Author Topic: Military Science, Military Issues, and the Nature of War  (Read 395986 times)



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Recruitment Crisis is Symptom of Cultural Rot
« Reply #1202 on: June 10, 2023, 06:40:53 PM »
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1136,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/061/432/original/787fdcdf065471d3.png



The Military Recruitment Crisis Is a Symptom of Cultural Rot
We need new leaders to cultivate the American spirit and restore the integrity of institutions.
By David McCormick and James Cunningham
April 14, 2023 1:50 pm ET
WSJ

America’s cultural cancer manifests itself in many ways, but no symptom is more telling than our low military recruitment. Last year the Army hit only 75% of its recruiting target, while other services had to scramble to meet theirs. This year looks to be worse. The all-volunteer force, formed 50 years ago, is in peril and threatens our ability to defend ourselves in a dangerous world. What does this say about America?

It says we have a national health crisis. A volunteer military requires able-bodied recruits, but 77% of young Americans would be unfit to serve for health reasons. Behind that statistic lies a mountain of concerning data. Every year, fentanyl and other drugs take more than 106,000 lives and affect millions more, reducing the pool of recruits.

It says that partisan politics have infected America’s core institutions. Civilian leaders have used the uniformed services as political pawns and directed them to push progressive priorities. This makes it harder for military leaders to accomplish their central mission—fighting and winning the nation’s wars. It also explains why less than half of Americans (48%) express a great deal of confidence in the U.S. military, a 22-point drop in five years. The politicization of institutions, whether the military, schools or professional sports, divides our country where it should be most unified.

Those divisions contribute to the atomization of American society, which the U.S. military hasn’t escaped. In the late 1980s, when a young Lt. McCormick looked at his platoon in the 82nd Airborne Division—with a Southern Baptist from Alabama, a black man from Newark, and a Puerto Rican platoon sergeant—he saw a strong, diverse and confident America. Now the military draws from a shrinking pool, most with parents or close relatives who served. The rest of society has few family ties to the military. This is only one of the thousands of small fractures subdividing our society, stoked by social media, the left’s obsession with race, sex and identity, and extreme figures on the right as well.

These factors fuel the greatest cultural ailment of all: waning confidence in American exceptionalism. Members of the military carry on a proud tradition, and the nation owes them our gratitude. But their willingness to wear the uniform stands out in a country where only 9% of those eligible to serve wish to do so.

How did it come to this? Americans have been fed a narrative of victimhood. Our society treats veterans as victims or, worse, charity cases, not as warrior-citizens taught leadership, discipline and camaraderie. On campus, in the media and across popular culture, grievance is the new currency of the realm.

Children are taught to doubt, not love, America, and leaders on both sides of the aisle question its goodness. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that only 38% of Americans highly value patriotism and an equal share say they is “extremely proud” to be American.

The same forces that threaten the all-volunteer force endanger American society at large. These concerns animate our new book, “Superpower in Peril,” in which we chart a path to national renewal. But policy alone can’t heal a spiritual problem. The American spirit fills our national character with courage, ambition and creativity. It is our source of strength when times get bad, and the defining feature of American exceptionalism. That spirit has been neglected—or worse, suppressed—by the forces laid out here. The military recruiting crisis is a direct result of its decline.

We need new leaders to cultivate the American spirit and restore institutional integrity: in the Pentagon, to put war fighting and deterrence first; in schools, to teach civics and America’s exceptional story; in business, to reaffirm the principles of merit and capitalism; and across society, to create a new national commitment to citizenship.

William F. Buckley Jr. defined citizenship as the union of privilege (because to be an American is to be blessed with liberty and opportunity) and responsibility (because as Americans we have a duty to preserve the republic and serve our nation). Today, we have the balance wrong, emphasizing privilege and too often forgetting responsibility.

Perhaps the military recruiting crisis is the lagging indicator of America’s cultural collapse. Or maybe it’s the canary in the coal mine, an early warning that it is time to rescue American exceptionalism. What we do next as citizens will decide.

Mr. McCormick, a combat veteran and former CEO of Bridgewater Associates, was a candidate for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination in Pennsylvania in 2022. He is author, with Mr. Cunningham, of “Superpower in Peril: A Battle Plan to Renew America.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
D1: Jane Harman: Defense Spending
« Reply #1203 on: June 13, 2023, 03:37:49 AM »
About Jane Harman:

Married Dick Harman of Harman Electronices. 

She was my Dem opponent for Congress in 1992.

When I met Dick at one of the town hall debates as an older Jew, he took exception to my describing Dem economics as fascist.  He was MUCH older than her and during the conversation I innocently said something along the lines of "You must be very proud of your daughter."   Coming on the heels of our interaction over my use of the term fascist, this was not well received.

She won.  Dick Harman, her husband, lent the campaign $900K, debt which was retired by lobbyists after she won.

Though a Dem, due to all the defense contractors in our district, she became known as GI Jane.  Since leaving Congress she has done the chattering class circuit with an emphasis on defense issues.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2023/06/spend-more-defense-lets-focus-spending-better/387383/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
RANE: Arms production and market competition
« Reply #1207 on: June 16, 2023, 11:51:23 AM »


The Ukraine War Accelerates Russia's Decline as a Global Arms Exporter
10 MIN READJun 16, 2023 | 18:35 GMT


Russia's dominance as a global arms exporter will likely continue to fall as a result of the Ukraine war, weakening a key element of Moscow's foreign policy and creating opportunities for other states to bolster their arms industries. The need to backfill its own losses in Ukraine, doubts about its weapons' performance, and declining Indian sales have seen Russia's arms exports plummet over the years. And recent signs suggest this trend will only continue. On June 5, India and the United States finalized a landmark roadmap for defense industry cooperation in the coming years that will significantly boost India's incentive to ramp up its domestic arms production and, in turn, further reduce its reliance on Russian weapons. This follows a report published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) earlier this year that revealed Russia's share of global arms sales (in terms of actual deliveries of major arms as opposed to announced deals) dropped from 22% in 2013-17 to 16% in 2018-22 — largely because India, the largest purchaser of Russian arms, imported 37% fewer weapons over the past five years. On June 5, Nikkei Asia also reported that Russia is buying back components (including tank optics) that it previously shipped to India and other key partners like Myanmar, instead of fulfilling new arms deliveries to those countries, as Moscow struggles to replace the equipment it has lost in Ukraine.

The SIPRI report, which was published on March 13, found that Russia remained the world's second-largest arms exporter behind the United States between 2018 and 2022, but that its gap with the United States widened.

Since the start of the Ukraine war in February 2022, Russia has been relying on weapon deliveries from nearby partners to overcome its arms deficit. Belarus, for example, reportedly sent over 100,000 tons of munitions to Russia in the first year of the invasion. Russian troops in Ukraine have also become increasingly dependent on Iranian drones and loitering munitions — further highlighting the Russian arms industry's failure to meet Russia's needs amid the ongoing war.

In March, Indian military officials indicated they expect delays in Russian arms deliveries, including S-400 Triumf missile systems, Mi-17 military transport helicopters, Grigorovich-class stealth frigates, and even Kalashnikov AK assault rifles.

Russia's need to backfill its own losses in Ukraine, along with several other factors both related and unrelated to the war, are fueling its decline as a global arms exporter. According to an open-source analysis conducted by the Dutch website Oryx, Russia has lost an estimated 10,600 pieces of military equipment, including over 2,000 tanks, since launching its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Indeed, modern equipment deficits are likely a major reason Russia has so far not declared another large-scale mobilization, despite Putin recently threatening to do so. But while major, Russia's need to replace that destroyed equipment is just one of many factors likely contributing to the country's declining share of the global arms market. For one, the Russian military's struggle to defeat Ukraine, despite having a significant size and manpower advantage over the country, has fueled the perception that some equipment and systems Moscow makes have underperformed on the battlefield, which is likely hurting demand for those Russian products, and could even hurt demand for systems not accused of poor performance. But Russia's dominance as a global weapons producer began eroding long before Moscow decided to invade Ukraine, due largely to reduced demand from Russia's two top arms buyers: China and India. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia's arms exports started falling in 2019 and were already down nearly 20 percent relative to 2011, the best year for Russia's arms industry. The largest reason for this was India and China's longstanding efforts to reduce their militaries' reliance on foreign equipment by building more robust domestic defense industries — a trend that is only likely to continue (if not accelerate) in the coming decades. The loss of these two key markets means that Russia is losing market share it will likely never be able to replace, even under the best circumstances. In 2017, the United States also began imposing financial sanctions on any country that makes a ''significant transaction'' with Russian arms manufacturers under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which has helped fuel the decline in Russian arms sales in recent years as well.

Russia has preferred deploying and producing modernized versions of older T-90 tanks over its new T-14 Armata battle tanks. This signals that Moscow has doubts over its ability to mass produce newer tanks, as well as over the T-14 tank's effectiveness and performance in combat in Ukraine, which could alarm Moscow's weapons buyers.

India alone has accounted for around 35% of Russia's overseas arms shipments over the past decade. But under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the country has sought to reduce Russian imports and increase domestic production.

Serbia, a staunch Russian supporter and buyer of its arms, is reportedly in talks with the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault Aviation SA about replacing its Russian jet fleet, which U.S. sanctions have made difficult and expensive to maintain.

Russia's declining arms exports will impact Moscow's geopolitical strategy and damage its foreign policy. Arms sales have long enabled Russia to develop close military-to-military and government-to-government relationships in far-flung regions in Africa, Latin America and Asia, where Moscow's interests and influence would otherwise be scant. Countries in these regions are particularly important to Russia's efforts to foster support for its actions in Ukraine among international bodies such as the United Nations, as well as supporting global efforts to build coalitions of countries opposed to Western influence. Russia's relationships with African, Latin American and Asian countries can also serve as springboards for commercial deals, in particular in the energy sphere. And like Russia's energy sales, arms sales are a crucial source of hard cash for Moscow, increasingly important as the heavily- sanctioned country runs a deficit to finance its war in Ukraine. For these reasons, Moscow will seek to counteract the fallout from its declining arms sales by not announcing delays to weapon shipments, and by not commenting on or downplaying reports that highlight its defense industry's struggles, in order to put the risk and onus on foreign buyers to either quietly accept the delays or make the decision to curtail cooperation with Moscow. Moreover, to diversify its customer base, Moscow will likely seek out new relationships with countries increasingly in line with its geopolitical vision such as Saudi Arabia, which has expressed increased interest in Russian arms since the Ukraine invasion and faced political headwinds to its previous reliance on U.S. arms.

On May 29-30, representatives of sanctioned Russian arms makers attended a first-of-its-kind trade event in Saudi Arabia. The wealthy Arab Gulf state's investment ministry is also exploring the possibility of opening an office in Moscow. Other countries in the region also remain interested in Russian arms.

Russia is reportedly exploring new opportunities for ''military-technical cooperation''— which is Russian jargon for arms sales — with Southeast Asian, African, and South American countries as well.

But even if its global market share continues to shrink in the coming years and decades, Russia will likely remain a significant arms exporter due to several reasons:

Russia's arms production will likely grow in the coming years amid the necessity to expand production for the Ukraine war and the associated political pressures on the Russian officials in charge. President Vladimir Putin and former President Dmitry Medvedev, currently in charge of military production, have both thrown out large but likely exaggerated figures regarding how much Russia is increasing its military production. On June 13, Putin claimed military production of Russia's ''main'' weapons systems increased 2.7 times, and by 10 times for the ''most needed'' weapons, though he also admitted to shortages of drones and tanks. The need to replace its losses in Ukraine means that, even using the upper bound of Russian military production estimates, Russia's arms export market position will not normalize for at least three to five years — depending on Western sanctions and the speed of Russian industry domestication and import replacement programs, which often depend on unpredictable flows of illicit components and stole technology.
Russia's arms industry, just like its civilian industries, will eventually adapt to and find ways around the limitations placed on its access to key assets and the willingness of foreign buyers to cooperate with sanctioned entities. Russia, for example, is currently facing significant challenges in sourcing key components — particularly crucial electronics — for defense production. But over time, Russia will likely find new ways to skirt Western sanctions on electronics exports, including by simply convincing Chinese exporters to provide components.

