U.S. Air Force: 'smart bomb' inventory nearly depleted; signs $3.2 billion contract with Boeing

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Jun 7, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Man, we must be droning & dropping, bombing and blasting nearly everywhere. These are great days if you're a defense contractor. Way to go, Obama!
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    So you don't want the Obama administration to do anything at all about ISIS, I take it?
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    Please don't pretend that bombing ISIS, or whatever other regional group we are trying to dismantle, is actually going to prevent ISIS from spreading. In fact, the more we bomb (thus killing innocents) with "signature strikes" the more we can guarantee recruitment, and more bombs needed, and around we go.
     
  4. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #4
    Our bombing is supporting the local troops on the ground who recently have been making pretty good strides taking back land that had been controlled by ISIS.
     
  5. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #5
    No, the good work of the international forces has successfully pushed ISIS to near collapse. But some of your bombs have surely helped.
     
  6. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #6
    You really think us killing innocent people (how many and who they are is debatable) drives them? They've killed more innocent people then we have. Your talking about a group that has zero compassion or regard for human life. You think they find that moral bone in their body when we drop a bomb that causes them to pause and say "That was uncalled for, they're killing our future suicide bombers before they've done anything".
     
  7. aaronvan, Jun 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2016

    aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    "Local troops on the ground" is Pentagon-speak for "various sectarian militias that we know nothing about and have zero control over."

    In Afghanistan, ISAF meant "International Security Assistance Force" but we all knew that it really meant "I Saw Americans Fight."

    ISIS to near collapse? Back in the day, reporters called Pentagon briefings "The Five O'Clock Follies" because they needed a healthy dose of skepticism. Those days are over, I see.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Whom will promptly turn on us as we refuse to leave.

    We've seen this movie before.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016 ---
    I know that it's hard for you to get out of the Rambo mode, but can you for a second imagine being a teenager and having your family killed by a robot in the sky? If killing your family doesn't radicalize you, regardless of the fact that they were not the intended target, I don't know what will.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016 ---
    I think ISIS was going to collapse of their own accord anyway. We've seen this before, unless ISIS actually starts filling the vacuum of services needed in the areas they've taken over they will see a rebellion. Conquerors who have no interest in governing always get overthrown by the next group to come along.

    You know why the Taliban actually has support in Afghanistan (both now and historically)? They feed people, they clothe people, they get medical treatment for those who need it. Yes they're oppressive, but people tend to prefer actually being able to live (while oppressed) over living in a war torn hellscape where everyone fends for themselves.
     
  9. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    So? Iraqis and Syrians have enough problems with ISIS without us adding to their misery. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis but did they greet us as liberators? Hell no they didn't. As much as they hated Saddam (not that much, really) they hated us (the West) more for emasculating and occupying them.

    People should be left alone to make their own history.
     
  10. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    Yeah this attitude really helped Chamberlain.
     
  11. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #11
    So you're suggesting the United States should have invaded Great Britain to keep Chamberlain in office?
     
  12. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    what?
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    I think its pretty much impossible to use this one piece of information to make any definitive conclusion about much of anything as it relates to US military and foreign policy.

    Especially when the linked article contains things like:
    and
    Which suggests that at least some of the JDAM kits will be sold to our allies. And that the contract anticipates both rebuilding inventories that have been depleted due to unforeseen and unplanned events (ie. the rise of ISIS) - as well as normal scheduled uses: training exercises, etc.

    You could make the argument that the increased use of advanced guided munitions, such as the JDAM, is a vast improvement over the previous practice of using massive amounts of ordnance to "carpet bomb" an area. And that the success we have had in deploying the bombs we have used against ISIS in Syria and Iraq might be driving at least some of the demand from commanders for additional supplies.

    The JDAM is actually a pretty good value when it comes guided weaponry. The unit cost of each kit is approximately $30,000 (plus the cost of the bomb itself). A lot of money. But a bargain compared to a Tomahawk cruise missile, which costs almost $1 million each.
     
  14. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    It definitively says that US military and foreign policy involves dropping a lot of bombs.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    Maybe so. But that's been true for decades.

    As I said: You could make the argument that this order for JDAM kits could mean we'll end up dropping a lot less bombs than we did in the past. And that the ones we do drop in combat will be far less likely to kill innocent civilians.

    Its one thing to criticize President Obama for ordering the US military to drop bombs and launch drone strikes. But its quite another to suggest what alternatives we might have to dealing with ISIS. Do nothing?
     
  16. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #16
    The alternative to bombing is boots on the ground.

    Your preference?
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    Exactly.

    In my opinion, the option of "boots on the ground" (which I'll define as a force consisting of sufficient brigade-sized units to engage and defeat ISIS forces over the large geographic area currently under their control) would be a disaster. The US could almost certainly defeat ISIS militarily. But doing so would come at a very high human price, for both the troops involved and the civilian population, as well as a massive financial cost. It also would be a mission with no clear end-point. That the moment we tried to extricate our forces, ISIS would start to re-emerge. And that the presence of large numbers of US troops, operating in a Muslim country, by itself would act to stir opposition.

