XM7 worries from the field.

[JR1200W3]

1.4 million conscripts don't concern me unless they are on the way to America, which will never happen.

Nobody is coming to kill us. This scare tactic bullshit is why we've been sucked into every single war we've wasted American lives on since WW1. If there isn't a standing threat, we create a paper tiger so we can keep funneling money into the MIC. Don't drink the kool aid.

Is that why we want Greenland? Because there's no threat?

Extestential threat is not why we get sucked into wars. It's our position as a leading Nation and what we think our responsibility to the rest of the world is. That was Reagan's mindset and we got sucked into Beirut. That's why all the sudden we're mediating between Pakistan and India now. That's why we got sucked into Vietnam. That's why we got sucked into helping South Korea. That's how we got into the first Gulf war. It's our self-image as a free Western society. That and a competition for global resources. And by extension competition for a strategic position for future resources that we have yet to identify. And it's absolutely the current administrations mindset on attempting to meditate/ assist in UKR right now. That's why the deal we struck was based on minerals.


What you are saying is not true. It's just rhetoric.

You should listen to that book by Jack Carr about Beirut. Just for starters. It's on audiobooks and it's a decent listen

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Is that why we want Greenland? Because there's no threat?

Extestential threat is not why we get sucked into wars. It's our position as a leading Nation and what we think our responsibility to the rest of the world is. That was Reagan's mindset and we got sucked into Beirut. That's why all the sudden we're mediating between Pakistan and India now. That's why we got sucked into Vietnam. That's why we got sucked into helping South Korea. That's how we got into the first Gulf war. It's our self-image as a free Western society. That and a competition for global resources. And by extension competition for a strategic position for future resources that we have yet to identify. And it's absolutely the current administrations mindset on attempting to meditate/ assist in UKR right now. That's why the deal we struck was based on minerals.


What you are saying is not true. It's just rhetoric.

You should listen to that book by Jack Carr about Beirut. Just for starters. It's on audiobooks and it's a decent listen

No sir, nothing I said is rhetoric.

I don't want to get off topic here, so I'll make it quick.

In a single sentence, please write an explanation for our involvement in each of these situations:

1. The Korean war
2. The Vietnam War
3. Desert storm
4. OIF
5. OEF

It's the cold war, the red scare, nuclear proliferation, the spread of communism, the threat of chemical warfare, the scary Muslims, now the Chinese standing army, the Iranian threat, bla bla bla. It's all bullshit, every single one of them. We ran out of credible enemies after WW2, but the war supply economy made us the foremost superpower in the world, so in absence of a credible threat, agents within the government combined with private sector agitators have continually fed the American people paper tigers as credible threats to keep the trillions flowing to the mic companies. This is a fact. A short study of history will quickly prove that the number one perpetrator of attacks that launch America into wars are carried out by America, or facilitated by in some cases, or allowed to happen at a minimum. Money is the driving factor for everything, and nothing makes more money than war.

Edited to add: our military should absolutely be ready and capable of defeating the might of the Chinese military, and we are, but they should stay domestic, and stop meddling in everyone else's business, and it won't happen. People start starving to death in China within a month of developed nations refusing to continue to buy their cheap bullshit products. They can't afford to wage war, and their citizens would be next to useless in a large scale conflict.

 

[PappyM3]

Will the 240’s be able to run the same pressure ammo?

Will be interesting to see what benefit the 6.8 has once commercial bimetal cases start to happen (even if they don’t push to the full 80k psi)

240s are super overbuilt. I see zero concerns there.

 

[JimmyT]

dude, 1.4 million screaming chinamen will get to see our portable suns.

I have seen some recent developments with nickel cased ammo that is getting 100 extra feet per second out of the 556 round, and has a choice of 55, 62, 75, and 77 grain ammo. Would like to see the case loaded with the bullet from the 855 A1 cartridge.

I'm afraid the XM7 is going to get 86ed by big army. We have to be smarter and make the M4 lethal.

 

[M4guru]

I'm afraid the XM7 is going to get 86ed by big army. We have to be smarter and make the M4 lethal.

Man, I hope you're right, but with the amount of first-hand insight I've had on it the past few years at the program level "too big to fail" comes to mind. You can lead a horse to water and all that shit...

 

[sinister]

1.4 million conscripts don't concern me unless they are on the way to America, which will never happen.

Nobody is coming to kill us. This scare tactic bullshit is why we've been sucked into every single war we've wasted American lives on since WW1. If there isn't a standing threat, we create a paper tiger so we can keep funneling money into the MIC. Don't drink the kool aid.

You're absolutely right.

