NationStates Jolt Archive

New American Military

I'm going to start off here by saying that I'm operating under the theory that having the largest military machine in the world sitting around bored, is one of the most dangerous circumstances there can be. You grab a bunch of Barely-out-of-Adolescence boys, hop them up on nationalism, then hand them all guns- and you are asking for a war to be started for even the most nonsensical reason. The historical references to the dangers of having a bored standing army in peacetime are both ancient, and too numerous to count.
I'm opening this thread as a forum for the reform of the US Military. My ideas are listed below. My military experience is limited to being raised a military (Air Force) brat, though that gave me plenty of basic knowledge on protocol, lifestyle, bureaucracy, and basic order. It's also the reason I saw Top Gun more times when I was just a baby, than I've ever seen myself in a mirror in my whole life. (begins to hum “Danger Zone”)

Step 1: Remove Army and Air Force
Eliminate both the Air Force and Army. The navy now is responsible for all overseas action, which I will go into more detail of later. The National guard is responsible for domestic emergencies and will serve as a standing army only in the case of a draft. When they are not in draft they are under the control of their respective states. They will fall under the control of the federal government ONLY when a draft has been presented by president and voted upon by congress.

The reasons for these changes are primarily to streamline any action. It does not totally solve my original problem, but having no "expendable" (at least on paper, and ill go into that later) soldiers will make military action to prove a point very difficult. I considered making it into just one branch, but whenever I wrote that, a part of me kept yelling “BAD IDEA”, for reasons I still cannot articulate. It just seems best to have at least two divided military. So I took it out.

Step 2: Change the modern definition of “Soldier”
Instead of “grunts” I would like to change it so anyone allowed to the position of a “National Warrior” has extensive training in:
-Fighting on all types of terrain w/ all types of weapons
-Medical knowledge
-Diplomacy w/ knowledge of international militaries and uniforms
-Mechanics
Essentially I want them less like grunts are more like...”Knights”. In my plan they are trained for at least eight years and have a support team (Sort of like the Air Force, where it is the officers who do most of the fighting). They are paid approximately $200,000 a year and they would be outfitted with the most highly developed gear (Which includes body armor). The US would only keep (by law) about 10,000 of these at one time, and they have no national jurisdiction. They are meant to be a highly specialized force deployed only in limited amounts at a time. Run by Navy

Trained for almost every situation imaginable. Meant only as a fast deployment and immediate action tool. The reason for these changes being that hearing things like “friendly fire” and an army completely lacking in discipline sadden me. No one with one year (or less) of assault training should ever be on a battlefield. As I explained before should the US have need of a large army there will be provisions to allow them to use the national guard.

Well these are some of my ideas, I may post more later. You are certainly welcome to post your own.

Marines? Don't forget the leathernecks.

Marines? Don't forget the leathernecks.

In my example, they no longer exist. Neither do Rangers, SEALS, or any other Spec Ops groups that previously existed.

Also seems to be fundamentally tailored to a unipolar world. I don't think that the world will remain unipolar for much longer, with the rise of probably multi-poles. The US, EU, PRC, Japan and India are all probably poles. Russia and Brazil are possible poles. In this situation, rapid strike forces will mean much less. Instead traditional great-power militaries will be far more important.

That's my opinion at least.

1. sink all ships of your whats left to guard you
2. landing on the usa be walk in the park with out the air force to drop bombs on top of you
3. with out a army well i have not came up with one for that one

1. sink all ships of your whats left to guard you
2. landing on the usa be walk in the park with out the air force to drop bombs on top of you
3. with out a army well i have not came up with one for that one

Is you sink the entire US fleet to begin with...I dont think much else is going to stop you. The Navy has the strongest battle capability of any branch, and their units consist of mobile fortresses with nucleur capability. The navy has more planes than the air force already btw.

now give the navy spaceship and close down nasa

Also seems to be fundamentally tailored to a unipolar world. I don't think that the world will remain unipolar for much longer, with the rise of probably multi-poles. The US, EU, PRC, Japan and India are all probably poles. Russia and Brazil are possible poles. In this situation, rapid strike forces will mean much less. Instead traditional great-power militaries will be far more important.

That's my opinion at least.

