Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/11/14/billions-in-pentagon-spending-down-a-bla?videoId=274544480


A short video on how the pentagon is wasting massive amounts of money on simply storing weapons and materials, and how inefficient the system is. Since we're on the subject of the budget.

No matter what the west thinks I highly doubt China would ever really use this new model army to invade anywhere. Talk about Taiwan is rhetoric, The only objective I can see them taking is the DIaoyu Islands which they would need to arm for a longer period. China in her history rarely attacks other nations, if anything the states the smallest it's been since Qing dynasty and I doubt the CCP wants to disable the already rocky geopolitical situation.

The Qing dynasty did claim sovereignty over a fairly vast area, you know.

That's what I'm saying, smallest since the Qing. But I don't see it takes no back these lands in our lifetime.

 sebster wrote:

Bring in the old hunting rule that you are only allowed to kill it if you intend to eat it, and it sounds like a workable model for the new century.

...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

squidhills wrote:
...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

Quite intentional. The suggestion that armies fund themselves with plunder was an excellent means of reducing costs, but I don't think it could fully control the costs of supply. So if a rule was brought in that you eat what you kill, well that'd halve the challenges of supply, at least.

However, if this became internationally accepted then the advantage would go to the hungriest soldiers, giving an opening for North Korea to take over the world. But that's the only possible concern I can think of.

Don't eat people bro, you don't know where they've been.

 sebster wrote:

squidhills wrote:
...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

Quite intentional. The suggestion that armies fund themselves with plunder was an excellent means of reducing costs, but I don't think it could fully control the costs of supply. So if a rule was brought in that you eat what you kill, well that'd halve the challenges of supply, at least.

However, if this became internationally accepted then the advantage would go to the hungriest soldiers, giving an opening for North Korea to take over the world. But that's the only possible concern I can think of.

That's certainly a modest proposal.

This thread got dark, man.

 Hordini wrote:

 sebster wrote:

squidhills wrote:
...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

Quite intentional. The suggestion that armies fund themselves with plunder was an excellent means of reducing costs, but I don't think it could fully control the costs of supply. So if a rule was brought in that you eat what you kill, well that'd halve the challenges of supply, at least.

However, if this became internationally accepted then the advantage would go to the hungriest soldiers, giving an opening for North Korea to take over the world. But that's the only possible concern I can think of.

That's certainly a modest proposal.

Damnit, I was going to say that!

 daedalus wrote:
There are some who would think that submarines don't matter:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-submarines-about-become-obsolete-12253

The future is space man. Used to be control the seas and control the world, then control the air control the world, next is control space. All modern armies require satellites to function properly and compete with other advanced armies. maintain space superiority and nothing can touch you.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
There are some who would think that submarines don't matter:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-submarines-about-become-obsolete-12253

The future is space man. Used to be control the seas and control the world, then control the air control the world, next is control space. All modern armies require satellites to function properly and compete with other advanced armies. maintain space superiority and nothing can touch you.

Except lasers. Space is awesome, but has terrible cover.

 Hordini wrote:
That's certainly a modest proposal.

All my best ideas are stolen...