Leaderboard

As requested.

Nope. As repeatedly stated, it's a war over the use of nukes at all. Ukraine becomes immaterial. See above. It is vital that the nuclear stalemate be maintained. Secondarily, the extreme wealth of the West, and the world at large, is reliant on the concept of sovereignty. Going back to the bad-old-days of empire building will make us much, much poorer as a nation if we have to recalibrate our trading economy around countries that can be conquered at the whims of tyrants. Sure, NATO protects Western Europe, but you don't want NATO to exist, so by your logic every country without a superior military can be taken over by Russia or China, and we are to allow it unless there is a direct interest. And since you clearly will avoid a nuclear exchange at all costs, no direct interest is going to override that fear. There are a lot of Asian countries we do business with. But if China wants to take them, cool. What's the problem? And you think the world, and especially the US, will be better for this? That sounds like an Ayn Rand fantasy. It seems like the libertarian/isolationist wing of the right has joined the left in pretending that the things we did to create the present-day world didn't actually contribute to creating the most prosperous period in human history. It just happened *despite* our power projection. It's nonsense. The South Koreans sure are better off. Taiwan is better off. Kuwait is better off. Israel is better off. And all the countries that weren't invaded as a direct result of the United States military umbrella are better off. And we are better off. Most of your post is a reply to things no one said or scenarios that don't apply. A whole lot less than historically. Why is that? I explicitly stated we shouldn't respond with a nuke. We don't need to. Here we agree, and giving a nuke to Ukraine would not lower the tensions. A nuke or two aren't much of a deterrent anyways. We didn't lob nukes in Vietnam. Also, why was it different? Is this some sort of relativism nonsense? If you can't see the difference between how the West interacted with the world and how the communist regimes interacted with the world, to include the very disparate body counts, you've gone down a path that has no underlying logic. You either believe there is right and wrong in the world or you don't, which doesn't mean you always start a fight when something wrong happens or always do the most righteous thing, but when you start making comparisons as though there is parity between communist China and the United States, then the underlying assumptions have rendered the rest of this conversation pointless. They did not use nukes, so how does that compare? Ironically, Putin is in fact threatening the use of nukes, but you don't consider that a hollow bluff. Why? So again, is this the only line? That leaves every country on the planet available for conquest, and given the sad state of Europe's military, Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East aren't the only countries that would be at great risk under this philosophy. Essentially, India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia are free to invade as they see fit. And we will be better off staying out? I think maybe one of the primary disconnects here is that the isolationists (and I don't mean that as a pejorative) seem to think Ukraine is an isolated incident. I certainly don't. I see Ukraine as the logical outcome of a Western coalition that has lost faith in itself and allowed its strength to atrophy. I think Ukraine is just the first symptom of a much deeper disease. Fortunately it turns out Russia's military sucks balls, but no one in the West or East thought they were that bad off. I don't suspect China, just based off their numbers alone, would be facing the same type of stalemate if they had invaded Ukraine or a similarly sized country. The USSR was not a fluke. And while the West has evolved into a triumph of human cooperation and restraint, unanimously agreeing to abandon the goal of empire building, not everybody has signed on to that arrangement. If you believe that China and Russia would be content with merely establishing trading agreements with the countries in their sphere of influence, you have to ask yourself why they haven't just joined the West, since that's exactly what we do in the West. I submit that it's because they have far greater ambitions, namely, rebuilding ancient empires by force. And they both have nukes, so what exactly are we going to do to stop them?

Again, I am patiently waiting for someone to show me a vital national interest to the U.S. that requires us to be in any kind of a shooting war over Ukraine, let alone one that would escalate quickly to over the Pole exchanges. Nations/people have been killing each other since we climbed down from the trees. Nukes changed the rules for those who got into the ownership club. Diplomacy is the chess/checkers (Administration dependent) part of national power. Use of force is the poker game. The problem with threatening with nuclear weapons, even as a response to one being used elsewhere, is that your bluff will eventually be called. If we and/or NATO say that if Putin uses a nuke in Ukraine, we will use, or allow the Ukrainians to use (which, think about that idea of turning a US weapon over to any other nation, let alone one not formally allied to us. Wonder why we have the MUNS sites for NATO-designated weapons...) a U.S weapon on Russian troops in Ukraine. Pretty dramatic declaration of war if you use it and one that will bring the nuke's ICBM big brothers to the fight. Again, not gonna happen. Nor should it. And if we threaten to retaliate with a nuke but then don't, our nuclear credibility is absolutely and irrevocably shot. Until we start lobbing nukes which kinda means game over anyway... In Korea and Vietnam, who was feeding (literally) the Norks and the North Vietnamese with ammo, weapons of all types, SAMs, and MiGs? Why was that any different than us throwing stuff to Ukraine? We didn't threaten China and/or USSR with a nuke for their actions. And when USSR invaded Afghanistan/Hungary/Czechoslovakia/et al, did we threaten nuclear? Nope, because it would've been a hollow bluff. Just as betting your stack on the Ukraine deal is. We vaguely nuke threatened Iraq pre-Desert Storm 1 to ensure it didn't use chemicals against us. It worked, but then Iraq didn't have nukes (oh, the irony there...). Deterrence works if your opponent believes you will. We won't over Ukraine. And we shouldn't. As tragic as it is, it is NOT our fight. I'm betting Putin believes that as well. To be absolutely clear, I am not saying "avoid at all costs." I am saying the price to be paid needs to be worth the U.S.' sacrifice in physical destruction, the humanitarian mess left behind, the economic destruction, and the reversion to a Walking Dead society before committing to major warfare with a nuclear-armed adversary. They nuke the U.S. or assets? 3,2,1, keyturn... They use a tactical nuke on a Ukrainian city? Tragic and we most likely will lead the world's response in cleaning up afterwards. But trade Ukraine for U.S.? Oh, hell no. Why is this our fight to shed blood and treasure? Selective Service agency is still a thing...