Hmm, that is actually quite convincing, I suppose it is wishful thinking to suppose that the modern world has realized the inefficience and devastation that a large-scale war represents. Do you think we are prepping for another Imperial land-grab?

Also, I dont agree with "Japan" as a pole. They have extremely limited capability and they arent even on top of the world in technology anymore (Though they are certainly in the top 5). I do agree that we could see a power rise in the S. Americas.

My military experience is limited to being raised a military (Air Force) brat, though that gave me plenty of basic knowledge on protocol, lifestyle, bureaucracy, and basic order.It shows :p
(Army brat, formerly)

What that's basically doing is crippling the US Military's rapid response and flexibility. By training everyone to be an all rounder, you get a good army of people that will probably be equally bad at everything. A unit of individual specialists would be more effective.

New American Military

I'm going to start off here by saying that I'm operating under the theory that having the largest military machine in the world sitting around bored, is one of the most dangerous circumstances there can be. You grab a bunch of Barely-out-of-Adolescence boys, hop them up on nationalism, then hand them all guns- and you are asking for a war to be started for even the most nonsensical reason. The historical references to the dangers of having a bored standing army in peacetime are both ancient, and too numerous to count.
I'm opening this thread as a forum for the reform of the US Military. My ideas are listed below. My military experience is limited to being raised a military (Air Force) brat, though that gave me plenty of basic knowledge on protocol, lifestyle, bureaucracy, and basic order. It's also the reason I saw Top Gun more times when I was just a baby, than I've ever seen myself in a mirror in my whole life. (begins to hum “Danger Zone”)

Step 1: Remove Army and Air Force
Eliminate both the Air Force and Army. The navy now is responsible for all overseas action, which I will go into more detail of later. The National guard is responsible for domestic emergencies and will serve as a standing army only in the case of a draft. When they are not in draft they are under the control of their respective states. They will fall under the control of the federal government ONLY when a draft has been presented by president and voted upon by congress.

The reasons for these changes are primarily to streamline any action. It does not totally solve my original problem, but having no "expendable" (at least on paper, and ill go into that later) soldiers will make military action to prove a point very difficult. I considered making it into just one branch, but whenever I wrote that, a part of me kept yelling “BAD IDEA”, for reasons I still cannot articulate. It just seems best to have at least two divided military. So I took it out.

Step 2: Change the modern definition of “Soldier”
Instead of “grunts” I would like to change it so anyone allowed to the position of a “National Warrior” has extensive training in:
-Fighting on all types of terrain w/ all types of weapons
-Medical knowledge
-Diplomacy w/ knowledge of international militaries and uniforms
-Mechanics
Essentially I want them less like grunts are more like...”Knights”. In my plan they are trained for at least eight years and have a support team (Sort of like the Air Force, where it is the officers who do most of the fighting). They are paid approximately $200,000 a year and they would be outfitted with the most highly developed gear (Which includes body armor). The US would only keep (by law) about 10,000 of these at one time, and they have no national jurisdiction. They are meant to be a highly specialized force deployed only in limited amounts at a time. Run by Navy

Trained for almost every situation imaginable. Meant only as a fast deployment and immediate action tool. The reason for these changes being that hearing things like “friendly fire” and an army completely lacking in discipline sadden me. No one with one year (or less) of assault training should ever be on a battlefield. As I explained before should the US have need of a large army there will be provisions to allow them to use the national guard.

Well these are some of my ideas, I may post more later. You are certainly welcome to post your own.

There are lots of problems with this idea, as people are starting to point out.

IMHO, one of the fundamental problems is that it is at odds with current US foreign policy.

Militaries are designed to the needs of what the nation needs to carry out it's foreign policy. The military you've outlined could be worked into a reasonable defensive military with some more thought. However, the basic ideas are not suited to either the current Neo-Con policies nor to realist policies. (The current US military really isn't either, still basically being stuck in Cold War mode, but that's a whole other can of worms...)

In my example, they no longer exist. Neither do Rangers, SEALS, or any other Spec Ops groups that previously existed.

...and they go to the private sector, where their services as 'security consultants' are hired by the highest bidder. Real good idea.

Hmm, that is actually quite convincing, I suppose it is wishful thinking to suppose that the modern world has realized the inefficience and devastation that a large-scale war represents. Do you think we are prepping for another Imperial land-grab?

