Mercer

@JokerEven more reason you'd be good at this IMO, not a lot of lasting value in slightly updating a current/familiar design. My own personal shift from disgust, into reluctant admiration a few days later with the Tesla truck was pretty eye opening. I think sometimes you need to take that risk, and work completely outside of the box. It's like working with no safety net, completely discarding the comfort of familiarity. Honestly, that has to be the most difficult, and probably most important objective to pull off in any genre. Out of curiosity how'd you feel about that Truck design?

@KILZ FILLZYou're spot on with that, and it's to be expected. If you don't follow their narrative (any branch of the Armed Forces you're covering) you'll get zero access to cover cool shit like this. Especially when you're a small time station in a podunk little area of Utah, and there's literally billions of dollars floating around above you like the attached youtube video in the PM article. I grew up on Popular Mechanics as a kid, and a ton of Military propoganda being an Army brat (station abroad for 6 years with my fam) and get at little nostalgic for it. You have to admit, launching 52 of them bad boys at once is a major show of force and fucking awesome to say the least.

Not trying to really criticize you here, just want to share some perspective. You have a tendency to just argue with people with no point real point of your own. It can feel a little "abrasive" like you're just trolling when you're on the other end of it. Later you'll try to come off like a "saint" after you've already done the trolling, and they return your volley. When you complain you're being attacked later it comes off as super disingenuous. I think Hua might get it a little but he's at least trying to be civil most of the time and resisting the easy "troll" moves that piss people off as much as can be expected. Personally, I wish it was a little more civil in here and there were less personal ad hominem attacks, and I've already made that point before so no need to repeat it. I just think you could help with that. If you were a little less contrarian every single time you engaged, it wouldn't feel so combative and create a better atmosphere. Like don't just jump in, and argue. Try contributing in other ways a little more. I'm really working on improving this for myself since I have these tendency's, so this isn't a diss against you. I just don't think you see the pattern you're following with your posts in the news section. It's not easy, but worth the effort if you want to engage in civil debate and get the most out of the broad spectrum of perspectives shared in here.

Popular mechanics wrote an article on this: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30432841/f-35-elephant-walk/