Crispy Critters. Took me a bit to see the actual track of the missile from the upper right

Finally have UPT dates, headed to Vance. Completed timeline below, this is for a non-prior at a guard fighter unit. Hired: Aug 2020 MEPS: Dec 2020 (initial processing was delayed due to miscommunication on COVID protocols, had to go back for a vision consult in Jan 2021 which required a waiver) Enlistment: Feb 2021 FC1: May 2021 NGB Packet Submitted: July 2021 NGB Packet Approved: Oct 2021 OTS Orders Received: Dec 2021 (for Jan 2022 start) OTS: Jan-Mar 2022 UPT Orders Received: Feb 2022 (for May 2022 start) UPT: May 2022

My packet was submitted to NGB on 01 JUL 21 and was approved 19 OCT 21, so 3.5mos for me.

How about some more videos of Ukrainians stacking Russians?

The problem is, and the driving force behind all these arguments, is none of us agree on what makes a reason valid.

Oh don’t get me started on Lincoln… I grew up in midwest and was basically taught that he was a saint. He was very tyrannical. I remember 10 years ago when conservatives said Obama was the most tyrannical president we ever had and then bragged how great Lincoln was. Likewise progressives will tell you that Trump was literally Hitler and then brag about we need another FDR…who literally put American citizens in prison camps because of their ethnic background. This whole binary way of thinking is how we keep getting crap—crap politicians, crap policies, you name it. Don’t excuse bad behavior or bad policy just because X person/party is not as bad as Y person/party.

I'd prefer not to lose any, but the effect will be the same once every nuclear country knows that they can blockade us by threatening a nuclear war.

Well, I can’t disagree on using nukes against Russia if they nuke us…you know, The United States of America. The country is care about, pay taxes, serve, etc. As for declaring war against Russia for launching a nuke against Ukraine…why? Why is that your red line vs what they’ve already done? If they kill a hundred thousand Ukrainians using conventional weapons then why wouldn’t you declare war then? What if they kill a million? And yes, if we declare war against Russia for not attacking the US, then we’re asking for pain, when we don’t have to. Again…our greatest concern right now should be our economy, but to many it appears to be the well being of a European country on the other side of the globe. And for those that say “it can be both”…this is how you get yourself over $30T in debt.

You keep spouting this ridiculous nonsense, which is especially insane coming from someone who is actually in the military. How did your oath go? I must have missed the part where they asked me to put my family in the path of a hypothetical nuke. You keep acting like the worst thing that could happen is an American city being nuked. And maybe it is the worst thing that could happen this year, but it's not the worst thing that could happen at all. Empires fall, and some of us believe that the United States in decline is a tragedy for the billions of people on this planet. We've done more to advance the cause of human flourishing than any other society in history and at a pace never before imagined. That wasn't happenstance. It was a series of ideals developed over centuries, primarily in the West, that culminated in what we have today. Those ideals will not die in a nuclear strike on New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. But they will die if we decide that there is no right and wrong, that self-interest is the only metric by which we engage in the world. And using previous examples of failure to be righteous is a pretty shitty excuse for failing again in the future. Not only will it lead to a dimmer future for my kids and their kids, appeasement doesn't fucking work. It's kind of like communism, everybody always has a fancy new academic way to do it, and it's totally going to be different this time, and then we end up in the same place. So rather than pretend like your question has any logical basis, I will answer the more rational and less hyperventilating version of it. If doing the right thing (which is absolutely a valid topic for debate) and protecting a world that has become immeasurably better than it ever has been, through protecting the fundamental idea that the individual is sovereign with a right to form a society and choose that society's destiny, leads to a nuclear strike on America by an evil regime, yes, I am prepared to accept that risk.