Also, I dont agree with "Japan" as a pole. They have extremely limited capability and they arent even on top of the world in technology anymore (Though they are certainly in the top 5). I do agree that we could see a power rise in the S. Americas.

the south americas....that is laughable(unless you count fence jumping)they simply do not have the gdp to field a navy or any force to attack anyone but their neighbors....and not the u.s.a.

we will always have a blue water navy...because we can project power and enforce our national security interests world wide with it.

people seem to forget,the american military is setup to project power so we dont sustain damge at home,and we mostly dont fuck with other countries unless we percieve a threat(bush is the exception of coarse)
even that is somewhat arguable.

fact is,no one has the capability to attack and sustain an attack on the u.s.
period
no one,not china,anyone..while we can if so inclined rain a world of hurt anywhere,anytime.
and yawn when we are done...not beng cocky here,just realistic and logical.

if their is ever a war on the scale of ww2 it will be ugly...but noone will ever know what hit them...america mobilised is scary,this low intensity conflict crap we are doing now is just pc stuff...if we went mental...it would be ugly beyond everyones imagination...and that is not talking about nukes..just flat out being mad and like ww2..productive.

the absolfuckinglutely wrong thing to do with america is to openly challenge or attack her.

i thought 911 was enough,but that was a pin prick to most americans....attack us straight up....lol...america would bring the world to it's knees in a street fight.

the smart thing is what the islamonuts are doing...death by a thousand stabs...but sooner or later,they will be rooted out and stoped....for now,our precious kids are dying so we can be pc.

Step 1: Remove Army and Air Force
Eliminate both the Air Force and Army. The navy now is responsible for all overseas action, which I will go into more detail of later.
Step 2: Change the modern definition of “Soldier”
They are meant to be a highly specialized force deployed only in limited amounts at a time. Run by Navy[/b]


I would support that. They give away tens of billions for each proposed aircraft program without serious planning and with ever increasing costs, while Navy has to squeeze out each billion, won't get an extra cent without proving that it will really save money, and has always to cut all budgets down. Each of these fancy Spirits, for instance, costs more than a fully equipped Ohio sub, which delivers thirty times more, and really for sure, unlike B-2 which is seen by any obsolete meter-wavelength radar.

I'm sure that if Navy managed the defense budget, more money would go for ships and marines, who really do the job, rather than for planes that stand in the hangars. And these aircraft money would be spent for planes that are really versatile and have real use. Navy even doesn't nearly have a match for SU-30MKI today; and won't have a new fighter for the next ten years, until another hundred billions are poured into JSF, its cost skyrockets above the Raptor's, and more features are trimmed. And then just to spark controversy about whether it really can replace the Hornet, let alone match whatever other countries come with by the time. The current system is clearly not fine, and saving on Navy is the least wise decision possible. In unipolar or multipolar world, the strength of US is Navy.

New American Military

I'm going to start off here by saying that I'm operating under the theory that having the largest military machine in the world sitting around bored, is one of the most dangerous circumstances there can be. You grab a bunch of Barely-out-of-Adolescence boys, hop them up on nationalism, then hand them all guns- and you are asking for a war to be started for even the most nonsensical reason. The historical references to the dangers of having a bored standing army in peacetime are both ancient, and too numerous to count.
I'm opening this thread as a forum for the reform of the US Military. My ideas are listed below. My military experience is limited to being raised a military (Air Force) brat, though that gave me plenty of basic knowledge on protocol, lifestyle, bureaucracy, and basic order. It's also the reason I saw Top Gun more times when I was just a baby, than I've ever seen myself in a mirror in my whole life. (begins to hum “Danger Zone”)

Step 1: Remove Army and Air Force
Eliminate both the Air Force and Army. The navy now is responsible for all overseas action, which I will go into more detail of later. The National guard is responsible for domestic emergencies and will serve as a standing army only in the case of a draft. When they are not in draft they are under the control of their respective states. They will fall under the control of the federal government ONLY when a draft has been presented by president and voted upon by congress.