Oh shit, another rare agreement

The overconfidence in here is almost as bad as the climate that lead to the first Korean War. Mercer's going to drop a history lesson on the first Korean war because the talk in here is ironic, and should be framed with a little context. Not sure if any of you have any solid reference for this supposed walk in the park, other than MASH reruns. This is an interesting subject to read up on, so I'll break my version/understanding of events down to illustrate why it was, and would be a costly disaster for more than just Seoul, or Tokyo. History books are amazing because hindsight is usually 2020 (for most of us at least). Much like the opinions in this thread, the decision to take action against communists, and intervene on behalf of the capitalist's in Korea was considered a no brainer, and was unanimously supported by both the pentagon, and politicians. They were just a few units of communist gorillas popping up that the Korean Army had trouble stamping out (nothing compared to DPRK Army). Korea itself was a backwards ass country, with a weak military. They were easily brought to their knees by the Japanese less than a decade ago, which was a country we just defeated, and ruled over in a relatively easy occupation. Should be a walk in the park, right? We didn't even prepare with ammunition buildups, supply buildups, and basically everyone assumed we were facing a vastly inferior force that would just "give up" once we introduced them to our infinitely superior modern warfare and techniques. Sound familiar? The first rule of warfare, is nothing is certain in warfare. Overconfidence by the superior force is the classic blunder that destroys Empires and constantly repeats itself because people generally don't know/forget history. Smaller, far less equipped fighting forces constantly crush much larger forces, so much so that it's a fairly regular occurrence. Think Imperial England VS the U.S. revolutionaries, Think Mujahideen VS the Soviets, the Vietcong etc. etc. etc. going back to Rome, and as far as the first written accounts of ancient warfare. Underdogs are often the safer bet. We roll into Korea with just two divisions we had stationed in Japan, and after getting essentially shut down (during the summer I might add when we should have advanced easily) we had to send two more. The two additional units were dropped in behind enemy lines at the end of the first summer near Inchon, an easy flank right? Well sort of, after dropping in one more Unit now totaling 5 army units we had the N. Koreans on the run to the Yalu river (Korean/China Border), dropping 2 more units before we got them there. The Chinese red army was amassing across the River by then, then we were fighting both the Chinese army, and the DPRK army. 9 army units strong wasn't enough (here's a complete list of U.S. Army Units & Divisions for scale). Rangers, Special Forces, you name it, even the new armed forced division (U.S. Air Force). We were giving it everything we could spare by this point. The Soviets were sending in the newly developed Mig jet fighters (along some Russian with piloting them) while we still mostly used propeller planes with some Sabers in the mix. Shit got real, real quick, and we got pushed back herd to everyones shock, before sending more troops/resources and pushing back to the 38th parallel before the armistice that essentially paused the war which is where we still stand today (neither side considers it over). So many similarities to today, with China deploying stealth planes of their own, and being even closer tech wise to the U.S. then they were in the 1940's & early 50's. This was the deadliest conflict of the Cold war with 3 million total killed (including civilians), with a confirmed 60,000 U.S. soldiers killed, and an additional 80,000 U.S. soldiers were lost in action or P.O.W.'d, and the wounded numbers of U.S. soldiers were well above 6 figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Those numbers might not mean shit to you, but think about it, we only lost 3000 people on 911, 4500 in the Iraq war and we all know someone who's either dead, wounded, or suffering from PTSD now and those numbers are extremely small by comparison. Burying 60,000 of your best/brightest young men that are fit for duty, plus another 80,000 unaccounted for isn't even comparable. The Chinese can spare that many soldiers a day without even flinching or feeling it. Because of our population difference, even if we get a 50 to 1 kill ratio, we still fucking lose. I've already stated there's zero chance China would allow U.S. forces to share a border with it (which is why they entered the 1st Korean War). Bringing things full circle, I think the commander and chief role is the most important job of a President, and you shouldn't even be eligible to become President without at least serving during peace time bare minimum. Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and now Trump have no idea WTF war is really about, none are experts and rely on the Military to basically explain everything to them. It's scary that Trump is probably as ill informed as most of us in this thread, thinking that the U.S. taking out North Korea now would be a walk in the park. Saying this to anyone with military expertise would be met with laughter. You really have no idea in terms of human suffering what it would cost us, and that is dangerous as fuck considering how gullible we are as citizens. Drones won't be able to stop a DPKR nuclear launch, they hide their completely mobile missile launch systems that can be easily moved, and easily concealed with decoys. If you read all this and still think it's going to be a walk in the park, well, I'm not surprised. Sorry for the huge history lesson but it was the only way I could illustrate how mistake we are about the supposed cakewalk, and comparing DPRK to Iraq.

Navy Seal, Bump Helmet, Scar Heavy, Hot Optics, Icy Mountains (Sierra Nevada CA)

lol'd when I saw it too.

Got Em

Fuck them other motherfuckers I'm in 98% agreement with. Also, fuck them motherfucking roads

