The Military Thread

FYI I heard from local sources that the LFS is certainly associated with the Communist Party of the Philippines as a legal group since the CPP in question is not allowed to legally participate.

The case against American imperialism in this case specifically is strengthened by the fact that we didn't consult with the Iraqis beforehand, and now they have formally asked us to leave their territory. And of course, the lack of an immanent threat to ourselves.

As far I know, the Obama Administration also didn't consult with the Pakistani government prior to Neptune Spear out of fear that it had been penetrated by Al-Qaeda or Taliban sympathizers.

Edited by FluffyMcChicken on Jan 15th 2020 at 12:03:40 PM

Sure but the US wasn’t stationing troops in Pakistan at the time. Violating an ally’s sovereignty is one thing, it’s another to do it while you’ve got troops station in their country.

Also it was Bin-Laden, you get a lot of extra leeway in that case.

Edited by Silasw on Jan 15th 2020 at 9:26:26 AM

News with IS.

They're already spreading pro-IS propaganda that Soleimani's death should be able to give them more room to bolster their numbers again.

US Congress to probe cancer cases among troops deployed to Uzbekistan's Karshi-Khanabad airbase in the early 2000s. The base had been used to store chemical weapons and depleted uranium by the Soviet and Uzbek militaries, and personnel deployed there described 'black goo' oozing from the ground.

@Soleimani hit: Guy had technically been engaged in armed combat against the US since 2004 at least. US troops had already swatted dozens of Quds Force operatives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The complicating factors here are:

• He's in Iraq to represent the Iranian government, which the US is not legally at war with,
• The hit overstepped the US military's term of stay, which is to assist the Iraqis in fighting IS at the government's request,^note There's also the couple dozen Kata'ib Hezbollah militiamen who got blown up by US air strikes a few days before, though they're not big geopolitical players and don't really count on that stage. and
• Most of the Iraqi government and its paramilitary franchisees are bought and paid for by Iran. This creates the exact same sectarian rift that alienated Sunni Arabs and other minorities and led to IS gaining power in the first place.

No matter how you see it, the strike is a done deal. If the US and Iran want to avoid an IS resurgence, they'll both need to de-escalate and stop propping up the sectarian gangsters in the government... which run counter to the Iranians' long-term goals as they stand, but it's going to take two to tango in this case.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Jan 15th 2020 at 5:38:52 AM

Space Force is rolling with OCP after all.

So...Space Marines when?

I like that emblem though. Awesome!

Who's the Space Forces (snerks) gonna fight anyway?

Enemy satellites, targets on the ground (through recon and eventually through direct fire), etc

Edited by Protagonist506 on Jan 17th 2020 at 11:41:33 AM

I'd say an argument could be made for giving the ICBM force to Space Force, given that ICB Ms are just space rockets with nuclear warheads.

Well, giving the Space Force ICB Ms would violate international treaties. You're allowed to have weapons in space, but not nuclear weapons specifically.

Oh, unless you're talking giving them control over nuclear missile silos. That actually makes sense.

Edited by Protagonist506 on Jan 18th 2020 at 8:43:53 AM

No nukes are stationed in space. So give 'em everything.

Edited by TerminusEst on Jan 18th 2020 at 10:49:21 AM

The nukes are normally put underground, in fact, which is the opposite of putting them in space.

Anyhow, I feel like by the time any of those ICB Ms actually end up in space, folks aren't going to be overly concerned about treaty violations.

In any case, there's no reason to base an ICBM in space, by definition it's designed to launch from Earth to Earth via a short trip through space. If you were to base a nuke in orbit, you'd probably use a considerably smaller type of missile because you don't need to worry about escaping the atmosphere, simply losing enough velocity to fall from orbit.

Edited by AFP on Jan 19th 2020 at 6:45:51 AM

I’ve done it boys and girls.

My meme about how 1917 could have ended in five minutes has made the top of r/historymemes.

Aside from that, there really is no need to use a nuke to achieve devastating results. Much like how meteorites can be highly destructive if they have enough mass, a missile with enough density in its war head and speed of entry can obliterate an entire major city at impact alone.

That’s a common misconception but it’s actually not entirely correct. Kinetic bombardment systems are more bunker buster than city killer, they wouldn’t have a huge area of effect but they would penetrate deeply into structures and fortifications.

There’s some question as to how useful the land-based leg of our nuclear triad actually is. Sea and air-launched weapons cover all our second strike needs while also being more survivable and more useful for tactical deployment.

"Rods From God" are something of a meme, like the A-10's gun and the battleship.

Edited by LeGarcon on Jan 19th 2020 at 3:22:16 PM

British runners were a real thing though, that was used when the other options couldn't be.

Its less a meme and more people not understanding that "nuclear bomb levels of energy" doesn't mean nuclear bomb sized explosion.... freight trains at full speed also contain nuclear bomb levels of energy, but they dont go off like a bomb when they hit some one who parked on the rails.

Edited by Imca on Jan 19th 2020 at 1:14:16 AM

I mean a suitably dense rod of metal moving at suitable speeds impacting would probably cause a fusion

Runners are still a thing, of course, for those situations where electronic or visual communication fail, just far less common now that we have radios.

As for not needing land-based missiles because of the availability of air-launched missiles, the big bonus that land-based missiles have is a much-reduced reaction time vs loading the bombers and getting them into the air before the enemy's missiles turn the airfield into the area's biggest glowy crater. The traditional advantage of air-launched weapons is the option of de-escalation, as you can place them on the field for deterrence and bring them back short of engaging in nuclear Armageddon.

Of course, then you have sea-launched missiles, which are a bit of both.

Land-based missiles haven’t had a significant advantage in reaction times versus any other part of the triad since the 70’s, and their usefulness as a second strike deterrent is essentially zero. Boomers fill all our second strike needs, and aerial weapons fill all the tactical ones.

Isn't land based cheaper then seabased? Not that it really maters for Amercia, but I think thats why Russia favors them still.

Edited by Imca on Jan 19th 2020 at 10:49:19 AM

They’re about the same price at this point. At least for the US sea-based missiles are more modern and much more robust in terms of maintenance and deployment, which almost cancels out the expense of basing them off submarines.

For the Russians putting them on land is far easier because their sub fleet just isn’t in good shape really. Plus, they have significantly more territory to hide missiles away in.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 20th 2020 at 12:28:31 PM

Russia's still likely sitting on a lot of railcar based IRBMs and ICBMs, (which I'm pretty sure are illegal) which also opens up new possibilities in terms of second strike capability.