The reasons for these changes are primarily to streamline any action. It does not totally solve my original problem, but having no "expendable" (at least on paper, and ill go into that later) soldiers will make military action to prove a point very difficult. I considered making it into just one branch, but whenever I wrote that, a part of me kept yelling “BAD IDEA”, for reasons I still cannot articulate. It just seems best to have at least two divided military. So I took it out.

Step 2: Change the modern definition of “Soldier”
Instead of “grunts” I would like to change it so anyone allowed to the position of a “National Warrior” has extensive training in:
-Fighting on all types of terrain w/ all types of weapons
-Medical knowledge
-Diplomacy w/ knowledge of international militaries and uniforms
-Mechanics
Essentially I want them less like grunts are more like...”Knights”. In my plan they are trained for at least eight years and have a support team (Sort of like the Air Force, where it is the officers who do most of the fighting). They are paid approximately $200,000 a year and they would be outfitted with the most highly developed gear (Which includes body armor). The US would only keep (by law) about 10,000 of these at one time, and they have no national jurisdiction. They are meant to be a highly specialized force deployed only in limited amounts at a time. Run by Navy

Trained for almost every situation imaginable. Meant only as a fast deployment and immediate action tool. The reason for these changes being that hearing things like “friendly fire” and an army completely lacking in discipline sadden me. No one with one year (or less) of assault training should ever be on a battlefield. As I explained before should the US have need of a large army there will be provisions to allow them to use the national guard.

Well these are some of my ideas, I may post more later. You are certainly welcome to post your own.

Demented. Truly demented. Sigh. :(

Nah. I'd rather have the ability to reach out and kill someone half a world away with a touch of a button. It makes for good TV.

I would support that. They give away tens of billions for each proposed aircraft program without serious planning and with ever increasing costs, while Navy has to squeeze out each billion, won't get an extra cent without proving that it will really save money, and has always to cut all budgets down. Each of these fancy B-2, for instance, costs more than a fully equipped Ohio sub, which delivers thirty times more, and really for sure, unlike B-2 which is seen by any obsolete meter-wavelength radar.

I'm sure that if Navy managed the defense budget, more money would go for ships and marines, who really do the job, rather than for planes that stand in the hangars. And these aircraft money would be spent for planes that are really versatile and have real use. Navy doesn't even have a match for SU-30MKI today, and won't have a new fighter for the next eight years, until another hundred billions are poured into JSF, its cost skyrockets above the Raptor's, more features are trimmed. And then just to spark controversy about whether it really can replace the Hornet. The current system is clearly not in order.

Err... What?

The Su-30MKI is a good plane, don't get me wrong. But the F/A-18E/F is superior. It has an AESA radar. Better missiles(applies to all american fighter planes). Better counter-measures and other intelligence gathering capabilities. More wet hardpoints. Lower RCS. The list goes on.

Demented. Truly demented. Sigh. :(

hi,
good to hear from you,albeit on here.

i hope all is well with you and yours.

the boy just graduated from fort benning..it was great.
thanks for the advice and thanks for the service to our country.

call or write anytime..always nice to hear from you sir.

New American Military

I'm going to start off here by saying that I'm operating under the theory that having the largest military machine in the world sitting around bored, is one of the most dangerous circumstances there can be. You grab a bunch of Barely-out-of-Adolescence boys, hop them up on nationalism, then hand them all guns- and you are asking for a war to be started for even the most nonsensical reason. The historical references to the dangers of having a bored standing army in peacetime are both ancient, and too numerous to count.
I'm opening this thread as a forum for the reform of the US Military. My ideas are listed below. My military experience is limited to being raised a military (Air Force) brat, though that gave me plenty of basic knowledge on protocol, lifestyle, bureaucracy, and basic order. It's also the reason I saw Top Gun more times when I was just a baby, than I've ever seen myself in a mirror in my whole life. (begins to hum “Danger Zone”)

Step 1: Remove Army and Air Force
Eliminate both the Air Force and Army. The navy now is responsible for all overseas action, which I will go into more detail of later. The National guard is responsible for domestic emergencies and will serve as a standing army only in the case of a draft. When they are not in draft they are under the control of their respective states. They will fall under the control of the federal government ONLY when a draft has been presented by president and voted upon by congress.