They're not coming here, and we're not going to fight them within the borders of China.

The United States is bound by six formal Indo-Pacific treaties with: Korea; Japan; Thailand; the Philippines; Australia; and the UK and Australia (AUKUS).

We've told the world there is only one China.

If they attack Taiwan and don't bomb an American facility or attack US forces we have absolutely NO reason to stop them. China holds a seat on the UN Security Council with Russia and they can cancel a war vote.

Mao killed more Chinese than Stalin killed Russians. Why does the US think they need to isolate and contain the Chinese?

On the other hand, if you live there everyone else in the Indo-Pacom is wondering what it would be like with a China-dominant western Pacific and southeast Asia.

 

[JR1200W3]

No sir, nothing I said is rhetoric.

I don't want to get off topic here, so I'll make it quick.

In a single sentence, please write an explanation for our involvement in each of these situations:

1. The Korean war
2. The Vietnam War
3. Desert storm
4. OIF
5. OEF

It's the cold war, the red scare, nuclear proliferation, the spread of communism, the threat of chemical warfare, the scary Muslims, now the Chinese standing army, the Iranian threat, bla bla bla. It's all bullshit, every single one of them. We ran out of credible enemies after WW2, but the war supply economy made us the foremost superpower in the world, so in absence of a credible threat, agents within the government combined with private sector agitators have continually fed the American people paper tigers as credible threats to keep the trillions flowing to the mic companies. This is a fact. A short study of history will quickly prove that the number one perpetrator of attacks that launch America into wars are carried out by America, or facilitated by in some cases, or allowed to happen at a minimum. Money is the driving factor for everything, and nothing makes more money than war.

Edited to add: our military should absolutely be ready and capable of defeating the might of the Chinese military, and we are, but they should stay domestic, and stop meddling in everyone else's business, and it won't happen. People start starving to death in China within a month of developed nations refusing to continue to buy their cheap bullshit products. They can't afford to wage war, and their citizens would be next to useless in a large scale conflict.

You're mixing apples and oranges. You're injecting extreme right wing nationalism(isolationism) into whether or not DOD should be ready to fight and win our nation's wars.

DOD's mission is to win wars. Period. DOD doesn't decide what wars to become involved in. Policy makers do. In that lens, DOD pursues many advantages through innovation. It's a pretty simple analysis of our competitors capabilities.

You're trying to smear the fallicy of past political decisions of policy makers onto DOD efforts to gain technological advantage against it's most credible and obvious competitors. "If this is wrong, then that is wrong". If we're going to have a conversation about DOD modernizing to fight and win our nation's wars, it's pretty simple. We're experimenting in an attempt to gain advantage.

If you're trying to migrate the conversation to the past decisions of policy makers and political leaders, I would say this: It's all a lot more simple than most people would make it. You either design the chessboard, set the pieces where you want them, and make the rules that others follow. Or you get placed on the chessboard and get the rules dictated to you. That's what competition is. If you don't like getting the rules dictated to you or your place on the chessboard, you can try to buck up. But you better win. If you don't, then you're going to get sat back down and told to color. And you may be in a worse situation as a known loser. So if you're going to try to buck up, or if someone wants to challenge you for running the board, you better be able to win. That's your military's job. To win the fight.

What we have persistently failed at is using our military for "policing". That's usually when we get sucked into unwinnable conflicts. DOD isn't built to police. Nation building is an extreme extension of policing but involving DOS and other governmental agencies. Since the Marshall plan, we haven't been able to reproduce the hat trick. It's the hat trick because you're the ultimate good guy. You defeated evil and created good. We jacked up AF and IZ by moving past revenge and trying to be good guys and build nations. That's where we got bogged down. That's a policy decision. There isn't anything wrong with laying a smackdown. It's the prolonged pursuit of being the ultimate good guy that gets us. Everytime since WWII. It remains to be seen if isolationism is going to benefit Americans. My guess is most Americans won't be happy with isolationism. And it also violates a core tenant our nation was built on. Capitalism and free trade. From taxation, fighting the French and Indians for primacy of trade and valuable goods, and manifest destiny.

I could meet you in the middle. There are two mines in the world that produce a high enough quality of quartz to make make micro processors. One of those two mines are located in North Carolina. Why does a French company own one those 1 of 2 quartz mines. In America. Why did we let that happen? I think there's a lot of things we can do as a nation before we try to be Sweden. And ironically, capitalism is probably why we let the former happen. But some of us would call it corruption rather than acknowledge that perhaps there's a bad side to all out capitalism and running the country like a business where the bottom line is the thing that matters the most.