The intensity of the Ukraine war will likely decrease in the coming years, which will enable Moscow to begin to reconstitute its losses in Ukraine while maintaining exports.

Russia will likely still prioritize maintaining arms exports to some extent rather than more quickly rebuilding its armed forces, calculating that a land war with NATO is not imminent and it can rely on its nuclear arsenal as an effective deterrent.

Institutional inertia and longstanding relationships will make it hard for many of Moscow's minor partners to reduce their reliance on Russian arms, particularly those where Russia has always been the overwhelmingly dominant supplier and domestic industries are minimal (such as Algeria or Vietnam). These countries may tolerate significant delays with Russia as deals with new Chinese or Western producers or domestic production prove intractable.

Demand will remain strong for products where Russia retains a large competitive advantage. Russia, for example, is one of only a few major producers of 5th-generation fighters, air defense systems and anti-drone systems — all for which global demand will remain strong.

Russia's decline as an arms exporter will create opportunities for other states, including China and Western arms producers, to capture Russia's market share and boost their industries' profitability in the mid-to-long term. Large arms producers — including China, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and South Korea — are most poised to benefit from Russia's declining sales in the near term. The extent to which these countries can capture pieces of Russia's market share will be crucial in determining Moscow's future ability to regain some of its dominance as a global weapons supplier. China, in particular, stands the most to gain because, unlike the other aforementioned weapons producers, it isn't already devoting a significant proportion of its budget and its arms industry's future capacity to orders related to the Ukraine war. Moreover, China's systems are more interoperable with the legacy Russian systems used by Russia's clients compared to Western systems, and, outside of a few exceptions, former buyers of Russian equipment are more predisposed to increased Chinese influence compared with Western influence that would come with new deals. A potential arrestor to this trend is China's need to stockpile key systems for contingencies in the Taiwan Strait, which may limit the amount of equipment it sells. But China remains unlikely to invade Taiwan anytime soon. Japan and Israel could also benefit from Russia's dropping arms sales, as both countries have large domestic arms industries that will find significant demand for their products — especially if Israel and Japan each continue their trends of steadily relaxing previously stringent rules and restrictions on exports.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18518
    • View Profile
The F35 -> F135. [already?]
« Reply #1210 on: June 24, 2023, 08:18:21 AM »
https://townhall.com/columnists/jaredwhitley/2023/06/24/the-pentagon-staying-the-course-on-the-f-35-isnt-feasible-or-affordable-n2624859

now they want to replace the F35s engines?

what is going on with these astronomical costs

that we spend on R & D and CCP walks in and steals the design for free.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Military Recruiting Crisis SERIOUS READ
« Reply #1213 on: June 30, 2023, 06:21:26 AM »


The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Children to Join
Pentagon scrambles to retain the main pipeline for new service members as disillusioned families steer young people away
WALL STREET JOURNAL
By Ben KeslingFollow
June 30, 2023 12:01 am ET


Sky Nisperos’s grandfather came to the U.S. from Mexico, and became an American citizen by serving in the U.S. Navy. Her father, Ernest Nisperos, is an active-duty officer in the Air Force with two decades of service. For years, Sky planned to follow a similar path.

“I wanted to be a fighter pilot,” the 22-year-old said. “It was stuck in my head.”

Now, one of the most influential people in her life—her father—is telling her that a military career may not be the right thing.

The children of military families make up the majority of new recruits in the U.S. military. That pipeline is now under threat, which is bad news for the Pentagon’s already acute recruitment problems, as well as America’s military readiness. 

“Influencers are not telling them to go into the military,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview. “Moms and dads, uncles, coaches and pastors don’t see it as a good choice.”

After the patriotic boost to recruiting that followed 9/11, the U.S. military has endured 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan with no decisive victories, scandals over shoddy military housing and healthcare, poor pay for lower ranks that forces many military families to turn to food stamps, and rising rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide.

At the same time, the labor market is the tightest it has been in decades, meaning plenty of other options exist for young people right out of school.


U.S. recruiting shortfalls represent a long-term problem that, if not resolved, would compel the military to reduce its force size. With America embarking on a new era of great-power competition with China and Russia, that problem has become more serious.


China, which has around two million serving personnel, versus a little under 1.4 million in the U.S., has steadily expanded its military capabilities in recent decades, especially in the South China Sea. The most immediate threat is a possible conflict with China over Taiwan, which would require a rapid and sustained response from all parts of the U.S. armed forces.

“I’ve been studying the recruiting market for about 15 years, and we’ve never seen a condition quite like this,” said a senior Defense Department official.

Toughest year

The U.S. Army in 2022 had its toughest recruiting year since the advent of the all-volunteer military in 1973 and missed its goal by 25%. This year, it expects to end up about 15,000 short of its target of 65,000 recruits.

The Navy expects to fall short by as many as 10,000 of its goal of nearly 38,000 recruits this year, and the Air Force has said it is anticipating coming in at 3,000 below its goal of nearly 27,000. The Marine Corps met its target last year of sending 33,000 to boot camp, and expects to meet its goals this year, but its leaders described recruitment as challenging.


Only 9% of young people ages 16-21 said last year they would consider military service, down from 13% before the pandemic, according to Pentagon data. 

Pentagon officials see recruitment shortfalls as a crisis and pledge to hit their targets in the future to stave off making changes to the force structure.

Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said she expects within weeks to begin drafting a proposal for a recruiting overhaul so sweeping that Congress might need to pass legislation to enact all of it.

She declined to provide details but said a key element will be to coordinate with veterans’ groups. “Right now we are not in a comprehensive, structured way leveraging our relationships with veterans organizations,” Wormuth said.

The Army has stepped up and modernized its marketing, launched remedial courses to bring unqualified young people to a level where they can join and revised some benefits.


Army recruiters spoke with members of the National FFA Organization, formerly called Future Farmers of America, at an FFA convention in Indianapolis, Ind., in October. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Defense officials said they aren’t doing a good job of battling what they call misperceptions. They said many families want their children to go on to higher education after high school, considering the military a stumbling block instead of a steppingstone. Once a young person is on a path to a career, they aren’t as likely to put on a uniform, they said.

When the draft ended at the close of the Vietnam War, the military fostered recruitment with the promise of a good career with retirement benefits and healthcare, as well as education benefits to prepare soldiers for life after the military. That strategy worked, and the Army typically met its overall needs.

It did so by relying heavily on veterans and military families to develop the next generation of recruits, especially in the region known in the military as the “Southern Smile,” a curving region from the mid-Atlantic and down across the southern U.S.


Today, nearly 80% of all new Army recruits have a family member who has served in uniform, according to the service. That can be a good thing, said Col. Mark Crow, director of the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis at West Point, because “people who know the most about it stick around.”

Depending too much on military families could create a “warrior caste,” Wormuth said. Her plans seek to draw in people who have no real connection to the military and to broaden the appeal of service.

THE NEW ERA OF GREAT POWER CONFLICT
The U.S. Is Not Yet Ready
How Beijing Boxed America Out of the South China Sea
Why Is America Still Flying the A-10 Warthog, a Cold War Relic?
The U.S. Military Relies on One Louisiana Factory. It Blew Up.

Sky Nisperos, who moved around the world as a military brat, said that as a teen she began to see the effect of her father’s nearly dozen deployments and tours away from his family. Ernest Nisperos said he remembers being asleep when one of his kids jabbed him in the ribs to wake him. He put Sky’s sister in a wrestling ankle lock before he realized he was back home.

“My sister and I would say, ‘It’s just drill sergeant-dad mode,’ especially for the month he came back,” Sky said.

Ernest Nisperos realized his deployments, which involved battle planning and top secret intelligence, were taking a toll. In 2019, after he returned from Afghanistan, he took the family to Disneyland. During the nightly fireworks extravaganza, he cowered in the fetal position while his family and “Toy Story” characters looked on.

Sky worried her father would end up like her grandfather, the military patriarch, who in the years since he retired from the Navy started to have what the family describes as flashbacks to his time in Ramadi, Iraq, in 2005, sometimes yelling that he needed to take cover from a nonexistent attack.

Her father decided he didn’t want that life for Sky and her two siblings.

‘What was it all for?’

Some on the left see the military as a redoubt of fringe conservatism. Oath Keepers, the militia group involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol whose leaders were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, and other extremists have touted their veteran credentials. Those on the right have expressed concerns about the military focusing on progressive issues, or in the terms of some Republican lawmakers, being too “woke.”

The sudden and unpopular conclusion to the war in Afghanistan in 2021 added to the disenchantment of some veterans, including Catalina Gasper, who served in the Navy. Gasper said she and her husband, who spent more than two decades in the Army, used to talk to their boys, now 7 and 10, about their future service, asking them if they wanted to be Navy SEALs.

In July 2019, on her last combat deployment to Afghanistan, she was stationed at a base in Kabul when the Taliban launched an attack. The blast battered Gasper’s body and she was transported back to the U.S. for treatment and recovery.

She was left with lingering damage from a traumatic brain injury. She is sensitive to loud sounds and bright lights. She has recurrent dizziness and forgets words. She also has bad knees and herniated discs in her back.

The U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, precipitating Kabul’s fall to the Taliban. “We’re left with the gut-wrenching feeling of, ‘What was it all for?’ ” she said.

She said she was a patriot but decided she would do everything she could to make sure her kids never enter the military. “I just don’t see how it’s sustainable if the machine keeps chewing up and spitting out” our young people, she said.

Katherine Kuzminski, head of the Military, Veterans and Society Program at Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan security think tank, said the pandemic exacerbated the military’s long-term recruiting problems. “You can’t underestimate the fact we didn’t have recruiters on college and high school campuses for two years,” she said. “Recruiters are the only military access point for many people” without family or friends in the military.


Potential Army recruits at the FFA convention used virtual reality headsets. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Wormuth, the Army secretary, said she is working with the Department of Education to streamline access to schools. Even with federal laws in place that guarantee military recruiters access to high school and college students, school administrators can limit the scope of visits and restrict recruiters’ movements and activities in schools.

Recruiters are competing with some of the lowest unemployment numbers in decades, and entry-level jobs in the service industry that can promise quick paychecks, no commitments and no wait times to start.

“To be honest with you it’s Wendy’s, it’s Carl’s Jr., it’s every single job that a young person can go up against because now they are offering the same incentives that we are offering, so that’s our competition right now,” said Sgt. Maj. Marco Irenze, of the Nevada Army National Guard.

Defense officials said the military pay scale was designed for single teenage men content to live in barracks and who joined to seek adventure, among other reasons. But the military has seen a shift from teens to people in their 20s, who come in later in life with greater expectations for benefits, pay and marketable skills and who pay more attention to the job market.


The lowest-ranking troops make less than $2,000 a month, although pay is bolstered by benefits including healthcare, food and housing, leaving them few out-of-pocket expenses.

Families or those who live off base can find expenses outstrip income. More than 20,000 active-duty troops are on SNAP benefits, otherwise known as food stamps, according to federal data. 

When service members move to a new base they often have to spend money out of pocket—even though the Army is supposed to cover all costs, according to Kathy Roth-Douquet, CEO of Blue Star Families, a military-family advocacy group that is currently asking Congress to mandate more funding for troops’ housing.

“If it’s too expensive to serve in the military, families won’t recommend service,” she said. “This hurts the main pipeline of recruitment.”

The promise of a pension down the line isn’t as attractive as it once was, said West Point’s Crow. Only 19% of active-duty troops stayed until retirement age in 2017, according to the Pentagon. To tackle that problem, the military started a system in 2018 that allows troops to invest in what is essentially a 401(k) program, so if they leave the military before full retirement they can still benefit.

Prep courses
The Department of Defense said 77% of American youth are disqualified from military service due to a lack of physical fitness, low test scores, criminal records including drug use or other problems. In 2013, about 71% of youth were ineligible.

The Army estimates that pandemic pressures on education including remote learning, illness, lack of internet access and social isolation lowered scores on the ASVAB, the military’s standardized test for potential recruits, by as much as 9%. Those who score below a certain level on the test and on physical readiness tests can’t join without improving their scores.

Lt. Col. Dan Hayes, a Green Beret who once taught Special Forces captains, some of the highest-performing soldiers in the Army, took charge of the Future Soldier Prep Course in Fort Jackson, S.C. The course takes Army recruits who can’t perform academically or physically and gets them up to standards that allow them to join the service. Other programs help new soldiers raise scores.

“We’re looking at the problems in society and recruiting and realizing we have to meet people half way,” said Hayes.

The Army is adapting marketing techniques from the private sector. One early lesson: The Cold War-era slogan, “Be All You Can Be,” performed better than a recent one, “Army of One,” which didn’t reflect the teamwork the service thinks appeals to current teenagers. The slogan also emphasizes that the military offers career development and a broader sense of purpose, some of its strongest selling points.

Maj. Gen. Deborah Kotulich, the director of the Army’s recruiting and retention task force, a unit convened to address recent shortfalls, said potential recruits should know the Army has more than 150 different job fields available. 

Maj. General Alex Fink is just as likely to wear a business suit as camouflage fatigues at the Army Enterprise Marketing Office based in Chicago. The Army put Fink, a reservist with a marketing background, in Chicago so he can be in the heart of one of the nation’s advertising and marketing hubs.

“It hadn’t evolved for the last 15 or 20 years,” he said in an interview. “We really couldn’t measure the effectiveness of marketing.”

Fink’s office is now gathering data on every potential recruit. If an Army ad runs on Facebook and a link gets clicked, the service can follow that anonymous user digitally.

“We don’t know your name, but we can start serving you ads,” he said.

And if that user eventually fills out an Army questionnaire, the service has a name to go with that data and can know what kinds of ads work best. “Literally we can track this all the way until a kid signs a contract,” he said.

Restructuring units
Deeper problems soldiers report include moldy barracks, harassment, lack of adequate child care and not enough support for mental health issues such as suicide.

“Parents have concerns about, hey, if my kid joins the military are they going to have good places to live?” Wormuth said. “If my kid joins the military are they going to be sexually harassed, or are they going to be more prone to suicidal ideations?”

She said the Army has encouraged recruiters to be forthright about addressing what might have once been taboo issues in order to dispel those concerns. The service says it has worked to encourage troops to report abuse and harassment and cracked down on such behavior, and has also expanded parental-leave benefits.

Department of Defense officials have said they will have to address the total combat power of the military if the recruiting crisis continues, but that they aren’t ready to yet talk about whether strength will ultimately be affected.


Readiness shortfalls can be masked when units aren’t headed into war, but a full-scale response, such as what would be needed in the Pacific, could expose undermanned units that can’t be deployed or aren’t effective, and ships and aircraft that aren’t combat ready due to a lack of personnel to maintain them.

The military faces decisions on either cutting the size of units or reconfiguring them, or making choices that could hurt the quality of the current forces.

Working to retain existing soldiers is an option. But retention can mean low performers aren’t let go, said Gil Barndollar, a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at Catholic University of America. “If you’re not cutting your bottom 10% after their initial contracts it’s going to have a long-term effect on high performers,” he said.

Last year, the Army’s top officer, Gen. James McConville, told reporters the service was prepared to eliminate redundancies in the Army’s key fighting units, which are called brigade combat teams. The Army would maintain the number of the units by reducing the personnel in each of them, a restructuring that was prompted by the recruiting crunch, according to one defense official.


Potential recruits at the FFA convention tried a fitness challenge. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, said the Army might end up making cuts that leave too few soldiers in platoons and other units. During peacetime and training this may go unnoticed, but if those units have to deploy, the Army would have to take troops from other units to fill in gaps.

Undermanned units aren’t ready to respond quickly, Cancian said, and units with fill-in soldiers don’t have the same effectiveness as a unit whose members trained together for months or years. “What you’re going to see in the Army are hollow units,” he said.

Wormuth, the Army secretary, has said units will get cuts but hasn’t made public her plan. She has for months hinted at broader force reductions.

“If you look at us over the course of the last 50 years of history, the Army is a little bit like an accordion. We tend to expand in times of war,” Wormuth said. “Frankly that’s how the Founding Fathers thought about the military, they didn’t want a large standing militia.”

Still, she said, the Army is “very, very focused” on turning around the recruiting numbers.

Changes may come too late for those about to graduate from high school or college. Sky Nisperos, who once dreamed of becoming an Air Force pilot, graduated from the University of Oklahoma in May. Her plan now, she said, is to become a graphic designer.

Michael R. Gordon contributed to this article.

Design by Andrew Levinson.

Write to Ben Kesling at ben.kesling@wsj.com

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: The Military Recruiting Crisis SERIOUS READ
« Reply #1214 on: June 30, 2023, 09:26:58 AM »
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/141/715/910/original/58a7bba1ce04fc3c.jpg





The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Children to Join
Pentagon scrambles to retain the main pipeline for new service members as disillusioned families steer young people away
WALL STREET JOURNAL
By Ben KeslingFollow
June 30, 2023 12:01 am ET


Sky Nisperos’s grandfather came to the U.S. from Mexico, and became an American citizen by serving in the U.S. Navy. Her father, Ernest Nisperos, is an active-duty officer in the Air Force with two decades of service. For years, Sky planned to follow a similar path.

“I wanted to be a fighter pilot,” the 22-year-old said. “It was stuck in my head.”

Now, one of the most influential people in her life—her father—is telling her that a military career may not be the right thing.

The children of military families make up the majority of new recruits in the U.S. military. That pipeline is now under threat, which is bad news for the Pentagon’s already acute recruitment problems, as well as America’s military readiness. 

“Influencers are not telling them to go into the military,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview. “Moms and dads, uncles, coaches and pastors don’t see it as a good choice.”

After the patriotic boost to recruiting that followed 9/11, the U.S. military has endured 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan with no decisive victories, scandals over shoddy military housing and healthcare, poor pay for lower ranks that forces many military families to turn to food stamps, and rising rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide.

At the same time, the labor market is the tightest it has been in decades, meaning plenty of other options exist for young people right out of school.


U.S. recruiting shortfalls represent a long-term problem that, if not resolved, would compel the military to reduce its force size. With America embarking on a new era of great-power competition with China and Russia, that problem has become more serious.


China, which has around two million serving personnel, versus a little under 1.4 million in the U.S., has steadily expanded its military capabilities in recent decades, especially in the South China Sea. The most immediate threat is a possible conflict with China over Taiwan, which would require a rapid and sustained response from all parts of the U.S. armed forces.

“I’ve been studying the recruiting market for about 15 years, and we’ve never seen a condition quite like this,” said a senior Defense Department official.

Toughest year

The U.S. Army in 2022 had its toughest recruiting year since the advent of the all-volunteer military in 1973 and missed its goal by 25%. This year, it expects to end up about 15,000 short of its target of 65,000 recruits.

The Navy expects to fall short by as many as 10,000 of its goal of nearly 38,000 recruits this year, and the Air Force has said it is anticipating coming in at 3,000 below its goal of nearly 27,000. The Marine Corps met its target last year of sending 33,000 to boot camp, and expects to meet its goals this year, but its leaders described recruitment as challenging.


Only 9% of young people ages 16-21 said last year they would consider military service, down from 13% before the pandemic, according to Pentagon data. 

Pentagon officials see recruitment shortfalls as a crisis and pledge to hit their targets in the future to stave off making changes to the force structure.

Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said she expects within weeks to begin drafting a proposal for a recruiting overhaul so sweeping that Congress might need to pass legislation to enact all of it.

She declined to provide details but said a key element will be to coordinate with veterans’ groups. “Right now we are not in a comprehensive, structured way leveraging our relationships with veterans organizations,” Wormuth said.

The Army has stepped up and modernized its marketing, launched remedial courses to bring unqualified young people to a level where they can join and revised some benefits.


Army recruiters spoke with members of the National FFA Organization, formerly called Future Farmers of America, at an FFA convention in Indianapolis, Ind., in October. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Defense officials said they aren’t doing a good job of battling what they call misperceptions. They said many families want their children to go on to higher education after high school, considering the military a stumbling block instead of a steppingstone. Once a young person is on a path to a career, they aren’t as likely to put on a uniform, they said.

When the draft ended at the close of the Vietnam War, the military fostered recruitment with the promise of a good career with retirement benefits and healthcare, as well as education benefits to prepare soldiers for life after the military. That strategy worked, and the Army typically met its overall needs.

It did so by relying heavily on veterans and military families to develop the next generation of recruits, especially in the region known in the military as the “Southern Smile,” a curving region from the mid-Atlantic and down across the southern U.S.


Today, nearly 80% of all new Army recruits have a family member who has served in uniform, according to the service. That can be a good thing, said Col. Mark Crow, director of the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis at West Point, because “people who know the most about it stick around.”

Depending too much on military families could create a “warrior caste,” Wormuth said. Her plans seek to draw in people who have no real connection to the military and to broaden the appeal of service.

THE NEW ERA OF GREAT POWER CONFLICT
The U.S. Is Not Yet Ready
How Beijing Boxed America Out of the South China Sea
Why Is America Still Flying the A-10 Warthog, a Cold War Relic?
The U.S. Military Relies on One Louisiana Factory. It Blew Up.

Sky Nisperos, who moved around the world as a military brat, said that as a teen she began to see the effect of her father’s nearly dozen deployments and tours away from his family. Ernest Nisperos said he remembers being asleep when one of his kids jabbed him in the ribs to wake him. He put Sky’s sister in a wrestling ankle lock before he realized he was back home.

“My sister and I would say, ‘It’s just drill sergeant-dad mode,’ especially for the month he came back,” Sky said.

Ernest Nisperos realized his deployments, which involved battle planning and top secret intelligence, were taking a toll. In 2019, after he returned from Afghanistan, he took the family to Disneyland. During the nightly fireworks extravaganza, he cowered in the fetal position while his family and “Toy Story” characters looked on.

Sky worried her father would end up like her grandfather, the military patriarch, who in the years since he retired from the Navy started to have what the family describes as flashbacks to his time in Ramadi, Iraq, in 2005, sometimes yelling that he needed to take cover from a nonexistent attack.

Her father decided he didn’t want that life for Sky and her two siblings.

‘What was it all for?’

Some on the left see the military as a redoubt of fringe conservatism. Oath Keepers, the militia group involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol whose leaders were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, and other extremists have touted their veteran credentials. Those on the right have expressed concerns about the military focusing on progressive issues, or in the terms of some Republican lawmakers, being too “woke.”

The sudden and unpopular conclusion to the war in Afghanistan in 2021 added to the disenchantment of some veterans, including Catalina Gasper, who served in the Navy. Gasper said she and her husband, who spent more than two decades in the Army, used to talk to their boys, now 7 and 10, about their future service, asking them if they wanted to be Navy SEALs.

In July 2019, on her last combat deployment to Afghanistan, she was stationed at a base in Kabul when the Taliban launched an attack. The blast battered Gasper’s body and she was transported back to the U.S. for treatment and recovery.

She was left with lingering damage from a traumatic brain injury. She is sensitive to loud sounds and bright lights. She has recurrent dizziness and forgets words. She also has bad knees and herniated discs in her back.

The U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, precipitating Kabul’s fall to the Taliban. “We’re left with the gut-wrenching feeling of, ‘What was it all for?’ ” she said.

She said she was a patriot but decided she would do everything she could to make sure her kids never enter the military. “I just don’t see how it’s sustainable if the machine keeps chewing up and spitting out” our young people, she said.

Katherine Kuzminski, head of the Military, Veterans and Society Program at Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan security think tank, said the pandemic exacerbated the military’s long-term recruiting problems. “You can’t underestimate the fact we didn’t have recruiters on college and high school campuses for two years,” she said. “Recruiters are the only military access point for many people” without family or friends in the military.


Potential Army recruits at the FFA convention used virtual reality headsets. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Wormuth, the Army secretary, said she is working with the Department of Education to streamline access to schools. Even with federal laws in place that guarantee military recruiters access to high school and college students, school administrators can limit the scope of visits and restrict recruiters’ movements and activities in schools.

Recruiters are competing with some of the lowest unemployment numbers in decades, and entry-level jobs in the service industry that can promise quick paychecks, no commitments and no wait times to start.

“To be honest with you it’s Wendy’s, it’s Carl’s Jr., it’s every single job that a young person can go up against because now they are offering the same incentives that we are offering, so that’s our competition right now,” said Sgt. Maj. Marco Irenze, of the Nevada Army National Guard.

Defense officials said the military pay scale was designed for single teenage men content to live in barracks and who joined to seek adventure, among other reasons. But the military has seen a shift from teens to people in their 20s, who come in later in life with greater expectations for benefits, pay and marketable skills and who pay more attention to the job market.


The lowest-ranking troops make less than $2,000 a month, although pay is bolstered by benefits including healthcare, food and housing, leaving them few out-of-pocket expenses.

Families or those who live off base can find expenses outstrip income. More than 20,000 active-duty troops are on SNAP benefits, otherwise known as food stamps, according to federal data. 

When service members move to a new base they often have to spend money out of pocket—even though the Army is supposed to cover all costs, according to Kathy Roth-Douquet, CEO of Blue Star Families, a military-family advocacy group that is currently asking Congress to mandate more funding for troops’ housing.

“If it’s too expensive to serve in the military, families won’t recommend service,” she said. “This hurts the main pipeline of recruitment.”

The promise of a pension down the line isn’t as attractive as it once was, said West Point’s Crow. Only 19% of active-duty troops stayed until retirement age in 2017, according to the Pentagon. To tackle that problem, the military started a system in 2018 that allows troops to invest in what is essentially a 401(k) program, so if they leave the military before full retirement they can still benefit.

Prep courses
The Department of Defense said 77% of American youth are disqualified from military service due to a lack of physical fitness, low test scores, criminal records including drug use or other problems. In 2013, about 71% of youth were ineligible.

The Army estimates that pandemic pressures on education including remote learning, illness, lack of internet access and social isolation lowered scores on the ASVAB, the military’s standardized test for potential recruits, by as much as 9%. Those who score below a certain level on the test and on physical readiness tests can’t join without improving their scores.

Lt. Col. Dan Hayes, a Green Beret who once taught Special Forces captains, some of the highest-performing soldiers in the Army, took charge of the Future Soldier Prep Course in Fort Jackson, S.C. The course takes Army recruits who can’t perform academically or physically and gets them up to standards that allow them to join the service. Other programs help new soldiers raise scores.

“We’re looking at the problems in society and recruiting and realizing we have to meet people half way,” said Hayes.

The Army is adapting marketing techniques from the private sector. One early lesson: The Cold War-era slogan, “Be All You Can Be,” performed better than a recent one, “Army of One,” which didn’t reflect the teamwork the service thinks appeals to current teenagers. The slogan also emphasizes that the military offers career development and a broader sense of purpose, some of its strongest selling points.

Maj. Gen. Deborah Kotulich, the director of the Army’s recruiting and retention task force, a unit convened to address recent shortfalls, said potential recruits should know the Army has more than 150 different job fields available. 

Maj. General Alex Fink is just as likely to wear a business suit as camouflage fatigues at the Army Enterprise Marketing Office based in Chicago. The Army put Fink, a reservist with a marketing background, in Chicago so he can be in the heart of one of the nation’s advertising and marketing hubs.

“It hadn’t evolved for the last 15 or 20 years,” he said in an interview. “We really couldn’t measure the effectiveness of marketing.”

Fink’s office is now gathering data on every potential recruit. If an Army ad runs on Facebook and a link gets clicked, the service can follow that anonymous user digitally.

“We don’t know your name, but we can start serving you ads,” he said.

And if that user eventually fills out an Army questionnaire, the service has a name to go with that data and can know what kinds of ads work best. “Literally we can track this all the way until a kid signs a contract,” he said.

Restructuring units
Deeper problems soldiers report include moldy barracks, harassment, lack of adequate child care and not enough support for mental health issues such as suicide.

“Parents have concerns about, hey, if my kid joins the military are they going to have good places to live?” Wormuth said. “If my kid joins the military are they going to be sexually harassed, or are they going to be more prone to suicidal ideations?”

She said the Army has encouraged recruiters to be forthright about addressing what might have once been taboo issues in order to dispel those concerns. The service says it has worked to encourage troops to report abuse and harassment and cracked down on such behavior, and has also expanded parental-leave benefits.

Department of Defense officials have said they will have to address the total combat power of the military if the recruiting crisis continues, but that they aren’t ready to yet talk about whether strength will ultimately be affected.


Readiness shortfalls can be masked when units aren’t headed into war, but a full-scale response, such as what would be needed in the Pacific, could expose undermanned units that can’t be deployed or aren’t effective, and ships and aircraft that aren’t combat ready due to a lack of personnel to maintain them.

The military faces decisions on either cutting the size of units or reconfiguring them, or making choices that could hurt the quality of the current forces.

Working to retain existing soldiers is an option. But retention can mean low performers aren’t let go, said Gil Barndollar, a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at Catholic University of America. “If you’re not cutting your bottom 10% after their initial contracts it’s going to have a long-term effect on high performers,” he said.

Last year, the Army’s top officer, Gen. James McConville, told reporters the service was prepared to eliminate redundancies in the Army’s key fighting units, which are called brigade combat teams. The Army would maintain the number of the units by reducing the personnel in each of them, a restructuring that was prompted by the recruiting crunch, according to one defense official.


Potential recruits at the FFA convention tried a fitness challenge. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, said the Army might end up making cuts that leave too few soldiers in platoons and other units. During peacetime and training this may go unnoticed, but if those units have to deploy, the Army would have to take troops from other units to fill in gaps.

Undermanned units aren’t ready to respond quickly, Cancian said, and units with fill-in soldiers don’t have the same effectiveness as a unit whose members trained together for months or years. “What you’re going to see in the Army are hollow units,” he said.

Wormuth, the Army secretary, has said units will get cuts but hasn’t made public her plan. She has for months hinted at broader force reductions.

“If you look at us over the course of the last 50 years of history, the Army is a little bit like an accordion. We tend to expand in times of war,” Wormuth said. “Frankly that’s how the Founding Fathers thought about the military, they didn’t want a large standing militia.”

Still, she said, the Army is “very, very focused” on turning around the recruiting numbers.

Changes may come too late for those about to graduate from high school or college. Sky Nisperos, who once dreamed of becoming an Air Force pilot, graduated from the University of Oklahoma in May. Her plan now, she said, is to become a graphic designer.

Michael R. Gordon contributed to this article.

Design by Andrew Levinson.

Write to Ben Kesling at ben.kesling@wsj.com

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
Re: Military Science, Military Issues, and the Nature of War
« Reply #1216 on: July 02, 2023, 08:28:27 PM »
OMG , , , 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
MY: US military will shatter in a serious war
« Reply #1218 on: July 06, 2023, 02:59:46 PM »
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/4251924/the-organizational-structure-of-current-military-selects-for-sycophants-and-other-losers-who-can-be

The organizational structure of current military selects for sycophants and other losers who can be controlled. The next war involving significant fighting from US military against significant adversaries likely will shatter the U.S. military. And that makes things extremely dangerous. Drug addicts and insane males pretending they are women having menstrual pains cannot be trusted with the sort of weapons OGUS has.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2023, 03:07:31 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
In Praise of Prigozhim
« Reply #1219 on: July 06, 2023, 03:08:10 PM »

From the prior post by MY:


https://dl2022.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-prigozhin

In Praise of Prigozhin
Some day our American Prigozhin will come

JASON M. MORGAN
JUL 6, 2023
In late June of 2023, a furious Yevgeny Prigozhin commenced a march on Moscow. He got a lot farther than many expected. Waylaid at Rostov-on-Don, on the Sea of Azov, Prigozhin entered into heated negotiations with the object of his fury, Russian president Vladimir Putin. A day after Prigozhin’s gambit started, it was over. Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko, an old friend of Prigozhin’s and also a trusted junior partner of Putin’s, had negotiated a truce of sorts. Prigozhin went on what might best be called a hiatus in Belarus. Prigozhin’s marchers, the A-Team mercenary group of Russian misfits known as Wagner, went back to the meat grinder in Ukraine.

The history of Wagner, and of its wily originator Yevgeny Prigozhin, is available for anyone to read if interested. I recommend it. It’s fascinating, especially in the wider context of Russian history.

But while news reports of Prigozhin’s salient against Putin—and not really Putin so much as those serving him whom Prigozhin thought insufficiently devoted to the war in Ukraine—have focused on the implications for the Russian state in the fallout of the daylong Wagner hole-up in Rostov-on-Don, I want to think about Prigozhin and America. Namely, why don’t we have a Prigozhin of our own?

What I think many readers who take the trouble to examine the details will find striking is that Prigozhin’s criticisms of the Russian military commanders and political elite, whom Prigozhin accuses of being indifferent to the suffering of his men in the Ukrainian hellscape, could be applied almost exactly to men and women in similar positions in Washington, DC.

“Shoigu! Gerasimov!,” Prigozhin recently raged, calling out by name Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov,  the Minister of Defense and Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, respectively. “Where is the [expletive] ammunition? They [i.e., Wagner troops] came here as volunteers and die for you to fatten yourselves in your mahogany offices.”

Prigozhin took the fight against his superiors in Moscow to another level by personally attacking Shoigu’s son-in-law online. Shoigu’s family member avoided service in the Ukraine war while regular Russian boys died in droves.

The premise of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was a lie, Prizoghin claims.

Regular Russian troops are cowards, Prigozhin says, and their leaders are “stupid.”

Prigozhin has long been vilified in the American and European press. This is not surprising, given the endless fake news about Ukraine. But even the fake-news reports are useful in thinking about Prigozhin in an American context. Whatever one thinks about Russia or the Ukraine war, one has to admit, I think, that Prigozhin raises very good points about how the decisions (and indecision) of faraway elites adversely affect men in trenches. Whether one wants Russia to win, lose, or draw in Ukraine, Prigozhin’s direct pointing to what appear to be the usual problems of wartime—idiotic commanders, inept supply officers, chronic bureaucratic lying, elite avoidance of war’s horrors, the indifference of politicians to dead and wounded nobodies—is in itself worth praising.

Prigozhin may be a bad man. But he is, for all that, a man. He stands up for those under him. He goes to war—with Kiev and with Moscow—for his boys. He calls bullshit as needed. He doesn’t play sycophantic games. He drives a hard bargain and shows real thymotic vigor in defending his own. He is punctilious on points of honor. He repays slights with extreme prejudice. He will gamble everything to stare down just one mealy-mouthed pencil-pusher in a distant capital. Bad man or not, Yevgeny Prigozhin is a certified badass. He steps up and kicks in. His men, as is clear by their willingness to risk their own skins in his June, 2023 mutiny, adore him. Wagner’s ragtag ruffians pay Prigozhin the highest compliment by following him, at their own great peril, wherever he leads.

I ask again, then. Why is there no American Prigozhin?

In the summer of 2021, the United States executed a disgraceful and dishonorable rabbit run from Kabul. The United States military followed orders, turned tail, and left people behind. It was, through and through, a self-inflicted catastrophe.