The reasons for these changes are primarily to streamline any action. It does not totally solve my original problem, but having no "expendable" (at least on paper, and ill go into that later) soldiers will make military action to prove a point very difficult. I considered making it into just one branch, but whenever I wrote that, a part of me kept yelling “BAD IDEA”, for reasons I still cannot articulate. It just seems best to have at least two divided military. So I took it out.

Step 2: Change the modern definition of “Soldier”
Instead of “grunts” I would like to change it so anyone allowed to the position of a “National Warrior” has extensive training in:
-Fighting on all types of terrain w/ all types of weapons
-Medical knowledge
-Diplomacy w/ knowledge of international militaries and uniforms
-Mechanics
Essentially I want them less like grunts are more like...”Knights”. In my plan they are trained for at least eight years and have a support team (Sort of like the Air Force, where it is the officers who do most of the fighting). They are paid approximately $200,000 a year and they would be outfitted with the most highly developed gear (Which includes body armor). The US would only keep (by law) about 10,000 of these at one time, and they have no national jurisdiction. They are meant to be a highly specialized force deployed only in limited amounts at a time. Run by Navy

Trained for almost every situation imaginable. Meant only as a fast deployment and immediate action tool. The reason for these changes being that hearing things like “friendly fire” and an army completely lacking in discipline sadden me. No one with one year (or less) of assault training should ever be on a battlefield. As I explained before should the US have need of a large army there will be provisions to allow them to use the national guard.

Well these are some of my ideas, I may post more later. You are certainly welcome to post your own.

Despite your Armed forces being navy at 10000 strong there are not enough men to keep even 1 aircraft carrier and support at sea. The coast guard in particular but also the national guard will be sorely missed during peacetime as will the military guards at many of our foreign embassies which are located in the rougher neighborhoods of the world. We will likely lose Guantanamo bay immediately upon implementation of your plan. It will be a race to see who attacks isreal first but North Korea may actually attack South Korea before the first Iranian rocket hits israel. China will probably wait for South Korea to fall before taking out North Korea. The UK will be putting out fires with forces stretched beyond what is reasonable trying to salvage what they can of their overseas holdings while France calls in her mega aircraft carrier home to be polished and protected from harm while calling the US bastards and demanding money and help with the crises, In the meantime about 15 minutes after the first Iranian nuke hits jerusalem every Israeli plane and rocket which can carry their nukes should be just over the top of Mecca to deploy them.That's about when all hell will start to break loose.


Also your army elite with full body armor high tech weapons and elite training and status all springing from the vision of one guy sound too much like Darth Vader and his storm troopers. One maniac kid from the sticks is likely to shoot a torpedo into their trash hole and kill the lot of them in one shot.

Wow, what a way to set our militatry back to pre WW II days. You can't just have the Navy run everything, that's impossible! You need a division that can manurver on ground (Army), you need a division that can do air assault (Air Force), you need a division that can do sea assault (Navy), you need a division to protect the Homeland (National Guard) and finally you need your first responders that can go into any situation (Marine). To just restrict the militatry to just National Guard and Navy is dangerous. We wouldn't be able to attack from the air, on the ground, or have first responders. We would just have the homeland and sea support.

Instead of castrating the militatry, what we need to be doing is making the militatry more advance in training and technology! Most of our training are still done in WW II style combat. Our enemies have realize that they don't need a uniform to fight us, they can fight us Gurillia Warfare style. That is what we need to train our militatry to do, fight Gurillia style! We also need to make the guns more advanced with capabilities to use cameras on the camrea to look around the corner without exposing the body. Technology will be the key to winning battles and wars today and in the future.

We don't need to fight stronger or harder, we need to fight smarter!

Wow, what a way to set our militatry back to pre WW II days. You can't just have the Navy run everything, that's impossible! You need a division that can manurver on ground (Army), you need a division that can do air assault (Air Force), you need a division that can do sea assault (Navy), you need a division to protect the Homeland (National Guard) and finally you need your first responders that can go into any situation (Marine). To just restrict the militatry to just National Guard and Navy is dangerous. We wouldn't be able to attack from the air, on the ground, or have first responders. We would just have the homeland and sea support.

