On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:15:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?



Ask Truman and LBJ.

Both Bushs learned the lessons of Vietnam. Once a decision was made to
wage a war, it was done so in a manner to win. Harry will yak about
third rate armies, but a Russian tank is a tank regardless and Saddam
had a bunch of them.

Both excursions into Iraq weren't even close in terms of "not winning".

The problem in Iraq is we did not know what a win looked like. We beat
the army and hanged Saddam but nobody asked "what's next"?
We have the same problem in Syria and to some extent Afghanistan,
except we never beat anyone there. We killed a lot of people but there
was never a decisive win.
We actually accomplished more in Vietnam by admitting defeat and
getting everyone out. When Ho moved south, he could not maintain the
lie he perpetuated in the north because the people knew better and the
country immediately moved into the 20th century. It makes me wonder
what would happen if Kim had to assimilate 50 million 21st century
South Koreans into his closed society and still have them believing he
shot 10 holes in one in a row.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.


It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes
down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a
shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be
less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a
worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT
can be very dangerous.
Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial
explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so.


You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to
cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some
experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what
evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that
the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons?

Because TNT is still TNT?
I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG
"282" manual online that defined storage and classification of
ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX
saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company
selling a replacement)
I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:39:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the
kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we
need.

===

You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the
more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to
death for blasphemy.



So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are
plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too.

I have to chuckle sometimes Greg but your comment (above) is why your
Libertarian Party candidates will never stand a chance of being POTUS.

Most people are horrified to see a woman being buried up to her neck in
dirt and then stoned to death by her community ... often including her
husband ... for suspicion of having an adulterous affair or making a
blasphemous statement of Islam.

Even Rand Paul, technically a Republican but with very strong
Libertarian views, has a softer heart than that.


I am as horrified as I am when the savages in Africa do similar things
to their people but I would not risk my kid's life to stop them ...
and evidently that view is shared by most Americans vis a vis Africa.

3d world people have different values and bombing them does not seem
to change that.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:45:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:49:20 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

The goal in Vietnam wasn't to "win". Same in Korea.

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?

For humanitarian reasons?

That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit.
If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing
Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs.
That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too.

You're assuming ISIS and Kim give a rat's ass about their people.

On 4/16/2017 4:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:48:51 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

We are not talking about a quarter mile, we are talking a few hundred
feet and that cave system is bigger than that.

Were they aiming only at a large mountain containing caves or perhaps the entrance to a particular



It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows
that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP,
not the MOAB.


The MOAB did the job according to those inspecting the area.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the
kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we
need.

===

You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the
more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to
death for blasphemy.

So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are
plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too.

I can't believe you said that.

Why? For the same reason you'd get ****ed if the guy across the street from you was kicking the **** out of his dog!

If it was the guy on my street I would be upset but I am not going to
Korea and tell a guy he can't eat his dog. Different culture,
different rules.
It is not our place to tell people half way around the world how they
treat their dogs or their people when that has been their culture
since the fall of Rome.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 14:10:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I found Greg's comment a bit weird also. I don't think he really
believes it and would be very disappointed if he did. He's a better man
than that despite his Libertarian ways. :-)

It has nothing to do with my virtue, it is my understanding that other
cultures have different rules. As I said, Europe thinks we are pretty
barbaric too. How many homicides did we have last year? How many
executions? How many people are incarcerated?
If we were talking about guns John, Jim, and the rest would be telling
those nancy boys in Europe to mind their own business.

On 4/16/2017 4:45 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:49:20 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

The goal in Vietnam wasn't to "win". Same in Korea.

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?

For humanitarian reasons?

That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit.
If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing
Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs.
That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too.



The vast majority of the NK population wouldn't know what the PC's were,
let alone know how to use them.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:06:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:55:45 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.

I'm thinking his 'old stuff' was *accidentally* left to begin 'oozing'. The Army, at least the units
I was in, would use the older ammo for training as opposed to dumping it in the sea. I can't believe
the Coast Guard would purposely let ammo get so old it began 'oozing' unless someone f'ed up big
time.
At least you admit ammo has a shelf life.
I already said the 3 classes are ready service, training and trash.
We had limited ability to actually shoot live ammo and it was seldom
new when we got it anyway so disposal was pretty common.
You also pointed out why it was pretty much free to drop this bomb.
I doubt they "train" with an 18,000 bomb.

What was your typical cycle time on your large caliber rounds (105-155
etc)?
How long was it class 1, 2 and 3?

Looks like 20 years is the magic number. But, the rounds don't get trashed.

http://www.army-technology.com/featu...ition-4583575/

On 4/16/2017 5:16 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:15:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?



Ask Truman and LBJ.

Both Bushs learned the lessons of Vietnam. Once a decision was made to
wage a war, it was done so in a manner to win. Harry will yak about
third rate armies, but a Russian tank is a tank regardless and Saddam
had a bunch of them.

Both excursions into Iraq weren't even close in terms of "not winning".

The problem in Iraq is we did not know what a win looked like. We beat
the army and hanged Saddam but nobody asked "what's next"?


Yes, yes, yes Greg. That point has been made a gazillion times.
The issue and point was that when allowed to "win" a battle or war the
US military can do an outstanding job. What came after was not (and is
not) the job of the military.