Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

D. J. Trump Administration Geopolitics Pt. 3

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Cog » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 12:13:02

Not everything has to be run by the government Gasmon. SpaceX is on track to be the launcher of choice for not only the US government but governments around the world. Private enterprise will take us into the solar system not a bloated government bureaucracy like NASA. SpaceX launches undercut any other private companies already.

Your Trump hate is noted and irrelevant.

Image
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 15:52:16

It actually looks in the chart above that the Russian space program is in rapid collapse.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 18:48:26

Being a historian by inclination and training I can tell you KaiserJeep that the 1947 reorganization was not nearly what some hoped it would be. At the time the Army Air Corp was a branch of the US Army in the same way the US Marine Corp is a branch of the US Navy. The Air Corp saw the division away from the Army as being of maximum benefit because all of their purchasing and design plans had to go through the US Army bureaucracy and they frequently complained of being stifled by ground minded staff officers who did not know, or care, about the best choices for the Air Corp in equipment and training.

In the initial plan as formulated by Congress the proposed Air Force and existing Army officer corps agreed that the US Navy needed to be gutted. All Navy (and Marine) aircraft, ground crews and air crews would be forcibly merged into the USAF while all USMC personnel and equipment not involved with air operations would be merged into the US Army. The US Navy would have been reduced to convoy escort vessels and submarines with all carriers and large gun ships mothballed or scrapped to save funding. The 'revolt of the Admirals' lead Congress to understand a lot of constituents would be losing out under the complete reorganization because redundant Naval Air Stations and Marine Corp bases would have all been absorbed and closed as excess to needs of the USAF and Army. Congress did the politically expedient thing and made lateral transfers from the Marines and Navy to the Army and Air Force voluntary rather than mandatory (with a one time rank promotion for those who took the transfers). the Navy which became extremely air oriented as a result of Pearl Harbor spent the next decade building alliances with the Air Force by promising things like fight support of long range bombers in places they could reach but USAF fighters from the mainland could not. Still the USAF and USN had major conflict of interest in weapon procurement because the USAF wanted the biggest nukes they could carry in a B-29/B-50 bomber while the USN wanted nuclear depth charges and tactical size nukes they could carry on navy carrier launched tactical bombers to hit enemy ships or ports.

For good or ill one aircraft carrier under construction was scrapped and almost all large ships of the US Navy were either mothballed or scrapped with the exception of the Aircraft carrier fleet. Even there the WW II built fleet of 28 aircraft carriers was reduced to 18 over the next two decades and has continued to shrink now being down to a dozen.

Personally I think reorganization is very long overdue, but I expect this round to be just like the 1947 debacle driven but political interests instead of the national future. For a long time Space Command and the missile regiments of the USAF have had the same kind of procurement arguments with the upper levels of the USAF that believe in manned planes uber alles instead of unmanned satellites and missile delivered warheads.

I think a space force would be an excellent alternative to manned bombers and the ground support for laser guided weapons, but who cares what I think? With GPS targeting we can now launch a GPS guided reentry vehicle from North Dakota and target bridges or buildings in Afghanistan and hit the target dead center within 20 minutes of the go order. That is fast enough to hit a target of opportunity like the chief enemy leader without warning and before they can move away from the target. Instead of doing this however we focus on sending manned bombers with laser guided munitions that require someone to point a laser at the target and that can take anywhere from 30 minutes to several days to launch depending on circumstances. Sadly this technology now makes Aircraft Carriers as obsolete as the USAF claimed they were in 1947. Anyone who believes the Russians, Chinese and likely UK/France/India can not put a GPS package on a reentry vehicle and target aircraft carriers parked at the dock is fooling themselves. On top of that even if they just go for the underway replenishment ships that deliver food, fuel and ordinance at sea they can effectively end the threat of carrier air attack in pretty short order.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 07:13:33

pstarr wrote:
With GPS targeting we can now launch a GPS guided reentry vehicle from North Dakota and target bridges or buildings in Afghanistan and hit the target dead center within 20 minutes of the go order.

The point being what?