Instead of castrating the militatry, what we need to be doing is making the militatry more advance in training and technology! Most of our training are still done in WW II style combat. Our enemies have realize that they don't need a uniform to fight us, they can fight us Gurillia Warfare style. That is what we need to train our militatry to do, fight Gurillia style! We also need to make the guns more advanced with capabilities to use cameras on the camrea to look around the corner without exposing the body. Technology will be the key to winning battles and wars today and in the future.

We don't need to fight stronger or harder, we need to fight smarter!

i'll agree with fighting smarter...as my kid just got homef rom botcamp,and is going to now go to ait(advanced infantry training)
and if i wasnt his dad...i would not fuck with him..lol

but as a loving father...i gotta mess with him..cause i can.

they have taught him all sorts of stuff...scarey stuff..but they taught him to be smart..first and foremost.

Eliminate the army and air force, huh? Nnn-duurrrrrrrrrrr...Hey! That's about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. We do need a Heinlein-style elite, all-volunteer, high-tech strike force for the first and fiercest fighting. But we also need an occupation force for what comes after. Like rebuilding and keeping the peace and making sure that what you fought doesn't come back like a bad rash.

Eliminate both the Air Force and Army. The navy now is responsible for all overseas action, which I will go into more detail of later. The National guard is responsible for domestic emergencies and will serve as a standing army only in the case of a draft. When they are not in draft they are under the control of their respective states. They will fall under the control of the federal government ONLY when a draft has been presented by president and voted upon by congress.

As a servicemember in the United States Navy, I have to respectfully protest this aspect of the plan. :)

hi,
good to hear from you,albeit on here.

i hope all is well with you and yours.

the boy just graduated from fort benning..it was great.
thanks for the advice and thanks for the service to our country.

call or write anytime..always nice to hear from you sir.

Hey! Nice to "see" you again too. Tell your boy I said good job!

Things are going pretty well for me just now. I have almost all of my bills paid off, including my home ( Yayyy! ), and will soon have only two debts: one for the car I bought my ex, and one more for the Harley I'm in the process of buying! :D

Yes, I finally decided ( again! ) that life is too short to not do the things you really want to do. And since a Harley is one of the few things I have always wanted and since I can afford it now, I'm buying one! I'll post a picture later of the one I get, if anyone is interested.

I've also got a new girlfriend who is totally awesome! Man! That woman is enough to make a man bay at the moon! LOL!

So life is pretty good right now, even though my PSA level is rising again. Sigh. Oh, well. Like I said, life is short.

Hey! Nice to "see" you again too. Tell your boy I said good job!

Things are going pretty well for me just now. I have almost all of my bills paid off, including my home ( Yayyy! ), and will soon have only two debts: one for the car I bought my ex, and one more for the Harley I'm in the process of buying! :D

Yes, I finally decided ( again! ) that life is too short to not do the things you really want to do. And since a Harley is one of the few things I have always wanted and since I can afford it now, I'm buying one! I'll post a picture later of the one I get, if anyone is interested.

I've also got a new girlfriend who is totally awesome! Man! That woman is enough to make a man bay at the moon! LOL!

So life is pretty good right now, even though my PSA level is rising again. Sigh. Oh, well. Like I said, life is short.

great to here your doing well my friend!

the boy is no longer a boy..he is a man...did boot at fort benning in the dead of summer..was actually medivaced to the hospital for having a core body temp of 104 degrees.
but his di waived him and did not recycle him,cause he busted his ass.

gonna get a bike,good for you.

i got a fxdx and a gixxer 750,i love riding...truly sets you free.nothing like being on your bike on the open road...got my boy one also.

he earned it,with my respect also..lol

watch the psa thing,my dad died from exactly that problem.

i got cancer on my head,but i aint got insurance so i am winging it for now.
i might apply for the welfare type stuff,but it will be sooo embarresssing to ask for help.
and i am also kinda critical of welfare...so you see my problem.

what kind of hog are you getting?

i have a fxdx as i said,but my bro has a electric glide standard...awesome bike...and prety reasonable.

i was just down your neck of the woods...are all the cops assholes down that way...we got stopped twice for speeding in south carolina...on 81 i think it was.(we wwere doing 80 on a interstate)( i hate it up here...but you can do 90 and cops pass you..lol)
went to atlanta and then went an hour south.....how can you take the humidity..it was brutal!

