The Daily Meme

[Surly1]

My screen just showed around 10 Surly posts but there was no content.  Now none of the posts are showing at all?  Weird.

I looked at his post archives, they're all there with the content far as I can tell.  Must be your internet connection.

RE

There are those who would maintain tat almost all of my posts might as well be blank.

Fuck 'em.

Anyhow, LD, nice to hear from you! And from Roamer! Congratulations to you both!

Old home week around the Diner.

My very best to Gypsy Mama. Hope her photo ventures are doing well.

• Tweet

[Surly1]

All true, but I don't believe that's the point. The point being to create enough pretext to enable a new round of international tensions resulting in a new round of "defense investments" paid for by tax donkeys (Support Da TROOPZ), and thus guarantee the War Profiteer Full Employment Act of 2019.

Also, does anyone doubt that when Trump gets his scrotum caught in a wringer that he won't start a hot war somewhere just to change the subject? What do you think Bolton and Pompeo are for?

Remember the Maine.

Well, between the trade sanctions with the Chinese and the oil sanctions against Iran, the shadow goobermint here in the FSoA of the MIC is certainly doing all they can to provoke a good hardware consumptive hot war SOMEWHERE.  Profits and stock value at Boeing are seriously down these days you know.  A new order for some overpriced malfunctioning fighter jets would do wonders for their bottom line.

Absolutely correct. You've written extensively about conduit schemes. Of all of these, the "Defense"[sic] industry is the biggest. Actually one of the byproducts of the Civil War, and certainly the most effective on making first call on the treasury and siphoning health and education dollars into private hands.

What, you don't Support Da TROOPZ? Time for another Blue Angels overflight...

The F-35 currently costs between $94 million (F-35A) and $122 million (F-35B) for low-rate initial production run 10, though sustainment cost projections are as big a concern as production costs for a program that is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over its 55-year lifespan.

I thin we need a Big New Program to built a, uh... F-50, yeah that's it. Eventually the plane will be so big and complicated that it will consume the entire war budget. That's when Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed will achieve orgasm.

The thing these folks don't seem to grasp is that it's easier & cheaper to destroy this hardware than to build it, and as fast as they can build anything new it will end up just as fast at the bottom of Davey Jones Locker.  They're working from an old playbook circa WWII, when the FSoA had a clear technological lead and was overflowing with oil under the ground in TX & OK that needed to be burned up.  Neither of those things is true anymore and if/when a hot war does get started, the Big Ass Military of the FSoA will quickly be shown to be a Paper Tiger.

Oh, I think they get it just fine. They count on the tax donkeys and debt serfs not getting it. F35s are expensive to pay for with fracked oil.

Which would essentially leave them only one option, GO NUKE with Ballistic Missiles!  If the ships are going down, they can't use a navy to deliver hardware and troops to overseas theaters to project force.  If they do that though, the Ruskies and Chinese have Ballistic Missiles too which they would about certainly fire off if the MIC goes that rogue.  Thus you get Global Thermonuclear War, and of course, nobody wins.

Right. And now we have the sorts of people that we used to lock in the attic arguing for the "limited" use of tactical nukes. The problem with that is that someone always lives downwind. As long as it's not us, though, we're good, amirite?

I've been watching the HBO limited series "Chernobyl," which is absolutely brilliant. It clearly illustrates the effects of radiation on ordinary people. Devastating. But what the program is really about is government lies and duplicity. Brilliant, if you have a chance to see it.

• Tweet

[RE]

Right. And now we have the sorts of people that we used to lock in the attic arguing for the "limited" use of tactical nukes. The problem with that is that someone always lives downwind. As long as it's not us, though, we're good, amirite?

That's not the main problem with tactical nukes.  They suffer the same problem as conventional hardware, which is that you have to move it across oceans along with the troops to operate it with a navy.  That's what you can't do, the boats will be at the bottom of Davey Jones Locker before they ever make their landing beach.

The only weapon that "works" given the current state of military hardwae development are intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Those aren't "tactical" nukes, they're City-Killers.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Steroids, 100X more powerful.  It's all or nothing, there are no tactical nukes that can work.

