There's a lot of developing tech that is clearly where the military needs to be and China is trying to build it - if we don't we'll fall behind

No one can NOT develop hypersonics.

AI will make cybersecurity and cyberoffesnes hit a new level

and we just lost the 5G battle to Huawei. Oracle is catching up (in 5G) but China will build out the infrastructure first. We should be attentive to this


nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4394
  • +7/-1
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #69 on: April 04, 2019, 09:26:11 PM »
Quote
I'll get to that later tonight or tomorrow. There's actually a lot we can do.

Looking forward to it