They were heavily implemented for the tasks they're intended for. They aren't intended to fight a war for us yet, and far from it now. Agreed, but they still can't be trusted to take on the task of kill confirmation in a situation like this. OK so what would the end of the Korean war look like? A clear objective other than taking out Kim, and the military leadership. What are the chances that China would allow the U.S., or another democratic countries military to share a border with it? That's preposterous, they'd be either fighting us directly, or indirectly with the greatest urgency just like they did in Round 1. That's why Tibet is a huge deal for China, India is a massive threat in their eyes. You'd be hard pressed to take Tibet from China, or take over Nepal because that buffer zone is crucial to both of those superpowers. It would be like the U.S. and Russia sharing a massive border during the peak of the cold war with no buffer zone. That's why N. Korea is a big deal to them and why they've always protected hem. They may not like N. Korea but N. Korea isn't a military, or philosophical threat to the CCP. South Korea, and the United States are. We also can't press a button and make every member of N. Koreas armed forces dead, these fucks will also scatter once the head is removed, and the insurgency would be supplied by China no doubt and we'd face a new Ho Chi Min, or Kim Ill Sung. Just like the baathist/Iraqi military, their military already knows they can't win a convention war, so they will almost certainly revert to Sun Tsu's suggested warfare model for defense until we're bankrupt or give up. There will be an insurgency, and Seoul will for sure take a major hit, thus fucking up the global economy. Again, we may have massive technological, and economic advantages but this doesn't invalidate the basic foundational laws of warfare. What makes you think we'd not make a mistake this time around? This is an unrealistic position considering our current state of political affairs. IMO we're more inept now than we were just after 911, and the populous is less willing to engage/support a war. The Korean people (both N. and S.) have a much deeper connection to war than any Western Culture. They are warriors by nature, and even now many S. Koreans need to be trained on how to smile, and be friendly because warfare is so ingrained in their society. They will not be pacified by removing the regime. While there are some people there that would be relieved of the regime was ended, these types are not/never were the threat. Think about it, the liberals here aren't. They can't shoot, fight, and tough it out compared to conservatives. Our liberals might even celebrate if a foreign power took out Trump, but the vast majority of the people that you for sure don't ever want to fuck with wouldn't. They'd fight to the death. Fuck, even I would and I don't even like Trump. It's the hard as nails, "Fuck the West" & "Fuck America" Koreans we need to worry about, and they're not just putting on a show. Communism is a religion IMO, and it's just as, if not more harmful as Islam in many cases.

I just think our focus should be on developing a higher standard of living here in the United States. I want to make it unaffordable for anyone without tons of money, or sponsors here to come over much like it's inconceivable for migrants to take foothold in (neutral) bSwitzerland realistically. All this talk of drones, and tech to take over the world sounds like poor planning, and inevitable bankruptcy to me. Have you given any thought to how much they charge per BD robot? The rest of the world needs to work itself out, or not, either way it doesn't matter as long as we're good. Fuck em.

Disagree that these 4 conflics were even comparable to each other as to why they "failed". For one, I consider the 1st gulf war (1990/91) a complete success, and also consider the Korean war a success (to a lesser degree) considering the objective. There's no indication that our current administration has any advantages in military Strategy over the past, in fact, I'd say they have less military strategic expertise. That expertise and wisdom faded out with our last President with military/strategic knowledge: Bush Senior, who was a war hero himself and knew how to use the military to obtain a realistic objective without subjecting them to massive harm. Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump are imbeciles in "Strategery: by comparison. They land a nuke here and I'm still breathing, I'm going over there myself and have a feeling we might both end up on a plane/boat together with a few other people we know. There's no way we wouldn't decimate them with or without the official military if that happened. Drones are only effective to a certain point, and it's fairly straightforward how to take countermeasures against them. That's why our special forces took out Baghdadi, and Bin Laden, and not drones. They have clear limits, as well as manned planes, there's only so much they can see, or do. This is where I disagree the most. Even in Iraq (2003) with current tech, zero vegetation, and almost zero topographical obstacles it still took a massive number of troops on the ground to eliminate the baathists or we would have never sent manned aircraft, and large numbers of ground forces in. We needs boots on the ground, kicking in doors, clearing houses, building, etc. Unless we just decide to commit unthinkable war crimes and indiscriminately murder all the civilians, this is the reality of the situation.

oof, I personally don't think it would be that easy. America was at it's peak of cultural, and global power during the 1950's. That war was devastating, requiring a draft and loss of thousands of American lives. The Vet's described it as grueling because of the terrain, the weather, and the tenacity of those militant little fucks. I remember a story of them capturing/killing N. Koreans and instead of them having warm winter uniforms, they'd stuff newspaper into their summer uniforms and keep it moving. None of that has changed, the topography, the militant tenacity, and the cover provided by vegetation. America made the exact same mistake thinking Vietnam would be a cake walk. Not every country on earth is as flat, free of vegetation, and impossible to defend from invasion as Iraq. We only ran into problems with urban warfare there but could control vast swaths of dessert with relative ease. Remember, the defender/local population always has a natural advantage, this combined with challenging terrain, and infinite hiding spots in the vegetation. I'm just assuming these facts make taking control of N. Korea at least 5-10x most costly (in terms of both money/lives) per square mile than Iraq.