Other than the top of your skull the point is manned bombers are an obsolete waste of resources and have been for decades. Since the 1960's the USAF has pushed the 'nuclear triad' theory that submarine ballistic missiles and land based ballistic missiles both need to be backed up with manned bombers. The idea made very little sense in 1965 and by 1985 was completely useless, but the USAF and USN have clung on to manned bomber aircraft, with all hands. Fighters are still useful for defending helicopters from enemy fighters, and helicopters are vital for scouting, search and rescue, and airborne delivery of ground forces. Fighters can also help protect your cargo planes delivering logistic support to forward areas, so having manned fighter aircraft has sound logic behind it. Bombers on the other hand are wasted resources. They were barely effective in WW II when we would send a thousand to take out a single factory in enemy territory. Bombers were shown to be ineffective in Vietnam and barely effective in the last 20 years with laser guided munitions where a ground squad shines a laser on the target for them to home in on. Lose that laser lock on and they are no more effective than they were in Vietnam. Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles have rendered manned bombers a useless waste of resources.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 12:27:08

Tanada, please allow for other scenarios of warfare than "final nuclear apocalypse". Those manned bombers you have disparaged for example are extremely usefull in conventional warfare. The Stealth bombers based in Missouri were used in both Gulf Wars. The B-52's based in Diego Garcia and Guam have seen use every few years since Vietnam, and dropped more cumulative ordinance than in WW2. The B-1's offer fast attack options and are 300mph faster than the B-52's. They are extremely effective, and today are targeted via satellite and a B-52 can launch 24 cruise missiles per plane, and a B-1 can launch 14. Although laser guided ordinance still exists, GPS guided munitions see more use. As the saying goes "Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history."

The two parts of the ground forces that are vulnerable today are surface armor (tanks and APCs) and helicopters, both of which can be destroyed by infantry forces using shoulder-launched missiles. So helicopters are being replaced with tilt-rotor aircraft with longer range and higher speeds.

Also, don't mistake "obsolete" with "ineffective". Infantry for example has been obsolete since WW1 when machine guns and tanks came into use. But infantry is the only way to occupy territory and has options unavailable to heavy weapon systems - as Heinlein noted "If somebody was so foolish as to order us to enter a city and capture all the left-handed redheads, the Mobile Infantry could do it." So we have helicopters, tilt-rotors, APCs, amphibious landing craft, and hovercraft to deliver obsolete but necessary troops to battle.

It offends my libertarian soul that the USA uses ground troops and aircraft carrier task forces and heavy bombers to project power upon other countries. However, I think there would be a lot more brushfire wars and petty dictators in the world if all we had for arms were strategic nuclear weapons. It seems to me that the only use for strategic nuclear weapons is to discourage 9 other countries from using their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs and missiles seem to fit the definition of "useless" when we are confronted by the other 186 countries that don't have nukes.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 20:08:15

KaiserJeep wrote:Tanada, please allow for other scenarios of warfare than "final nuclear apocalypse". Those manned bombers you have disparaged for example are extremely usefull in conventional warfare. The Stealth bombers based in Missouri were used in both Gulf Wars. The B-52's based in Diego Garcia and Guam have seen use every few years since Vietnam, and dropped more cumulative ordinance than in WW2. The B-1's offer fast attack options and are 300mph faster than the B-52's. They are extremely effective, and today are targeted via satellite and a B-52 can launch 24 cruise missiles per plane, and a B-1 can launch 14. Although laser guided ordinance still exists, GPS guided munitions see more use. As the saying goes "Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history."

The two parts of the ground forces that are vulnerable today are surface armor (tanks and APCs) and helicopters, both of which can be destroyed by infantry forces using shoulder-launched missiles. So helicopters are being replaced with tilt-rotor aircraft with longer range and higher speeds.

Also, don't mistake "obsolete" with "ineffective". Infantry for example has been obsolete since WW1 when machine guns and tanks came into use. But infantry is the only way to occupy territory and has options unavailable to heavy weapon systems - as Heinlein noted "If somebody was so foolish as to order us to enter a city and capture all the left-handed redheads, the Mobile Infantry could do it." So we have helicopters, tilt-rotors, APCs, amphibious landing craft, and hovercraft to deliver obsolete but necessary troops to battle.

It offends my libertarian soul that the USA uses ground troops and aircraft carrier task forces and heavy bombers to project power upon other countries. However, I think there would be a lot more brushfire wars and petty dictators in the world if all we had for arms were strategic nuclear weapons. It seems to me that the only use for strategic nuclear weapons is to discourage 9 other countries from using their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs and missiles seem to fit the definition of "useless" when we are confronted by the other 186 countries that don't have nukes.



I wrote a long answer to this but it appears the internet ate it without it ever showing up on the board, which is excessively frustrating.

The gist of the other message is simple.