Only one person in the ranks, Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, Jr., of the United States Marines, spoke out publicly against the ignominious 2021 retreat. He was thrown in the brig, and eventually cut a path clear of his notoriety with a timely offering of Never-Trumpism.

The Afghanistan retreat was tailor-made for someone like Yevgeny Prigozhin to excoriate. Bureaucratic ineptitude and military lily-liveredness abounded.

But only one person in uniform said a word. One. And that was mainly limited to some videos posted to social media. It was hardly, in retrospect, a ringing endorsement of the quality of American soldiery. In fact, it was a tacit indictment of the American military’s careerism, at best, and probably plain cowardice more generally. Any man who can stomach running up the white flag to the Taliban and leaving Americans behind to be raped and butchered by barbarians doesn’t deserve to wear the American uniform. Or, sadly, maybe he does.

Either way, what was needed after the implosion in Afghanistan was just what Lt. Col. Scheller called for at one point: a revolution. At the bare minimum, someone with command of a lot of men and weapons needed to march on Washington to put a fine point on the heartbreak that millions of warfighters, veterans, and their families felt when that city cut and run in Afghanistan. At the bare minimum, some generals needed to go Roman Empire and turn around mid-campaign to make war on the criminals at home for a change, instead of the foreign enemy.

There needed to be a Prigozhin long before that, too, when Americans were dying in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the failures of their higher-ups. Michael Yon, a veteran journalist who covered those conflicts, pointed out flagrant abuses by American brass. The brass turned on Yon. Who in the ranks made the honorable decision to put God and country before promotion and hold Washington hostage so that Americans in the field would stop dying?

There needed to be a Prigozhin when Americans went off to fight in Korea under a United Nations flag. There was a Prigozhin, named Smedley Butler, when Washington betrayed fighting men after World War I. But he was the last of that line. Everyone since has been a ladder-climber. And we are infinitely the worse for it as a civilization.

The news coming out of eastern Europe and Russia about Yevgeny Prigozhin is not palatable. It could portend even more upheaval in that part of the world than we already have. That is all well worth our attention. We ought to keep a close eye on what Prigozhin does now, and does next.

But in the mirror darkly in all this news chatter is a commentary, if we will only choose to see it, on our own ruined country. We may look down on the Russians for their warlordism. If only we in America had even that. Yevgeny Prigozhin, rough and rude man that he surely is, had the balls to stand up and fight for honor and demand to be told the truth. Nobody in Washington or in the entire United States military today—nobody, despite having much more reason to do so than Prigozhin ever did—is capable of such a thing. To the careerists in the American military today, such honor and bravery, such manliness, are unthinkable.

--Jason Morgan is associate professor at Reitaku University in Kashiwa, Japan

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
Re: Military Science, Military Issues, and the Nature of War
« Reply #1220 on: July 07, 2023, 09:51:29 AM »
Addressing U.S. military preparedness

A Lusitania-type wake-up call

By Rep. French Hill

Just over a century ago, America’s military was in disarray. Our focus on defense was declining. When the RMS Lusitania was sunk off the coast of Ireland by a German U-boat in 1915, this tragic event was a wake-up call to President Woodrow Wilson and many Americans who had been reluctant to support the defense of Britain and France against the invasion by the Germans.

Former President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the most persuasive patriarchs of a strong and welltrained U.S. Navy, was one of Wilson’s most outspoken critics of his lack of military preparedness.

Rep. Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, Roosevelt’s son-in-law, had a similar view.

A member of the House Ways and Means Committee and a future speaker of the House, Longworth was a strong voice for defense industrial investment and aggressive military preparation.

Today, we face an eerily similar confluence of events. Americans have grown weary of foreign conflict, given 20 years of the global war on terrorism.

There is a growing feeling of isolationism brought about by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars for military, humanitarian and financial support of this sovereign nation.

These growing voices of isolation are appearing precisely at a new and more challenging time with the rising threats from Russia’s allies China, Iran and North Korea.

In addition, the strong military aid for Ukraine provided by the United States and Europe has exposed the weak underbelly of our nation and our allies’ defense industrial capacity to produce critical materials such as ammunition, artillery shells and missiles.

Likewise, we are depleting key stockpiles of these components here at home and among our allies.

As Longworth noted after the Lusitania sank, the United States learned that we cannot neglect the importance of “true preparedness” where we are “free from the industrial domination of any other nation” and that our defense base is “the very foundation of military efficiency … in a time of war.”

His words hold true today, both as they relate to lessons of Ukraine and freeing ourselves from reliance on foreign nations in key areas such as strategic minerals, semiconductor chips, and pharmaceutical compounds and supplies.

As Congress considers our nation’s 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, we must focus on true preparedness.

While making critical investments in space, artificial intelligence and future technology, we must also enhance our military’s preparedness.

Congress should find the necessary ways and means to create a more effective defense industrial base for our urgent production of these elements. Likewise, the Department of Defense’s Foreign Military Sales, known as FMS, and Foreign Military Financing, or FMF, programs must be reformed to be more responsive.

Subject to the same constraints on the defense industrial base, the United States has offered many different weapons systems to Taiwan, which Taiwan has fully funded. Yet the expected delivery of these weapons systems extends years from now.

This is unacceptable given the growing aggression of the Chinese Communist Party in the region.

To address this, the House Foreign Affairs Committee recently created the FMS Technical, Industrial and Governmental Engagement for Readiness Task Force, of which I am a member.

The task force will study the U.S. government’s foreign military sales process and issue recommendations for enhancing the arms transfer to Taiwan, which is a critical step in analyzing the scope of challenges our nation faces in our assistance to ensure Taiwan can successfully defend itself.

Recently, Doug Cameron argued in The Wall Street Journal that “years of stop-start Pentagon funding for munitions led companies to close production lines or quit the industry, while output of many components and raw materials moved overseas. Defense Department chiefs estimate the decline will take five or six years to reverse.”

This should be our own Lusitania-type wake-up call.

The clear and present danger of our own weakness in producing routine military supplies to defend our interests and those of our allies around the world who are dedicated to defend democracy must be top of mind and prioritized.

As Congress works to find a bipartisan consensus that will correct our deficiencies in America’s preparedness, we must keep our nation’s history in mind.

In a time where the threats of our foreign adversaries are ever-increasing, we cannot afford to be unprepared militarily.

Only we can learn from our past to ensure history does not repeat itself.
 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
WSJ: Eric Schmidt (yes that one): The Future of War is Drone Swarms
« Reply #1221 on: July 07, 2023, 03:35:38 PM »
The Future of War Has Come in Ukraine: Drone Swarms
The innovations that have led to Kyiv’s remarkable successes against Russia will change combat dramatically.
By Eric Schmidt
July 7, 2023 3:25 pm ET

My most recent trip to Ukraine revealed a burgeoning military reality: The future of war will be dictated and waged by drones.

Amid a front line covering 600 miles, the Ukrainian counteroffensive faces a formidable Russian force, as it tries to break through to the Azov Sea and stop the Russian overland supply line to Crimea. Between the two armies, there are at least 3 miles of heavily mined territory followed by rows of concrete antitank obstacles, with artillery pieces hidden in nearby forests. The Russian military has amassed so much artillery and ammunition that it can afford to fire 50,000 rounds a day—an order of magnitude more than Ukraine.

Traditional military doctrine suggests that an advancing force should have air superiority and a 3-to-1 advantage in soldiers to make steady progress against a dug-in opponent. Ukrainians have neither. That they’ve succeeded anyway is owing to their ability to adopt and adapt new technologies such as drones.

Drones extend the Ukrainian infantry’s limited reach. Reconnaissance drones keep soldiers safe, constantly monitoring Russian attacks and providing feedback to correct artillery targeting. During the daytime, they fly over enemy lines to identify targets; at night, they return with payloads.

Unfortunately, Russia has picked up these tactics, too. Behind the initial minefields and trenches blocking Kyiv’s advance, there’s a more heavily defended line. If courageous Ukrainians make it there, Russian soldiers will send in drones and artillery. All the while Russia’s army—which excels at jamming and GPS spoofing—is working to take out Ukrainian drones. A May report from the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies estimated that Ukraine was losing as many as 10,000 a month even before the start of the counteroffensive.

Yet Ukraine has continually out-innovated the enemy. Its latest drone models can prevent jamming, operate without GPS guidance and drop guided bombs on moving targets. Ukrainian command centers use personal computers and open-source software to classify targets and execute operations.

Ukraine has also pioneered a more effective model of decentralized military operations that makes its tech use varied and quickly evolving. In the war’s early stages, Ukraine’s government put the new Digital Ministry in charge of drone procurement but left important decision making to smaller units. While the ministry sets standards and purchases drones, the brigades are empowered to choose and operate them. Ten programmers can change the way thousands of soldiers operate. One brigade I visited independently designed its own multilayered visual planning system, which coordinates units’ actions.

To win this war, Ukraine needs to rethink 100 years of traditional military tactics focused on trenches, mortars and artillery. But the innovations it and Russia make will carry on far beyond this particular conflict.

Perhaps the most important is the kamikaze drone. Deployed in volume, this first-person-view drone—invented for the sport of drone racing—is cheaper than a mortar round and more accurate than artillery fire. Kamikaze drones cost around $400 and can carry up to 3 pounds of explosives. In the hands of a skilled operator with several months of training, these drones fly so fast they are nearly impossible to shoot down.

Costly materiel, such as combat aircraft that are vulnerable to missile attacks, will be replaced by cheaper drones—operating on land, sea and air. In the future, like murmurations of starlings, ruthless swarms of AI-empowered kamikaze drones will track mobile targets and algorithmically collaborate to strike past an enemy’s electronic countermeasures. Naval drones will take the same concepts into the sea, converging like a shoal of small torpedoes at the waterline of targeted ships. Land-based drones will clear obstacles, demine fields and eventually act as remote machine guns and other weapons.

As I departed Ukraine, what stuck with me were the rolling fields along the Dnipro River, with cinnabar-colored flowers covering the gentle landscape. In the 1930s, Stalin enforced the Holodomor, the forced starvation of about four million Ukrainians in the middle of the breadbasket of Europe. The industry of the tractors cultivating fields only miles from the front line was a powerful reminder of how human civilization can withstand unbelievable hardship—and emerge stronger.

The war in Ukraine shows us the best and worst humanity can offer, from the ruthlessness of the invasion to the bravery of the defenders. It’s also a stark warning of the future wars to come. Just as drones can be deployed to protect soldiers, they can be used to hunt civilians.

The world needs to learn and innovate from the lessons of this emerging form of fighting to be ready to deter and prevent such conflict from ever happening again.

Mr. Schmidt was CEO of Google, 2001-11, and executive chairman of Google and its successor, Alphabet Inc., 2011-17. He is the chairman of the Special Competitive Studies Project and a co-author of “The Age of AI: And Our Human Future.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
WTL China crafting weapons to alter brain function
« Reply #1222 on: July 10, 2023, 06:30:47 AM »
SECURITY

China crafting weapons to alter brain function

Report finds technology meant to influence government leaders

BY BILL GERTZ THE WASHINGTON TIMES

China’s People’s Liberation Army is developing high-technology weapons designed to disrupt brain functions and influence government leaders or entire populations, according to a report by three open-source intelligence analysts.

The weapons can be used to directly attack or control brains using microwave or other directed energy weapons in handheld guns or larger weapons firing electromagnetic beams, adding that the danger of China’s brain warfare weapons prior to or during a conflict is no longer theoretical.

“Unknown to many, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have established themselves as world leaders in the development of neurostrike weapons,” according to the 12-page report, “Enumerating, Targeting and Collapsing the Chinese Communist Party’s Neurostrike Program.” The Washington Times obtained a copy of the study.

The U.S. Commerce Department in December 2021 imposed sanctions on China’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences and 11 related entities the department said were using “biotechnology processes to support Chinese military end-uses and end-users, to include purported brain-control weaponry.”

Few public studies or discussions, however, have been held

regarding the new advanced military capability.