I also do not agree that the planners inside the Pentagon do realize how antiquated their plans are and destined for failure.  They have existed in a bubble since WWII, and the thinking remains the same as it was.

RE

• Tweet

[Surly1]

Right. And now we have the sorts of people that we used to lock in the attic arguing for the "limited" use of tactical nukes. The problem with that is that someone always lives downwind. As long as it's not us, though, we're good, amirite?

That's not the main problem with tactical nukes.  They suffer the same problem as conventional hardware, which is that you have to move it across oceans along with the troops to operate it with a navy.  That's what you can't do, the boats will be at the bottom of Davey Jones Locker before they ever make their landing beach.

The only weapon that "works" given the current state of military hardwae development are intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Those aren't "tactical" nukes, they're City-Killers.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Steroids, 100X more powerful.  It's all or nothing, there are no tactical nukes that can work.

I also do not agree that the planners inside the Pentagon do realize how antiquated their plans are and destined for failure.  They have existed in a bubble since WWII, and the thinking remains the same as it was.

RE

First of all, we have tactical nukes forward deployed all over the world, no matter what Pentagon PR types or Sarah Fucking Snowflake says. Sometimes our idiots moving nukes get caught. See Operation Northwoods.

Also I don't think all of Pentagon decision-making is as monolithic as you think. There are plenty of modern thinking military planners whose ideas you can read. And U.S. military R&D is gaining more urgency. The U.S. will spend nearly $80 billion this year to create new weapons, armor and related gear. The extent to which they influence policy is debatable, and a lot of that is political. Now purchasing... I've already weighed in. A massive revenue transfer scheme.

Generals always fight the last war. Their names ring through history... Westmoreland, Foch, Hindenberg. Yet that's a result of rapidly changing military technology.  If military technology is stable, say, in the long age of black powder and fighting sail—the lessons of the last war probably retain their validity. There are exceptions: In a world in which firearms had barely changed for a century, Napoleon consistently beat opponents who tried fighting the last war. But Napoleons are rare. Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Marlborough, Eugene of Savoy, and the Duke of Wellington are famous for having very effectively fought the last war.

The murderous losses of the American Civil War, the Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War, and, above all, the First World War are part of the reason “fighting the last war” has become shorthand for idiocy in military decision making. Development of the Gatling gun alone should have spelled the end of massed troop charges. Our glorious Boyz in Blue certainly showed the efficacy of these weapons at Wounded Knee.

Now we have an era of asymmetric warfare fought by non state or quasi-state actors. WTF do you do to respond? We spend a shitpot of money on cyberwarfare, and can lock Mike Pence and Lindsay Graham together in the St. Regis Honeymoon Suite to design uniforms for the new Space Force...

One can certainly make war on states, and there may be advantages to doing so when attempting to suppress terrorism. Most successful terrorists make good use of the resources states can provide; when those resources aren’t available, suppressing terror generally gets easier. States are also clear targets, while terrorists themselves are usually very hard to find. And let's not forget that who we call "terrorists" are what someone else calls, "freedom fighter."

The FSoA has pledged to “end” states that support or give shelter to terrorists. War is a way of doing that, but which requires military conquest, occupation, and organization of a successor government. It is perfectly possible to do this: we did it post WWII. But 50 years later, in 1991, when the United States invaded a state under false pretenses ostensibly to solve a problem of state supported terrorism, it left a terrorist regime in control of Iraq. Fighting the last war might have looked better under those conditions.

The nature of warfare is changing as fast os the tools, technology, and battlefields are changing. Little wonder to me that old fuckers can't keep up.

• Tweet

[RE]

Right. And now we have the sorts of people that we used to lock in the attic arguing for the "limited" use of tactical nukes. The problem with that is that someone always lives downwind. As long as it's not us, though, we're good, amirite?

That's not the main problem with tactical nukes.  They suffer the same problem as conventional hardware, which is that you have to move it across oceans along with the troops to operate it with a navy.  That's what you can't do, the boats will be at the bottom of Davey Jones Locker before they ever make their landing beach.