you have my prayers for your psa test,and it is great your getting in the wind..nothing beats riding..so god bless and be alert.

nice to hear from you...

secret aj man

great to here your doing well my friend!

the boy is no longer a boy..he is a man...did boot at fort benning in the dead of summer..was actually medivaced to the hospital for having a core body temp of 104 degrees.
but his di waived him and did not recycle him,cause he busted his ass.

gonna get a bike,good for you.

i got a fxdx and a gixxer 750,i love riding...truly sets you free.nothing like being on your bike on the open road...got my boy one also.

he earned it,with my respect also..lol

watch the psa thing,my dad died from exactly that problem.

i got cancer on my head,but i aint got insurance so i am winging it for now.
i might apply for the welfare type stuff,but it will be sooo embarresssing to ask for help.
and i am also kinda critical of welfare...so you see my problem.

what kind of hog are you getting?

i have a fxdx as i said,but my bro has a electric glide standard...awesome bike...and prety reasonable.

i was just down your neck of the woods...are all the cops assholes down that way...we got stopped twice for speeding in south carolina...on 81 i think it was.(we wwere doing 80 on a interstate)( i hate it up here...but you can do 90 and cops pass you..lol)
went to atlanta and then went an hour south.....how can you take the humidity..it was brutal!

you have my prayers for your psa test,and it is great your getting in the wind..nothing beats riding..so god bless and be alert.

nice to hear from you...

secret aj man

Hopefully this one, though that still has to be determined ...

http://www.harley-davidson.com/wcm/Content/Pages/2007_Motorcycles/2007_Motorcycles.jsp?locale=en_US&bmLocale=en_US&HDCWPSession=H7SbFTJBLfbK4M8CszQ9xZlYR8JDBGJvYzq5TkXH93pLr7jCvp96!-100547440!168322931

EDIT: Opps! It's the last on the opening video. The Touring Classic.

Thanks for the well-wishes. I hope yours gets taken care of soon.

Err... What?

The Su-30MKI is a good plane, don't get me wrong. But the F/A-18E/F is superior. It has an AESA radar. Better missiles(applies to all american fighter planes). Better counter-measures and other intelligence gathering capabilities. More wet hardpoints. Lower RCS. The list goes on.
MKI is a cross between 4th and 5th generations. While Super Hornet beats the old one, it still is an average 4-gen fighter. Even noticeably pro-USUK studies admit lower chances of 18E/F against Su-35, which is similar to Su-30MKI. It has less engine power and lacks thrust vectoring, while MKI has deep two-plane vectoring, so its fighting capabilities are far better. Range and speed are still considerably lower than MKI's.
Difference in missiles is not as significant and not as one-sided as may seem, since all have quite similar analogs (R-77 is at least a match), and the missiles are undergoing upgrade, especially considering long-range missiles; add new KS-172 tailored for modern BVR. That small fading advantage exists only in AAM, not AShM, which are what is really dangerous and important. The radar of MKI is a bit more older type, but phase array radars are not obsolete, and active ones mainly just save space and weight. The radar on late Su jets is also heavy, but very powerful, specifically designed to counter stealth aircraft and to serve as tactical AWACS with a datalink, so minor RCS improvements, which took place on both jets, are negated. Furthermore, in three years MKI will have AESA radars as well, and, as well as now, overpowered ones.

Finally, overall, 18E/F is still a light multirole plane, while MKI is essentially the second best land-based heavy air superiority fighter with strike capabilities, after the Raptor, adapted for carriers. Plus it's a two-seater, which always helps. Their payload is equal, but even just well loaded F-18 resembles a bomber, while any Su-27 variant stays a fighter at a full load. Supers are too rare yet, but probably pretty much the same, if not worse at that, considering their large wings.
The avionics on MKI also is no longer the weak spot, as they use a lot of French and Israeli electronics-related components; the quality of Israeli avionics is well known, and Israel fits imported planes with their avionics for a good reason. So this is actually a combination of successful solutions from different countries.

But that all would not matter if it was another "airshow hero" prototype. The real problem is that Russia has clearly shown intent to sell these planes to anyone who has the money. All with individual approach, custom modifications, long-term support, and, for more money, with extensive pilot training, technology exchange and final assembly at customer's factories. India has already ordered two hundred, Malaysia is underway, China buys a lot of Su and won't stay behind, and whoever needs fighters is going to have as much as they can afford, and the price isn't prohibitive. In fact, they will sell any weapons to anyone who wants them, along with everything needed, up to production license. And it means completely different situation in worldwide weapon technology.