Neurostrike is a military term defi ned as the engineered targeting of the brains of military personnel or civilians using nonkinetic technology. The goal is to impair thinking, reduce situational awareness, inflict long-term neurological damage and cloud normal cognitive functions.

The study was written by Ryan Clarke, a senior fellow at the East Asian Institute of the National University of Singapore; Xiaoxu Sean Lin, a former Army microbiologist now with Feitan College; and L.J. Eads, a former Air Force intelligence officer and current specialist in artificial intelligence for the U.S. intelligence community. The three authors write that China’s leadership “views neurostrike and psychological warfare as a core component of its asymmetric warfare strategy against the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific.”

According to the report, neurostrike capabilities are part of standard military capabilities and should not be viewed as an unconventional weapon limited to use in extreme circumstances.

Likely areas of use for the weapons included Taiwan, the South China Sea, East China Sea and the disputed Sino-Indian border.

The threat is not limited to the use of microwave weapons: “[China’s] new landscape of neurostrike development includes using massively distributed human-computer interfaces to control entire populations as well as a range of weapons designed to cause cognitive damage,” the report said.

Research is focused on using brain warfare weapons in the near term, and possibly during a Chinese military assault on Taiwan — a target for future Chinese military operations that U.S. military leaders have said could be carried out in the next four years.

“Any breakthrough in this research would provide unprecedented tools for the CCP to forcibly establish a new world order, which has been [Chinese President] Xi Jinping’s lifelong goal,” the report said.

Militarily, brain warfare can be used in what the Pentagon has called China’s “anti-access, area-denial” military strategy for the Indo-Pacific.

“Imagine (at least partially) immunized PLA troops being inserted into a geography where a specific weaponized bacterial strain has been released prior to their entry to prepare the ground and eliminate points of resistance,” the report states. “Any remaining sources of resistance on the ground are then dealt with through [Chinese] neurostrike weaponry that instill intense fear and/ or other forms of cognitive incoherence resulting in inaction.”

That scenario would allow the PLA to establish absolute control over a nation like Taiwan, while at the same time blunting any American strategic options to intervene and send troops in to support Taiwan. The PLA could thus negate U.S. conventional military superiority with few near-term remedies for the United States, the report said.

“This scenario is based on known existing CCP research programs and what the clear strategic aims of those programs are,” the report said.

The report said placing China’s Academy of Military Medical Science the Commerce Department’s blacklist of companies barred from access to U.S. goods was the result of its leading role in developing brain warfare capabilities. A special branch of the Chinese military known as the Strategic Support Force (SSF) is likely the main unit charged with conducting brain warfare.

The SSF is the leader in what the PLA calls a “three warfares” strategy of using nonkinetic weapons in war. The three warfares were disclosed in 2014 by China’s National Defense University and call for employing psychological warfare, media warfare and legal warfare.

Little is known about the SSF but available information indicates the force would be used to shape information environments on the ground and provide the PLA with better battlefield information than its adversaries.

“With additional neurostrike capabilities that can either damage, disorient or even control perceived adversary cognition at the population level, the PLA SSF would represent an exponential escalation in [China’s] aggression in the Indo-Pacific,” the report said.

“Three warfares” operations are underway against Taiwan, Hong Kong, the South China Sea and along the Indian-Chinese border, and the authors warn that the risk of the new brain warfare capabilities being used is increasing.

The SSF “now operates as a type of superstructure on top of a growing and increasingly active platform of Chinese military assets (land, sea, air, cyber, and space) across multiple theaters in the Indo-Pacific while simultaneously serving as the primary deployment platform for new neurostrike weaponry,” the report said.

To counter brain warfare capabilities, the report urges the U.S. military to first expose the threat of neurostrike weapons and call for international talks and policy remedies, such as ethics reviews for neuroscience and cognitive science studies. Proactively, the United States should sabotage critical supply chains of specific institutions or companies engaged in brain warfare research.

Cyber capabilities also should be used to target and disrupt Chinese neurostrike programs. Sanctions against all Chinese civilian and military programs linked to brain warfare also should be increased.

The objective of all counter-brain warfare efforts should be to dissuade China’s leadership from deploying the new technology, the report said.

“Like all of the CCP’s asymmetric warfare programs, neurostrike depends entirely on presenting a massively decentralized and fragmented network structure,” the report said. “This renders it nearly impossible to map using traditional investigative or intelligence approaches.”

China currently does not have the defense-industrial base needed to produce the technologies for a neurostrike program that can match Beijing’s military ambitions, the report said, presenting a window of opportunity for the U.S. and its allies.

“This fundamental gap presents a massive vulnerability for decapitating strikes against the neurostrike program provided that these gaps can be surfaced, and precision-targeted,” the report said.

U.S. and allied nations must locate key weaknesses in the networks involved in the brain warfare program. Covert military action can “make involvement in this weapons program a high-risk venture where technical failure and negative international attention are the most likely outcomes,” the report said

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
China's threatening "neurostrike" weapons program: The Chinese military has been developing brain-disrupting weaponry, according to a recent report. Known as China's Neurostrike Program, the aim would be to attack both military and civililian personnel with a brain-disrupting weapon that would "impair thinking, reduce situational awareness, inflict long-term neurological damage and cloud normal cognitive functions," reports The Washington Times. (No, they don't mean TikTok, though if the shoe fits...) The authors of the report contend that China's "new landscape of neurostrike development includes using massively distributed human-computer interfaces to control entire populations as well as a range of weapons designed to cause cognitive damage" and that "any breakthrough in this research would provide unprecedented tools for the CCP to forcibly establish a new world order, which has been [Chinese President] Xi Jinping's lifelong goal."


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
Hope this is accurate
« Reply #1227 on: August 30, 2023, 01:24:50 PM »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18518
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
GPF: Russia's defense industry at a crossroads
« Reply #1231 on: September 28, 2023, 04:14:15 PM »
September 27, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Russia’s Defense Industry at a Crossroads
The sector is facing numerous hurdles in the long term.
By: Ekaterina Zolotova

A year and a half since Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces still have not achieved their main objectives and are now fighting yet another Ukrainian counteroffensive. Such a protracted campaign requires substantial military equipment and artillery, not to mention funding, for all parties involved. A major advantage for Ukraine is that it can depend on external sources for military and financial support. Russia, however, must rely on its own ability to supply its war effort. And given that the Russian economy is under ever-increasing sanctions pressure, Moscow has to face the possibility that it may experience a shortage of weapons in the future, limiting its ability to continue to wage war and possibly pushing it into negotiations to settle the conflict earlier than it would like. Russia’s defense industry therefore finds itself at a crossroads, pushing to scale up production while struggling to develop more modern weapons systems for the country’s long-term needs.

Ramping Up Production

Speculation has been mounting for months about whether Russia is facing a weapons and equipment shortage. It began after Russian private military company the Wagner Group started gaining ground in Ukraine. Beginning in May, when the battle for Bakhmut was at its peak, Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin repeatedly complained about diminishing supplies of ammunition for his troops. There have also been reports that Russian officials have met with their North Korean counterparts to try to secure more ammunition – though neither side has confirmed as much so far. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu’s trip to North Korea in July and Kim Jong Un’s visit to Russia’s Far East region in September were believed to be part of this effort. For the Kremlin, the benefit of going to the North Koreans is that Western sanctions have no impact on trade with Pyongyang and North Korean arms are mainly Soviet-designed or similar systems that will be compatible with Russian supplies. The downside, however, is that North Korea has limited weapons stocks and a narrow ability to replenish its supplies.

But it’s becoming increasingly clear that Moscow is concerned about an ammunition shortage, in part because of its own recent statements in Russian media boasting about sharp increases in defense production. There have been reports in the Russian press that defense firms have added shifts to their production lines and increased production volumes, sometimes by as much as 10 times over previous rates.

Despite the apparent boost, Russia hasn’t seen any significant gains in Ukraine. This discrepancy reflects the fact that the war isn’t the only reason for the ramp-up in production. On some level, the war is just the impetus for the current defense development push – which has much broader, long-term objectives. On the security front, Moscow needs to protect its borders and maintain its standing as one of the biggest military powers in the world. On the economic front, Russia’s defense industry is a network of research organizations and roughly 2,000 industrial enterprises, which are often merged into large holding companies. It employs more than 2 million people and contributes to the budget through overseas sales. Despite Western sanctions, Russia still accounts for about 16 percent of global arms supplies, with its top buyers being India, China, Algeria, Egypt and Vietnam.

Indeed, the Kremlin set out two decades ago to bolster its weakened but once powerful military-industrial complex, which had been in decline since the collapse of the Soviet Union and a sharp reduction in state defense orders in the early 1990s. The war in Ukraine has certainly introduced a new sense of urgency, however. Russia has employed in Ukraine every branch of its armed forces and practically every weapon at its disposal, except of course its nuclear triad. It has, for example, deployed for the first time MiG-31K fighter-interceptors, which carry hypersonic air-launched ballistic missiles.

At the end of 2022, Shoigu announced a 50 percent increase in funding for state defense orders in 2023. Russia also last year began mass production of a whole line of products, including the Tornado-S multiple-launch rocket systems and the S-500 Prometheus anti-aircraft missile system. In March, President Vladimir Putin said Russia would produce three times more ammunition than the West will give to Kyiv. To maintain its position on the international arms market, Moscow also needs to be able to fulfill existing contracts and accept new orders, which it has continued to do throughout the Ukraine war. At an expo this year called the Army Forum, Russia’s Rosoboronexport signed several arms export contracts worth about $600 million.

The boost has ultimately helped offset downturns in other industries, brought on by Western sanctions and isolation efforts. Indeed, thanks in large part to growth in the defense sector, Russia’s manufacturing industry declined by just 0.7 percent in 2022, according to Bloomberg. It’s expected to grow by 2 percent in 2023, again due to gains in the defense industry.

Focus on Quality

But supplying Russia’s war machine in Ukraine isn’t just about producing more. It’s also about developing modern, effective weapons that will help Russia sustain the fight for as long as possible and defend the homeland in the long term. While it appears to have sufficient raw materials to supply the current level of production, its capacity for further expansion and development of more advanced weapons systems is questionable. This will require substantial modernization, restructuring and replacement of imports that are no longer accessible due to the Western sanctions regime. So far at least, Moscow hasn’t been able to achieve these goals.

This is in part an issue of financing. In its draft 2024 federal budget, Moscow plans to spend more on national defense than any other category – 10.7 trillion rubles ($112 billion), equivalent to 29.3 percent of the total budget and 6 percent of gross domestic product. But the boost will come at the expense of support for other key expenditures. Spending will be the lowest on the national economy since 2007 and on social policy since 2011. The Kremlin can divert funds from its economy and social spending for only so long. And considering the state of the Russian economy, it’s unlikely that organic economic growth will be able to support the substantial investments that are required to modernize and restructure a defense industry like Russia’s.

Russia's Military Expenditures, 2000-2022
(click to enlarge)

It’s also an issue of technology. Russia’s technological self-reliance remains limited, despite the fact that there has been a push within Russia for two decades to achieve self-sufficiency, including by using only domestic materials and components in defense production. The opening up of Russia’s economy following the Cold War led to increasing use of high-tech goods from other nations and, in turn, dependence on foreign technologies. Russian industry relies on imports for about 40 percent of inputs, and certain sectors, including the automotive industry and pharmaceuticals, are still highly dependent on foreign goods. The Kremlin doesn’t release official figures on the defense industry’s import dependency, but more than 800 types of Russian military equipment use U.S. and European parts. In addition, the severance of relations with Ukraine in 2014 was a serious blow to the industry, considering that until then some of Russia’s ship and plane engines, as well as other aviation equipment, were produced by Ukrainian firms.

Without access to Western technology, producing advanced, effective weapons will be exceedingly difficult. Officials have repeatedly stressed that Russia has arms but not enough modern weapons. So far, it has developed upgraded versions of the Ka-52M helicopter, BTR-82AM armored personnel carriers and T-80 and T-72 main battle tanks. It still has a couple of avenues through which it could access critical technology, including parallel imports and its few remaining foreign partners, including China, which a recent U.S. intelligence report accused of “probably” supplying Moscow with key dual-use technologies like drones and fighter jet parts.

Still, the share of high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries in Russia’s GDP has remained virtually unchanged over the past 10 years at around 20 percent. Spending on research and development has decreased to less than 1 percent of the budget. According to a report released by Russia’s Ministry of Education and Science, achieving technological sovereignty by 2030 would require a 45 percent increase in funding for R&D. The report also says a transition to innovation-oriented economic growth requires a doubling in innovation activity in industry and other areas, with a 50 percent increase in associated costs. By 2030, the number of innovative goods and services and patent applications should roughly double. In 2022, however, patent applications actually declined, though increased filings were seen in some high-tech areas, including aircraft (2.1 percent), iron production and processing (6.4 percent), and computer programs, databases and integrated circuit topologies (16.3 percent).

Russia's Research and Technology Spending, 2011-2022
(click to enlarge)

Russian Patent Applications, 2018-2022
(click to enlarge)

Another major hurdle for Russian innovation is personnel. Qualified workers are in short supply in the defense industry. According to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, in 2023, more than 16,000 highly qualified workers were needed for manufacturing of the most popular weapons and equipment.

Russia’s defense industry has made progress in ramping up production. In July, the country’s minister of industry and trade said more munitions were being delivered in one month than all of last year. But import substitution takes time, and the Kremlin wants to avoid investing in high-tech products that may not have sufficient demand to warrant the cost. Thus, it has implemented changes slowly, prioritizing development of a sustainable defense industry that will remain competitive after the Ukraine conflict is over. The question remains, however, whether it will be able to supply its defense needs outside of Ukraine and whether it can continue to innovate if the war continues to drain its financial and human resources.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
D1: Using Ukraine to prep our soldiers for next war
« Reply #1233 on: September 29, 2023, 05:06:26 PM »
Lessons from Ukraine: U.S. Army using conflict in Europe to prepare soldiers for the next war
Chief concerns are drones, electronic surveillance, and artificial intelligence.
Sam Skove
BY SAM SKOVE
STAFF WRITER
SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 05:48 PM ET
ARMY
UKRAINE
RUSSIA
DRONES
In the foxholes of World War II, lighting a cigarette at night could mean death by a sniper’s bullet.

In the battlefield of the future, the equivalent may be a soldier's phone connecting to a cell tower.

“The thing we struggle the most with is this business of a transparent battlefield,” said Brig. Gen. Curtis Taylor, head of National Training Center, or NTC, in California. “We've all got to learn how to operate in that context.”

This lesson is among the many  the NTC and its counterpart, the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), are learning from watching Ukraine and fielding their own experiments, the commanders of the two centers said.

One of the top problems is concealment, said Taylor and his counterpart at the JRTC, Brig. Gen. David Gardner. The NTC and JRTC both provide realistic training lasting around a month to troops about to deploy.

Drones, electronic surveillance, and satellites allow adversaries to easily identify U.S. formations, Taylor said—and combining that data with artillery or missiles means the enemy can strike anywhere, anytime.

At JRTC, forces playing the “opposing force,” called OPFOR, have learned to fly drones that use apps to scan for Bluetooth or WiFi signals, Gardner said.

Related articles

Ukraine downed a hypersonic missile with a Patriot. What that says about the future of weapons

U.S. government shutdown could slow weapons transfers to Ukraine, Taiwan

The OPFOR can then order satellite imagery to confirm if the signal comes from a military unit, or even just look at the network name for clues. If a signal is the only one for miles, the OPFOR can quickly deduce it’s the Army unit they’re meant to be targeting.


The NTC has mulled taking it a step further, Taylor said: using commercially available software that uses the apps on a user’s phone to identify their geographical position.

The OPFOR can also use the electromagnetic signature of military communication equipment to identify the Army formation and rain down simulated artillery strikes, Taylor and Gardner said.

Both the NTC and JRTC also make frequent use of commercial satellite photos as well as drones, including the small commercial drones seen throughout Ukraine. Between 30 and 50% of all artillery strikes at NTC are launched and observed via drone, said Taylor.

In turn, Army formations are learning to adjust, including by using their communications equipment as little as possible. “In the past, it was only scouts that would go into radio silence, ” Gardner said. “Now we're seeing that across entire formations.”

Formations are also adapting by changing up their communications—using parabolic antennas to direct radio waves, using fiber-optic cables, and trying to match the pattern of other signals traffic in the area so as to not stand out, Taylor said.

“Transmitting on high power with an antenna that transmits in 350 degrees—that’s equivalent to putting a light bulb on a stand and holding it up in the dark valley,” Taylor said.

Despite the adaptations, Gardner said the training centers need new equipment to keep up.

“Our communications are very specific, they're easily detected and therefore easily targeted. They're very complex to establish, to maintain,” Gardner said. “If you need a person for each of your ten systems, you now need ten people at your command post.”

Units are also learning to hide or run. Taylor encourages soldiers to use buildings to hide themselves from the eyes of drones. Gardner has pushed units to make their command posts as easy to set up and take down as possible.

“We're not going to dictate the size of a command post per se, but we're going to tell them, ‘You can be as big as you want, but you better be out of that area in 30 minutes,’” Gardner said. To be successful, units must cut down their list of tasks and learn to do without some creature comforts, he said.

“If task 27, is ‘set up your coffee pot,’ you might never get to the coffee pot,” thanks to the OPFOR simulated artillery strike, Gardner said.

In the deserts of Fort Irwin, California, where concealment can be hard to find, Taylor said they teach another critical lesson: look unimportant. If the enemy can’t tell if a vehicle is a supply truck or part of the command team, they’re less likely to strike it.

As news from Ukraine comes in, the Army is also stepping up the use of artillery and drones. At Taylor’s NTC, the OPFOR now calls in roughly 100 artillery attacks a day, amounting to simulations of several thousands rounds being fired. The NTC uses computer simulations to model the strikes and their impact.

Both the NTC and JRTC also use commercial drones that operate in swarms. Some can even drop bombs, much like those used on both sides of the Ukraine war. Loitering munitions, or suicide drones that act like cruise missiles, are out of bounds though, Taylor said, because using them would pose a safety risk.

Amid the heavy focus on drones, the centers are even working on new ways the Army might use them. At JRTC, one unit used drones to fake an assault from one direction, before coming from another.

At NTC, Taylor has formed a whole OPFOR drone unit, which operates everything from larger, winged drones, to smaller quadcopters. The unit is unusual. The Army typically spreads out its smaller drones among units, and does not provide as much training to quadcopter operators compared to the training it gives to operators of winged drones.

Taylor said he took the step to bring a greater level of professionalism to the quadcopter operators. Russia and Ukraine similarly operate dedicated drone units.

The increased use of artillery, rockets, and surveillance at the training centers has meant higher simulated casualties, mirroring the losses faced by troops in Ukraine.

For Taylor, that means artillery now accounts for around 40 percent of casualties. Gardner, meanwhile, is looking at how to evacuate soldiers from a battlefield where evacuation routes can be cut off easily, and considering how long a unit can keep fighting after taking casualties.

“Do we really understand how many casualties makes a unit combat ineffective?” said Gardner.

He’s also considering a grim consequence of higher casualties—how to integrate new units that are replacing those decimated in combat. Right now, a platoon that suffers simulated casualties will simply return to their same company. In the future, it may return to a different company, learning how to operate under new commanders just like real replacements would.

The lessons are not only for combat soldiers, Gardner and Taylor said, but also for those who work in public affairs and psychological operations, with one eye on how Russia and Ukraine have advanced their causes through the media.

In one recent exercise, Taylor’s OPFOR troops used AI-language model ChatGPT to create enemy speakers on the artificial social media site the training ground uses. The AI enemy defense minister got into a tweet-war with the Army unit.

Gardner, meanwhile, recounted how his OPFOR unit withdrew from a town, simulated shelling it, and then spread disinformation saying the shelling was done by American troops. The Army unit public affairs officer quickly countered the claim by making public the artillery radar data that showed incoming rounds were not fired from the U.S. side.

But reflecting on the many problems Ukraine’s army has faced in trying to breach Russian defensive lines, both commanders emphasized how much combat still boils down to coordination and training.

“The things that Ukrainians are doing are very, very hard,” Taylor said. “It requires generations of practice. And so, if anything, it reaffirmed our commitment to the combined arms maneuver,” he said, referring to coordinating between different combat branches.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
WSJ: Interest in US production of Iron Dome Missiles
« Reply #1236 on: October 23, 2023, 06:55:38 AM »
Israel-Hamas War Revives Interest in U.S. Production of Iron Dome Missiles
U.S. invested in homegrown system better suited for potential conflict in Pacific than in Middle East
By
Doug Cameron
Follow
Updated Oct. 23, 2023 12:03 am ET



The Iron Dome defense system has blocked thousands of missiles since 2011. Here’s how it works. Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images
Israel’s war with Hamas has revived dormant U.S. interest in producing munitions for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, U.S. Army and industry officials said, a development that would help a U.S. regional ally resupply for future conflicts.

Any U.S. manufacturer of Tamir interceptors would take months to get moving. But with Hamas and Hezbollah firing hundreds of rockets at Israeli military sites and cities every day, Israel’s stockpile of interceptor missiles is dwindling.

The new interest in production of Tamir interceptor missiles for the Iron Dome system comes two years after the Army passed over the Israeli hardware in favor of a U.S.-made system it deemed better suited for conflict in the Pacific.

Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system is one of the most battle-tested in the world, successfully destroying thousands of shells and rockets since its 2011 deployment and preventing mass civilian casualties.


Lights show Israel’s Iron Dome system launched to intercept missiles from Gaza. PHOTO: MOHAMMED SABER/SHUTTERSTOCK
“Iron Dome has proven itself over the years,” said Tom Karako, a missile defense researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s no slight that it can’t contend with an overwhelming number of threats.”

To help out, the U.S. Army is now sending back to Israel two Iron Dome units it acquired three years ago, alongside more than 200 Tamir missiles the U.S. had stored in its arsenal. The two units had been deployed after being tested in Guam.

The mobile Iron Dome is Israel’s last layer of air defense and can intercept targets up to 40 miles away. Each of the 10 batteries covers an area of about 60 square miles, and includes a radar and control system to identify incoming threats and fire only on those expected to reach populated or vulnerable areas, limiting how many missiles are required.

‘Affordable mass’
The Tamirs use a home-produced rocket motor that hasn’t suffered the level of supply-chain disruption that limited production of Javelins and the advanced guided missiles the U.S. has sent to Ukraine.

“They have a very capable military and they have their own stockpiles,” Army acquisition chief Doug Bush said earlier this month of Israel.

Meanwhile, militaries around the world, including the Pentagon and Israel, are moving to secure additional production of munitions. The vast consumption of artillery shells and guided missiles in Ukraine and of Tamir interceptors in Israel recently has honed defense officials’ focus on building “affordable mass”—a reliable arsenal of heavily used munitions.


How Israel’s Iron Dome works

1

4

Interception

Radar

The missile destroys the incoming rocket by exploding near it.

Identifies rocket shell.

Mobile control unit

2

Analyzes trajectory, estimates impact point and commands launch of interceptor missile.

Launcher

Each has 20 interceptor missiles

with a built-in radar seeker.

3

Source: Rafael Advanced Defense Systems
In 2020, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and RTX Corp. announced plans to build a factory in the U.S. to assemble Tamirs.

But the following year, the Army passed over Iron Dome in favor of the Enduring Shield system made by U.S.-based Leidos, following a shoot-off in the New Mexico desert. Rafael and RTX’s new Tamir factory didn’t materialize.