I am not talking about a ballistically launched nuclear warhead.

I am referring to a ballistically launched kinetic energy kill vehicle hitting one of our large vessels at 4 km/second velocity and making it useless for military purposes even if not sunk outright.

I put in a bunch of stuff about your other objections as well which I also disagree with, but the above is the key point. A GPS guided ballistic reentry kinetic kill vehicle impacting with a velocity of 4 kilometers a second or greater renders your 5 billion dollar ship militarily useless without resorting to nuclear weapons and without the capacity for anyone to intercept. Especially if you use an ICBM with MIRV capability and scatter shot 3, 5 or even 10 KKRV at the carrier sitting alongside the dock. The cost of one ICBM and 1 MIRV KKRV is peanuts compared to the cost of the USS Nimitz, and in a real shooting war our carriers are as useless as the steamship USN Monitor would have been in World War I.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby careinke » Sun 24 Jun 2018, 05:53:38

KaiserJeep wrote:Tanada, please allow for other scenarios of warfare than "final nuclear apocalypse". Those manned bombers you have disparaged for example are extremely usefull in conventional warfare. The Stealth bombers based in Missouri were used in both Gulf Wars.


I'm pretty sure the B-2 and the B-1 were not used in Desert Storm. I was there and also heavily involved in Air Battle Management planning in the Air Force. So I would have known. If I recall, the B-1 was grounded at the time.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4668
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Trump pulls US troops out of Syria

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 20 Dec 2018, 14:22:31

President Trump just announced via tweet that the ISIS Caliphate is defeated and he is pulling all US troops out of Syria.

donald-trump-syria-

The MSM is highly critical, denouncing Trump for his poor judgement. Some are expressing fear that if Trump withdraws US troops from Syria, then next thing he'll be withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan.

Personally I have mixed feelings about it. It would be nice if the defeat of the Caliphate would lead to peace in Syria, but there is zero chance of that. Turkey, the Syrian government, the Kurdish insurgents, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia all have military forces in Syria and future conflict is inevitable.

The war in Syria only started because Obama sent the CIA in to train Islamist insurgents to fight the Assad regime, and that idiotic policy backfired when the Islamist insurgents turned into ISIS and set up a Caliphate in Syria and invaded Iraq. Trump has "fixed" all of that, but he can't fix everything.

Personally, I don't think its a bad idea to declare victory in Syria and pull our troops out. The Caliphate is destroyed. Thats a victory of a sort and a reasonable exit point for US forces. We certainly don't want to get bogged down for 17 years fighting insurgents like we have in Afghanistan.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Trump pulls US troops out of Syria

Unread postby Cog » Thu 20 Dec 2018, 18:13:14

Since Republicans Neocons, the main stream media, and most Democrats support us staying there, I'm feeling pretty good that leaving is the best course of action.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Trump pulls US troops out of Syria

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 20 Dec 2018, 18:34:31

Cog wrote:Since Republicans Neocons, the main stream media, and most Democrats support us staying there, I'm feeling pretty good that leaving is the best course of action.


It is amazing to see the liberal media and the Ds and neocon Rs come out in support of keeping our troops in Syria.

I can't tell if they really think that way, or if they hate Trump so much they just automatically oppose whatever he proposes to do.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Trump pulls US troops out of Syria

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 20 Dec 2018, 20:16:28

pstarr wrote:The Military-industrial Complex .....


So you think all the liberals and reporters and Ds and Neocon Rs calling for US troops to stay in Syria are just shills for the military industrial complex?

Thats possible, I guess, But I think its more likely that they all just hate Trump and reflexively say "no!" whenever he proposes something.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Trump pulls US troops out of Syria

Unread postby Pops » Thu 20 Dec 2018, 20:20:43

Plantagenet wrote:
Cog wrote:Since Republicans Neocons, the main stream media, and most Democrats support us staying there, I'm feeling pretty good that leaving is the best course of action.


Don't forget General Mattis.

It surprises me how little it takes to corrupt peoples' conviction, as long as it trolls the libtards it's they're fine with sucking up to putin and Kim and bin Salman, deploy the Army on US soil to shoot rock throwers, build detention camps, extradite Edrogen's political enemy so they ease up on MBS, , ,
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Trump pulls US troops out of Syria

Unread postby Pops » Thu 20 Dec 2018, 20:22:19

Mattis's letter
Dear Mr. President:
I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.
I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

PreviousNext

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests