Yes, Venus. Well not exactly a colony *on* Venus (not for a while anyway), but in the upper atmosphere of Venus. Turns out the temperature, atmospheric pressure and gravity would work well. But is it something that might be tried in the next 75 years? Or perhaps later on along the Traveller timeline?
HAVOC |
| |
| | | | | | | |
| HAVOC |You are here: Home > BRANCHES > Space Mission Analysis Branch (SMAB) > SMAB Projects > HAVOC Tweet Pin It HAVOC SMAB Branch Menu CAPABILITI... |
| |
| View on sacd.larc.nasa.gov | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
I hold out no hopes. I believe that in 75 years the average earthling will
still believe that a piece of garbage (including those shaped like space
shuttles) in LEO will have "travelled" millions and millions of miles
while actually only sitting in inert, dynamic equilibrium 200 stinking
miles above our heads.
> Yes, Venus. Well not exactly a colony *on* Venus (not for a while
> anyway), but in the upper atmosphere of Venus. Turns out the
> temperature, atmospheric pressure and gravity would work well. But is it
> something that might be tried in the next 75 years? Or perhaps later on
> along the Traveller timeline?
>
> HAVOC |
>
> | Â |
> | Â | | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
> | HAVOC |You are here: Home > BRANCHES > Space Mission Analysis Branch
> (SMAB) > SMAB Projects > HAVOC Tweet Pin It HAVOC SMAB Branch Menu
> CAPABILITI... |
> | |
> | View on sacd.larc.nasa.gov | Preview by Yahoo |
> | |
> | Â |
>
>
>
Now , now...on the Traveller timeline, the manned portion of the US Space Program wasn't essentially shutdown in the mid-70s (the space shuttle actually gets built in time to service Skylab as planned for example) and the EU didn't get all wrapped up in bailing out semi-socialist government that made too many spending promises to their people.
I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank controversy".
1. There is no controversy.
2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...", then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large scale tank battles.
3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the Army
toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph vice 2
mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always out
front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole service,
and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of armor to
sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then they
moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph swamp.
RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
> I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
> controversy".
>
> 1. There is no controversy.
> 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with
> tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is
> true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...",
> then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large
> scale tank battles.
> 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a
> lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of
> the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't
> need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
> 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
> Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
> reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
> semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that
> get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have
> their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually
> believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad
> people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
> 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and
> they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or
> a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense
> analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need
> the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that
> getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
Similar fun on the other end when we hear the LAR talk about how fast they
are. Not faster than 120mm!
I will say again that for however much we despised the grunts in garrison
(which was entirely mutual), I loved seeing them dig fighting positions
near us on first entering Baghdad. We each echoed the "glad to see you
guys" of the other. Then proceeded to direct our amer at 4th ID for not
relieving us on schedule.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 14:45 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the Army
> toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph vice 2
> mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always out
> front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole service,
> and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of armor to
> sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then they
> moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph swamp.
> RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
>
>
>
> > I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
> > controversy".
> >
> > 1. There is no controversy.
> > 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with
> > tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is
> > true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...",
> > then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large
> > scale tank battles.
> > 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a
> > lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of
> > the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't
> > need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
> > 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
> > Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
> > reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
> > semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that
> > get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have
> > their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually
> > believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad
> > people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
> > 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and
> > they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or
> > a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense
> > analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need
> > the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that
> > getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
>
>
>
On Friday, March 6, 2015 5:07 PM, "Master Uxi [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
Similar fun on the other end when we hear the LAR talk about how fast they are. Not faster than 120mm!I will say again that for however much we despised the grunts in garrison (which was entirely mutual), I loved seeing them dig fighting positions near us on first entering Baghdad. We each echoed the "glad to see you guys" of the other. Then proceeded to direct our amer at 4th ID for not relieving us on schedule.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 14:45 [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the Army
toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph vice 2
mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always out
front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole service,
and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of armor to
sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then they
moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph swamp.
RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
> I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
> controversy".
>
> 1. There is no controversy.
> 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with
> tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is
> true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...",
> then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large
> scale tank battles.
> 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a
> lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of
> the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't
> need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
> 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
> Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
> reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
> semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that
> get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have
> their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually
> believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad
> people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
> 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and
> they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or
> a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense
> analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need
> the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that
> getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296 -- #yiv2023767296ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mkp #yiv2023767296hd {color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mkp #yiv2023767296ads {margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mkp .yiv2023767296ad {padding:0 0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mkp .yiv2023767296ad p {margin:0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mkp .yiv2023767296ad a {color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-sponsor #yiv2023767296ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-sponsor #yiv2023767296ygrp-lc #yiv2023767296hd {margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-sponsor #yiv2023767296ygrp-lc .yiv2023767296ad {margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296actions {font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296activity {background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296activity span:first-child {text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296activity span a {color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296activity span span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296activity span .yiv2023767296underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296attach {clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;width:400px;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296attach div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296attach img {border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296attach label {display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296attach label a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 4px;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296bold {font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 dd.yiv2023767296last p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2023767296 dd.yiv2023767296last p span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2023767296 dd.yiv2023767296last p span.yiv2023767296yshortcuts {margin-right:0;}#yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296attach-table div div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296attach-table {width:400px;}#yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296file-title a, #yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296file-title a:active, #yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296file-title a:hover, #yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296file-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296photo-title a, #yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296photo-title a:active, #yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296photo-title a:hover, #yiv2023767296 div.yiv2023767296photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 div#yiv2023767296ygrp-mlmsg #yiv2023767296ygrp-msg p a span.yiv2023767296yshortcuts {font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296MsoNormal {margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv2023767296 o {font-size:0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296photos div div {border:1px solid #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296photos div label {color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv2023767296 .yiv2023767296replbq {margin:4px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv2023767296 input, #yiv2023767296 textarea {font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv2023767296 code {font:115% monospace;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-mlmsg #yiv2023767296logo {padding-bottom:10px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-msg p a {font-family:Verdana;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-msg p#yiv2023767296attach-count span {color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-reco #yiv2023767296reco-head {color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-reco {margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-sponsor #yiv2023767296ov li a {font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-sponsor #yiv2023767296ov li {font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-sponsor #yiv2023767296ov ul {margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-text {font-family:Georgia;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-text p {margin:0 0 1em 0;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-text tt {font-size:120%;}#yiv2023767296 #yiv2023767296ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {border-right:none !important;}#yiv2023767296
Sounds like you were with 1st MarDiv. 1st or 2d Tanks?
> Similar fun on the other end when we hear the LAR talk about how fast they
> are. Not faster than 120mm!
>
> I will say again that for however much we despised the grunts in garrison
> (which was entirely mutual), I loved seeing them dig fighting positions
> near us on first entering Baghdad. We each echoed the "glad to see you
> guys" of the other. Then proceeded to direct our amer at 4th ID for not
> relieving us on schedule.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 14:45 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the
>> Army
>> toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph vice
>> 2
>> mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always out
>> front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole service,
>> and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of armor
>> to
>> sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then they
>> moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph
>> swamp.
>> RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
>> > controversy".
>> >
>> > 1. There is no controversy.
>> > 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops
>> with
>> > tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is
>> > true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last
>> one...",
>> > then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting
>> large
>> > scale tank battles.
>> > 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a
>> > lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100%
>> of
>> > the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't
>> > need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be
>> trusted.
>> > 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
>> > Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
>> > reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
>> > semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities
>> that
>> > get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and
>> have
>> > their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them
>> actually
>> > believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being
>> bad
>> > people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
>> > 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end
>> and
>> > they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general
>> or
>> > a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by
>> defense
>> > analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we
>> need
>> > the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that
>> > getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
>>
>>
>>
>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 18:22 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Sounds like you were with 1st MarDiv. 1st or 2d Tanks?
>
>
>
> > Similar fun on the other end when we hear the LAR talk about how fast
> they
> > are. Not faster than 120mm!
> >
> > I will say again that for however much we despised the grunts in garrison
> > (which was entirely mutual), I loved seeing them dig fighting positions
> > near us on first entering Baghdad. We each echoed the "glad to see you
> > guys" of the other. Then proceeded to direct our amer at 4th ID for not
> > relieving us on schedule.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 14:45 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the
> >> Army
> >> toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph vice
> >> 2
> >> mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always out
> >> front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole service,
> >> and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of armor
> >> to
> >> sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then they
> >> moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph
> >> swamp.
> >> RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
> >> > controversy".
> >> >
> >> > 1. There is no controversy.
> >> > 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops
> >> with
> >> > tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is
> >> > true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last
> >> one...",
> >> > then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting
> >> large
> >> > scale tank battles.
> >> > 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a
> >> > lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100%
> >> of
> >> > the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't
> >> > need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be
> >> trusted.
> >> > 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
> >> > Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
> >> > reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
> >> > semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities
> >> that
> >> > get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and
> >> have
> >> > their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them
> >> actually
> >> > believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being
> >> bad
> >> > people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
> >> > 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end
> >> and
> >> > they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general
> >> or
> >> > a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by
> >> defense
> >> > analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we
> >> need
> >> > the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that
> >> > getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
Are you still in? Figure you're not a Reservista, else you would have been
with Tarawa, although that was 12 years ago, maybe you are now.
> 1st Tk Bn. RCT 7.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 18:22 [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like you were with 1st MarDiv. 1st or 2d Tanks?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Similar fun on the other end when we hear the LAR talk about how fast
>> they
>> > are. Not faster than 120mm!
>> >
>> > I will say again that for however much we despised the grunts in
>> garrison
>> > (which was entirely mutual), I loved seeing them dig fighting
>> positions
>> > near us on first entering Baghdad. We each echoed the "glad to see you
>> > guys" of the other. Then proceeded to direct our amer at 4th ID for
>> not
>> > relieving us on schedule.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 14:45 [Traveller_TNE] <
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the
>> >> Army
>> >> toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph
>> vice
>> >> 2
>> >> mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always
>> out
>> >> front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole
>> service,
>> >> and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of
>> armor
>> >> to
>> >> sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then
>> they
>> >> moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph
>> >> swamp.
>> >> RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
>> >> > controversy".
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. There is no controversy.
>> >> > 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops
>> >> with
>> >> > tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars
>> is
>> >> > true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last
>> >> one...",
>> >> > then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting
>> >> large
>> >> > scale tank battles.
>> >> > 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live
>> a
>> >> > lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing
>> 100%
>> >> of
>> >> > the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we
>> need/don't
>> >> > need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be
>> >> trusted.
>> >> > 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
>> >> > Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
>> >> > reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
>> >> > semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget
>> priorities
>> >> that
>> >> > get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and
>> >> have
>> >> > their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them
>> >> actually
>> >> > believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being
>> >> bad
>> >> > people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
>> >> > 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to
>> end
>> >> and
>> >> > they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a
>> general
>> >> or
>> >> > a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by
>> >> defense
>> >> > analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say
>> we
>> >> need
>> >> > the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think
>> that
>> >> > getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>