The Pentagon’s push for more-sophisticated weapons and equipment to deter the perceived threat from China led the Army to favor the new U.S.-developed system seen as better able to tackle faster-moving cruise missiles over the bigger distances of the Pacific.


The Army called Iron Dome an interim solution and didn’t buy more than two, opting for the different capabilities of Enduring Shield, even though it has yet to be fielded.

“These are some of the growing pains of neglecting air defense for way too long,” said Karako.

Rafael and RTX declined to comment on Tamir production rates or on any new U.S. facility.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue


The Pentagon already funds much of Israel’s Iron Dome production and expenses under an existing agreement between the countries, which lawmakers have said was another catalyst for U.S. production.

RTX already makes around 70% of the Tamir, according to the companies, and has been investing heavily in expanding its missile facilities around Tucson, Ariz., which analysts said was one possible site for a Tamir line.


The Iron Dome defense system is known for reducing the number of civilian casualties of warfare. PHOTO: ILAN ASSAYAG/JINI/ZUMA PRESS
The Marine Corps is also looking to acquire some Iron Dome systems as well as around 1,800 Tamir missiles, according to budget documents.

Enduring Shield can be adapted to use other interceptors, including a version of the Tamir called SkyHunter.

Write to Doug Cameron at Doug.Cameron@wsj.com

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
    • View Profile
NeoCons Unite Foes; a US Test Looms
« Reply #1237 on: October 23, 2023, 10:44:30 PM »
At a loss on where to post this, but it argues Russia, China, and Iran are colluding at the moment, a test of US defenses against incoming hypersonic and other missiles looms, and that clueless NeoCons have opened up too many conflict fronts, inspiring these disparate elements to coalesce:

https://johnhelmer.org/the-existential-trap-the-pentagon-has-just-fallen-into-it-as-biden-tries-to-avoid-carters-hostage-rescue-disaster/#more-71116

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
Re: Military Science, Military Issues, and the Nature of War
« Reply #1238 on: October 24, 2023, 03:27:04 AM »
BBG:  The Geopolitics thread is the place for it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
Stacked Deck
« Reply #1239 on: October 25, 2023, 07:58:07 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
Bolton: We REALLY need to upgrade
« Reply #1240 on: October 26, 2023, 06:49:47 AM »


Both Parties Can Agree on America’s Nuclear Peril
To deter threats from China and Russia, the U.S. needs to modernize and recapitalize its arsenal.
By John Bolton
Oct. 25, 2023 12:52 pm ET

‘Unanimous” and “bipartisan” outcomes are rare in today’s Washington. “America’s Strategic Posture,” the recent report from the congressional commission on U.S. nuclear capabilities and defense strategies, merits those laurels. Led by Madelyn Creedon, a senior Clinton and Obama administration official, and former Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican, the commissioners prepared a 145-page report that warrants urgent review by anyone seeking a safe future for America.

The bottom line is that the U.S. faces “two nuclear peer adversaries for the first time” in a rapidly expanding threat environment. Maintaining and improving our nuclear-deterrence force against China and Russia will require significant effort. Since the nuclear era began, Washington’s thinking, strategizing and budgeting have assumed only one significant nuclear threat. Rogue-state capabilities weren’t insignificant, and nuclear-capable allies were a plus, but the bipolar standoff with Moscow always mattered most. With China now forming a tripolar nuclear world, bipolar deterrence calculations, strategy and nuclear hardware are simply inapposite.

Days after the paper’s release, the Pentagon published its own finding that a tripolar nuclear scenario effectively exists, well ahead of our predictions. This reality raises questions that demand strategic responses. Will the U.S. face entirely separate Chinese and Russian threats, or will Moscow and Beijing act in coordination? What do two peer nuclear foes mean for U.S. pre-emptive or second-strike capabilities? How many new targets in China—or elsewhere—must we now put at risk?

Precise estimates of force requirements and budget levels are currently impracticable, although significant growth in nuclear weapons and delivery systems is inevitable. Our capabilities and the entire nuclear-enterprise infrastructure needs modernization, upgrading and recapitalization to meet the Sino-Russian threat. In Oct. 19 Senate testimony, Mr. Kyl estimated total new costs for such a project to be 5% of the Pentagon and Energy Department budgets, in large part because of political leaders’ sustained failure to modernize nuclear capabilities.

“America’s Strategic Posture” reaffirms the logic of maintaining the nuclear triad of delivery systems: ground-based missiles, long-range bombers and ballistic-missile submarines. The triad undergirds deterrence by “presenting an intractable targeting problem for adversaries.”

Nuclear-force resilience is more crucial when facing threats from two adversaries, not one. To help fashion the structure and size of the future nuclear force, the report identifies strategic principles from which to derive military requirements. That includes maintaining an assured second-strike capability and directing nuclear strategy at what Moscow and Beijing prize most: their leaders and the security institutions keeping them in power. The commission emphasizes that America “should continue the practice and policy of not directly targeting civilian populations.”

Naive isolationist elements in both parties will argue that the U.S. can address the new nuclear environment through arms-control agreements. That is a distant dream. Further strategic-arms treaties are essentially irrelevant and dangerous unless and until the U.S. has “a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment” and its “related force requirements are established,” the commission says. Without knowing what we need, we can hardly start negotiating it away.

While the U.S. modernizes, upgrades and enlarges its capabilities, the commission encourages interim improvements, such as potentially and swiftly reconverting B-52s rendered incapable of carrying nuclear weapons under the New Start Treaty, to sustain the deterrent force during this vulnerable transition. We must hedge against delays due to unpredictable, incrementally funded appropriations, particularly the common—and harmful—practice of using continuing resolutions.

America’s aging nuclear weapons and inadequate life-extension programs cast doubt on the stockpile’s reliability and safety. To be credible, a deterrent must satisfy the “always/never rule”: “Nuclear weapons must always work when they are supposed to, and never detonate when they are not supposed to.” At some point within a few years, the U.S. will need to conduct underground nuclear tests. Even highly sophisticated simulations aren’t enough.

Finally, the commissioners emphasize nonnuclear capabilities, particularly “integrated air-and-missile defense systems” for homeland and theater-focused protection. The report may at last end the debate on “deterrence by denial,” the core purpose of strategic and tactical missile defenses. The commission recommends national missile-defense systems “that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China,” Ronald Reagan’s seminal vision.

“America’s Strategic Posture” covers many other issues, but mark these words: unanimous and bipartisan. This isn’t congressional performance art; it’s a fire bell in the night.

Mr. Bolton is author of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.” He served as the president’s national security adviser, 2018-19, and ambassador to the United Nations, 2005-06.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18518
    • View Profile
demonstration of the Girandi air rifle
« Reply #1241 on: October 27, 2023, 11:02:35 PM »
the only gun taken for the Lewis and Clark expedition.

would pump up to 800 lbs of pressure, and could load 22 balls.

was used by Austrian army.

very revolutionary for late 18th through early 19th century:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Girandoni%20air%20rifle%20youtbue&mid=DB491C06B0B038F434C1DB491C06B0B038F434C1&ajaxhist=0

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
Re: Military Science, Military Issues, and the Nature of War
« Reply #1243 on: November 16, 2023, 06:22:20 AM »
With WW3 in the air and enlistment numbers for the Army falling far short, several hundred NCOs have received PCS (Permanent Change of Station) orders to get trained in becoming enlisters and taking up new stations upon completion of training.

I saw this morning an enlistment meme that led with "Covid Vax not required".


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile
WRM
« Reply #1245 on: November 21, 2023, 06:11:57 AM »
Is Israel’s war with Hamas a war crime? At a recent (entirely civil and non-confrontational) event at Bard College, a student suggested that this was the case. After all, there have been at least 11,000 casualties since the Oct. 7 terror attack that launched the war, and the majority dead have been civilians. Thousands were children. How, the Bard students and many of their peers around the country and the world ask, could all this not be a war crime? And even if Hamas’s initial attack was itself a war crime and not a “legitimate act of resistance against an occupying power,” isn’t the larger loss of civilian life in Israel’s subsequent attacks just as bad?

I could have turned the session into a debate about the underlying merits of the Palestinian and Israeli causes or a technical discussion of the laws of war. Instead, being a professor, I turned the discussion to the history of war. One night in March 1945, U.S. planes dropped incendiary bombs over Tokyo killing tens of thousands of Japanese civilians. Incomplete estimates from Japan put the total death toll from allied bombing raids as high as 500,000. All told, there were an estimated 38 million civilian deaths in World War II, more than twice the approximately 15 million deaths of soldiers in combat.

As for the treatment of enemy civilians, at the 1945 Potsdam Conference the U.S. agreed to the forcible removal of about 12 million Germans, again largely civilian and many children and elderly, from lands their ancestors had inhabited for centuries. Many of the expulsions took place in winter amid terrible scenes of hunger and deprivation, all while mass rapes of German women slowly subsided across the Soviet zone of Germany.

Lawyers and legislators can debate whether these actions constitute war crimes, but as Cicero put it more than two thousand years ago, “inter arma enim silent leges.” Roughly, that translates as the “laws go silent when armies clash.” Or as William Tecumseh Sherman put it more succinctly, “War is hell.”

One reason the news from Gaza has so massively affected the younger generation is that they have grown up considering peace to be normal and natural. The war in Gaza hasn’t merely introduced young Americans to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also has shown them the face of war.

After the horrors of World War II, Americans did everything to build a stable and at least relatively peaceful world order. This order was far from perfect. It tolerated and, in some cases, protected gross economic, social, racial and national injustices. And some of the little wars Americans fought to defend it, as policy makers at the time believed, were as brutal as the world wars of the 20th century.

But the world order prevented the eruption of global conflicts on the scale of the great wars with casualties reckoned by the tens of millions. It also permitted generations of Americans to grow up in a bubble. For younger generations, war was passé. Foreign policy henceforth would involve promoting equitable development in poor countries, extending the definition of human rights, promoting global public health, fighting climate change and perfecting the body of international law.

War has other ideas. The American-led world order is under attack abroad, even as Americans have increasingly abandoned their commitment to preserving it. The result, inevitably, is a gradual and perhaps sudden return to the lawlessness and violence that marks a world at war.

Israelis and Palestinians don’t live in the post-historical bubble. More than 300,000 Syrian civilians are believed to have been killed during a decade of civil war, and millions more have been driven from their homes. Elsewhere, an estimated 100,000 Armenians fled their homes in terror this year. Roughly six million Sudanese have done so in the current civil war. Industrial-scale slaughters of the innocent, and the flight of millions of refugees are the new normal in their neighborhood. Jihadi bands and Wagner mercenaries are sowing chaos and death across the Sahel. About 370,000 have died in the Yemen war.

Gaza introduced Gen Z to the true horror of war. In the short run, Hamas’s propaganda machine is enlisting images of suffering Palestinians to foil Israeli efforts to break its power in Gaza.

The real question, though, for the future of America and the world isn’t whether hot-headed college students will march for Hamas. It’s whether as they mature, they come to understand how fragile and important peace is and take up the task of defending it. If not, war won’t be something they see on cellphones and spout slogans about. It will be the force that shapes and determines their lives.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18518
    • View Profile
Miltary audit fail - again
« Reply #1246 on: November 26, 2023, 08:59:01 AM »
"After 1,600 auditors combed through DOD’s $3.5 trillion in assets and $3.7 trillion in liabilities, officials found that the department couldn’t account for about 61 percent of its assets, Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord told reporters on Tuesday."
 
 :-o

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/11/pentagon-fails-6th-straight-audit-of-trillions/

how often did we hear about cutting waste and fraud in government when a candidate runs to save money?

 :cry:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1553
    • View Profile
Military Ammo
« Reply #1248 on: December 01, 2023, 03:31:25 AM »
This thread shows the dilapidated state of US military ammunition manufacturing (unless its a fake)

https://twitter.com/ArmchairW/status/1730482490920620503
« Last Edit: December 01, 2023, 04:41:20 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69428
    • View Profile