The only weapon that "works" given the current state of military hardwae development are intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Those aren't "tactical" nukes, they're City-Killers.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Steroids, 100X more powerful.  It's all or nothing, there are no tactical nukes that can work.

I also do not agree that the planners inside the Pentagon do realize how antiquated their plans are and destined for failure.  They have existed in a bubble since WWII, and the thinking remains the same as it was.

RE

First of all, we have tactical nukes forward deployed all over the world, no matter what Pentagon PR types or Sarah Fucking Snowflake says. Sometimes our idiots moving nukes get caught. See Operation Northwoods.

Also I don't think all of Pentagon decision-making is as monolithic as you think. There are plenty of modern thinking military planners whose ideas you can read. And U.S. military R&D is gaining more urgency. The U.S. will spend nearly $80 billion this year to create new weapons, armor and related gear. The extent to which they influence policy is debatable, and a lot of that is political. Now purchasing... I've already weighed in. A massive revenue transfer scheme.

Generals always fight the last war. Their names ring through history... Westmoreland, Foch, Hindenberg. Yet that's a result of rapidly changing military technology.  If military technology is stable, say, in the long age of black powder and fighting sail—the lessons of the last war probably retain their validity. There are exceptions: In a world in which firearms had barely changed for a century, Napoleon consistently beat opponents who tried fighting the last war. But Napoleons are rare. Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Marlborough, Eugene of Savoy, and the Duke of Wellington are famous for having very effectively fought the last war.

The murderous losses of the American Civil War, the Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War, and, above all, the First World War are part of the reason “fighting the last war” has become shorthand for idiocy in military decision making. Development of the Gatling gun alone should have spelled the end of massed troop charges. Our glorious Boyz in Blue certainly showed the efficacy of these weapons at Wounded Knee.

Now we have an era of asymmetric warfare fought by non state or quasi-state actors. WTF do you do to respond? We spend a shitpot of money on cyberwarfare, and can lock Mike Pence and Lindsay Graham together in the St. Regis Honeymoon Suite to design uniforms for the new Space Force...

One can certainly make war on states, and there may be advantages to doing so when attempting to suppress terrorism. Most successful terrorists make good use of the resources states can provide; when those resources aren’t available, suppressing terror generally gets easier. States are also clear targets, while terrorists themselves are usually very hard to find. And let's not forget that who we call "terrorists" are what someone else calls, "freedom fighter."

The FSoA has pledged to “end” states that support or give shelter to terrorists. War is a way of doing that, but which requires military conquest, occupation, and organization of a successor government. It is perfectly possible to do this: we did it post WWII. But 50 years later, in 1991, when the United States invaded a state under false pretenses ostensibly to solve a problem of state supported terrorism, it left a terrorist regime in control of Iraq. Fighting the last war might have looked better under those conditions.

The nature of warfare is changing as fast os the tools, technology, and battlefields are changing. Little wonder to me that old fuckers can't keep up.

There's forward deployment of tactical nukes yes, but the troops to back it up are sprinkled all over the globe.  Just firing off some nukes doesn't do anything, anymore than using conventional bombs dropped as Death from Above does anything.  You don't get control over the oil fields that way.

RE

• Tweet

[Surly1]

Right. And now we have the sorts of people that we used to lock in the attic arguing for the "limited" use of tactical nukes. The problem with that is that someone always lives downwind. As long as it's not us, though, we're good, amirite?

That's not the main problem with tactical nukes.  They suffer the same problem as conventional hardware, which is that you have to move it across oceans along with the troops to operate it with a navy.  That's what you can't do, the boats will be at the bottom of Davey Jones Locker before they ever make their landing beach.

The only weapon that "works" given the current state of military hardwae development are intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Those aren't "tactical" nukes, they're City-Killers.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Steroids, 100X more powerful.  It's all or nothing, there are no tactical nukes that can work.