What's about the Navy? Everything is surely just fine, only 8-10 years and the Navy will have single new carrier, single new destroyer, and some JSF. Let's see what kind of solution is JSF. It's vastly underpowered, with single engine, TWR well below one, low speed, and, simply, saying goodbye to intense air combat. Payload is minimal, no long-range missiles ever, any strike capabilities come with loss of the already compromised stealthiness feature. It won't even be able to replace 18E/F, only supplement it, and there is still no real heavy fighter in the Navy. But enough about aircraft.


The situation with the Navy itself is simpler. Virginia cruisers were scrapped, sorry, no money. OK, forget about them. Anything else heavy? Sorry, battleships will stay rusting, they are not stealthy. Some kind of obsession, since a ship can never hide if it wants to fire or at least move.
Well, so here is a stealthy ship, as good as it gets, Zumwalt class. - No, sorry, too expensive, it's twice more than Arleigh, it's even more expensive than old good Ohio.
Then let's build more SSGN Ohio. - No, sorry, they are old, nothing to show off.
We can develop a new class, here's a list of features, we can finally build that automated control system, improve the hull, have dedicated guided missile launchers, it will beat the 885 - No, sorry, you've got Virginia, sub is sub, SSN or SSGN it doesn't look good, and let's better hide the fact we don't have automated control yet. Besides that, it is sexist.
But we can show off Zumwalt, and it is not like that - But then build just a couple.
It will be even more expensive, the cost is in development, and old ships are aging - Then just one, you're just navy, after all.

Nothing exactly like that really happened, but on the large scale it always ends this way. And it isn't just fine. No one is going to attack the United States. If not ever, then surely for all the 21st century. In no way, because no one is crazy. It's not excessive self-confidence, it's simply consequences of the fact that no nuclear superpower is going to be attacked. The war is for third countries. And, in unipolar or omnipolar world, the strength of US lies in the Navy.

Jesus!
A grown ass man has just had his son graduating from Fort Benning, and he himself is in his hands and knees worshipping a web-leech such as Eut. We are in a sorry state.

the south americas....that is laughable(unless you count fence jumping)they simply do not have the gdp to field a navy or any force to attack anyone but their neighbors....and not the u.s.a.

we will always have a blue water navy...because we can project power and enforce our national security interests world wide with it.

people seem to forget,the american military is setup to project power so we dont sustain damge at home,and we mostly dont fuck with other countries unless we percieve a threat(bush is the exception of coarse)
even that is somewhat arguable.

fact is,no one has the capability to attack and sustain an attack on the u.s.
period
no one,not china,anyone..while we can if so inclined rain a world of hurt anywhere,anytime.
and yawn when we are done...not beng cocky here,just realistic and logical.

if their is ever a war on the scale of ww2 it will be ugly...but noone will ever know what hit them...america mobilised is scary,this low intensity conflict crap we are doing now is just pc stuff...if we went mental...it would be ugly beyond everyones imagination...and that is not talking about nukes..just flat out being mad and like ww2..productive.

the absolfuckinglutely wrong thing to do with america is to openly challenge or attack her.

i thought 911 was enough,but that was a pin prick to most americans....attack us straight up....lol...america would bring the world to it's knees in a street fight.

the smart thing is what the islamonuts are doing...death by a thousand stabs...but sooner or later,they will be rooted out and stoped....for now,our precious kids are dying so we can be pc.

I figured out the sides to WWIII. It would be

Asia vs. everyone else


Why? Let's look:

China: PEOPLE. 1.3 billion people means a big army
Russia: Tanks. They still have thousands of tanks there, left over from the Cold War

Japan: Tech (moreorso). They still have great tech there.
Korea: Active nuclear program. Teh n00ks are needed for fighting everyone else

The Asian part of the Middle East (Iraq to Iran; Turkey to Yemen and Oman): OIL!


and let's not forget their GDP: Pretty high...

And the terrains there would hinder many cross-continent military campaigns.