    I think as adults we have to accept the fact that sometimes our President has to choose between the least-bad of all the available options. And that what we are doing now is probably the best we can do under the circumstances.
     
  18. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #18
    The irony of the guy who invented TNT donating money to fund the Nobel Peace Prize so they could award it to the guy who's been the biggest warmonger in US history is delicious.
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    All our options in Iraq and Syria are bad and they are bad for reasons that predate the Obama administration as well as reasons that are simply out of our control.

    If we want to engage ISIS directly—and we've seen that ignoring ISIS not only failed to mitigate the group's power and influence, but may have emboldened them to push hard into Iraq—we have only a few choices: engage directly with group troops or use airpower and SpecOps troops, combined with local forces.

    Because there is fundamentally no interest in another ground war and the casualties that accompany such a fight, the best option is using airpower and SpecOps troops to support Iraq and Syrian forces.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016 ---
    Calling Obama the "biggest warmonger in US history" shows how little U.S. history you actually know.
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    he has been more successful than Bush
     
  21. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #21
    BOOM!
    President Obama’s Legacy Is Endless War
    ...By the time Obama hit the dais at Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, our 44th president had already launched more drone strikes than “43” carried out during two full terms. Since then, he’s launched two undeclared wars, and—as Obama bragged in a speech last year defending the Iran deal—bombed no fewer than seven countries.

    In 2011, what officials called “kinetic military action” in Libya completed the evisceration of the War Powers Resolution by successfully advancing the theory that if the U.S. bombs a country that can’t hit back, we’re not engaged in “hostilities” against them. In the drone campaign and the current war with ISIS, Obama has turned a 14-year-old congressional resolution targeting al-Qaeda and the Taliban into a blank check for endless war, anywhere in the world. Last year, the army chief of staff affirmed that finishing the fight against ISIS will take another “10 to 20 years.”

    The issue that first animated Obama as an undergraduate was “the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country,” as he wrote in an article for the Columbia University Sundial as a college senior in 1983. In “Breaking the War Mentality,” Obama worried that the public’s distance from the costs of war made resisting it “a difficult task,” but a vital one of “shifting America off the dead-end track” and undoing “the twisted logic of which we are today a part.”

    “It was his first expression of his views on any foreign policy subject,” James Mann writes in The Obamians, his 2012 account of national security decision-making in the Obama administration. “And years later, his aides felt it was deeply felt and lasting.”

    Yet, as president, instead of “breaking the war mentality,” Obama has institutionalized it.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    Anyone that followed the Pentagon during the last 15 years would have known that they were setting up for "long war" in their planning documents since the war began.

    Yes Obama is a warmonger, but the fact that he has done it with a D next to his name excuses that fact. His institutionalization of drone warfare all around the world (not just the places we see on TV) will be looked back in time for its barbaric nature. He helped "legitimize" the extreme lowering of the barrier to entry into conflict by just carrying on the foreign policy of his predecessor. But it's ok because he sells them as "smart" wars.

    There is no anti-war movement left in this country, until there is just expect this **** to continue.
     
  23. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    Yes, but again, a student of history would recognize that "biggest warmonger in US history" is a trite, meaningless phrase.

    Monroe started two conflicts and created a doctrine that would eventually get the U.S. wrapped into WWII. Andrew Jackson started two other conflicts. And, Lincoln and Johnson (Confederate president) led to the U.S. into the Civil War. Meanwhile, George W. Bush started two new conflicts and failed to prosecute them, leaving them to the next president.

    And, this is the conflict we're still fighting. Bush announced the Global War on Terror and conservatives cheered, now that Obama continues to fight the evolving scope of the war—anyone who thought the GWOT was going to be a "short, sharp war" was an idiot—suddenly, conservatives are wearing love beads and making peace symbols.


    Obama should return his Nobel prize because he's failed as a peacemaker, but he's acted with the full review of Congress—who continue to abrogate their duties with regard to war—and support of the U.S. public. Moreover, the sudden pacifism of conservatives is an act of political kabuki.

    Most of you lobby for war against ISIS in one moment and then hammer the president for bombing ISIS. This Janus-faced argumentation should not be taken seriously.

    The Obama doctrine is using airpower—drones are just planes guys—to rapidly engage perceived growing threats. That's the world we're facing.

    Did the U.S. fail in 2003 to accurately predict what the fall of Saddam Hussein would mean? Yes, absolutely. But, I said this would happen. Iraq is a generational project, and we were foolish to think anyone else.
     
  24. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #24
    and Trump promises to expand military spending so defense contractors are smiling and expecting even better days ahead
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    Right. Trump has argued that he'll make the military "beautifully funded," but he'll also buoy defense contractors by building his wall—who do you think makes surveillance gear needed to protect such a monstrosity—and encouraging South Korean and Japan to fund their own defense forces.

    Trump has also encouraged conflict with China—ginning up bomb factories on both sides—and argued that NATO should provide for its own defense—hello new carriers for France and submarines for Britain.

    In all, a Trump presidency would be a grand guginol for world peace, but a boon for the arms dealers of the world.
     

Share This Page