I also do not agree that the planners inside the Pentagon do realize how antiquated their plans are and destined for failure.  They have existed in a bubble since WWII, and the thinking remains the same as it was.

RE

First of all, we have tactical nukes forward deployed all over the world, no matter what Pentagon PR types or Sarah Fucking Snowflake says. Sometimes our idiots moving nukes get caught. See Operation Northwoods.

Also I don't think all of Pentagon decision-making is as monolithic as you think. There are plenty of modern thinking military planners whose ideas you can read. And U.S. military R&D is gaining more urgency. The U.S. will spend nearly $80 billion this year to create new weapons, armor and related gear. The extent to which they influence policy is debatable, and a lot of that is political. Now purchasing... I've already weighed in. A massive revenue transfer scheme.

Generals always fight the last war. Their names ring through history... Westmoreland, Foch, Hindenberg. Yet that's a result of rapidly changing military technology.  If military technology is stable, say, in the long age of black powder and fighting sail—the lessons of the last war probably retain their validity. There are exceptions: In a world in which firearms had barely changed for a century, Napoleon consistently beat opponents who tried fighting the last war. But Napoleons are rare. Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Marlborough, Eugene of Savoy, and the Duke of Wellington are famous for having very effectively fought the last war.

The murderous losses of the American Civil War, the Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War, and, above all, the First World War are part of the reason “fighting the last war” has become shorthand for idiocy in military decision making. Development of the Gatling gun alone should have spelled the end of massed troop charges. Our glorious Boyz in Blue certainly showed the efficacy of these weapons at Wounded Knee.

Now we have an era of asymmetric warfare fought by non state or quasi-state actors. WTF do you do to respond? We spend a shitpot of money on cyberwarfare, and can lock Mike Pence and Lindsay Graham together in the St. Regis Honeymoon Suite to design uniforms for the new Space Force...

One can certainly make war on states, and there may be advantages to doing so when attempting to suppress terrorism. Most successful terrorists make good use of the resources states can provide; when those resources aren’t available, suppressing terror generally gets easier. States are also clear targets, while terrorists themselves are usually very hard to find. And let's not forget that who we call "terrorists" are what someone else calls, "freedom fighter."

The FSoA has pledged to “end” states that support or give shelter to terrorists. War is a way of doing that, but which requires military conquest, occupation, and organization of a successor government. It is perfectly possible to do this: we did it post WWII. But 50 years later, in 1991, when the United States invaded a state under false pretenses ostensibly to solve a problem of state supported terrorism, it left a terrorist regime in control of Iraq. Fighting the last war might have looked better under those conditions.

The nature of warfare is changing as fast os the tools, technology, and battlefields are changing. Little wonder to me that old fuckers can't keep up.

There's forward deployment of tactical nukes yes, but the troops to back it up are sprinkled all over the globe.  Just firing off some nukes doesn't do anything, anymore than using conventional bombs dropped as Death from Above does anything.  You don't get control over the oil fields that way.

RE

They are "sprinkled" rather conveniently around Iran.

• Tweet

[RE]

They are "sprinkled" rather conveniently around Iran.

Indeed.  But that's why they're talking about shipping over 120K Boots on the Ground.  Who will, if they do that end up as dogmeat.  Their logistical supply lines will get cut and they'll be hung out to dry.  120K troops is just nothing to try and control a country the size of Iran, to say nothing of the fact the Chinese won't just let  the MIC take over the oil fields.  They can put more troops on the ground then we have as an entire population, and they DON'T have to transport them by sea.  They can march them over the Himalayas.

RE

• Tweet

[Surly1]

• Tweet

[K-Dog]

The version I just posted at Kunstler's deep state scroll.

The Forest was shrinking but still the trees voted for the ax. The handle being of wood they thought, must surly love them.

surly is not bolded there, only here.

• Tweet

[azozeo]

Environmental mind control ...... Unique spin 

• Tweet

[Surly1]

• Tweet

[Surly1]

It's infrastructure week again.

• Tweet

[Surly1]

• Tweet

[azozeo]

Love the upside down bird .....

• Tweet

[Surly1]

• Tweet