I highly recommend this site. It used to be completely free, but IMHO paying to access the website is completely worth it. https://militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/ Contains everything you need to know about the MEB process and the rating/compensation system. For MEB, I couldn't use a VSO but with this website I didn't need the VSO. @VMFA187attached are the USAF MEB references. 04_DoD_IntegratedDisabilityEvalSystem_Brochure.pdf DES Info for CC Fact Sheet 15 Jun 17.pdf Disability Evaluation System Fact Sheet (Aug 2018)v2.pdf

So does that mean that the national debate on the issue should not occur now? You know…when that attack is not happening? When those not on the left and the non-neocon war hawks start asking these tough questions they’re branded as being pro-Putin. As for our forces being in Poland, would be upset if Russia had forces in Mexico or Cuba? Funny how just over a year ago the left was so worried that a president they didn’t like was going to do X, Y, or Z…and now suddenly it’s wrong to question what our president/his team may or may not do wrt attacking another country, nuclear weapons, etc. Or is it “different” this time? See the link below. The good news is that Biden is weak on foreign policy, so fortunately he won’t get us involved in anything too serious…it just so happens that not escalating is the right move, so I’ll take weakness in this case. Then again, I was wrong on Putin attacking past the eastern areas of Ukraine and likewise I was wrong on Biden cutting off Russian oil. Hopefully I’m right that Biden won’t want to engage Russia militarily—fingers crossed. https://nypost.com/2021/09/29/milley-admits-he-would-tell-china-if-us-launched-an-attack/

A) I guess I was looking at it through the lens of it would actually encourage smaller countries to arm up with nukes even more. If they see a big bad country use a nuke on a little guy (for no reason, which makes this scenario even worse) without getting nuked back, what country on earth is ever going to feel secure without having their own nukes? I really don't want to see tac nuke employment becoming a new "normal" element of battle. I honestly don't know, but seeing a country employ nukes in an offensive manner and getting away with it is terrifying. B) This would work, but how do we ensure it? Would the entire world unite and basically be like "yea this government has to go"? Would China green light terminating Putin? What if Xi says no? China may not have the best military, but they sure are big and could make a real mess in their sphere. No real way to know, uncharted waters. C) Yea this fight for sure would have chosen us. Russia's fault, Putin had his late life crisis and made a huge mess and thinks the world is his personal game board since he himself doesn't have to worry about dying in Ukraine. How someone in his inner circle who maybe has terminal cancer or something hasn't clipped him and taken one for the team at this point beats me. He's annihilating his own country economically, and for what strategic gain exactly besides an ego boost I have yet to figure out.

The US in a nuclear war with Russia to defend Ukraine? Have you guys lost your minds? I’m mostly with Brick on this one (usually am)—no US city or American overseas base (ie Ramstein) is worth Kyiv. It’s bad enough that we’re still a member of a Cold War treaty (when the Cold War is over) in which we agreed that an attack on one certain country is automatically seen as an attack on all members (alliances for no other reason can be dangerous…WW1 anyone?), but now we’re literally saying that potentially more than a million American lives should be on the table if a million Ukrainian lives are taken? I would love to see Biden get on stage and say those very words…the support for Ukraine will quickly change. Like it or not, Putin is a bad dude and seems capable of just about anything, and he commands a force that is not some 3rd world country of goat herders or some rich oil nation of slackers in the Middle East. If we go to war with Russia then this will be the first of its kind since the 1940s and of the nuclear age. Why so many would be eager to see it happen to defend Ukraine is beyond me—nuke or no nuke hitting Ukraine. And as for potential genocide, yeah, it’s horrible, but now we care about it when Russia is the aggressor? I don’t recall seeing too many on here wanting to go to war with China or Turkey over their atrocities…what about Myanmar, are we going to war with them? At some point you have to stop being the world’s policemen. I don’t know how the Ukraine/Russia thing ends, but I’m for whatever outcome that is best for the US. Hopefully that involves Ukraine staying strong and Russia finally pulling back and realizing that it was a mistake and then that’s that (more/less); but hope is not a strategy. The more realistic best scenario is for Russia and Ukraine to “negotiate” (I know, it’s a crappy word when you’re invaded) and Ukraine allows some of the pro-Russia eastern areas to break away and Russia pulls out its troops and most (if not all) the sanctions are lifted and things quiet down that way. And then as for Russia, in terms of their internal politics, time will tell. Again, what does Putin want? You can’t say he gets nothing unless you’re willing to deal with the consequences of him not giving up and potentially being even more dangerous than he already is…and then what happens? If we’re willing to have “peace” discussions with the Taliban, then we have to be willing to do the same with one of the most powerful countries in the world. Hopefully this will alleviate the need for nukes to be a legitimate concern. Watching/reading the msm (yes, even Fox News), you would think that the Ukraine story is the most important thing affecting Americans right now…I’m much more concerned with our economy. But for the left, this is a good distraction and allows someone else (Putin) to take the blame for our woes. And who doesn’t love a good war on tv? Fox viewers and the neo-cons love it. Thanks for tuning into my rambling, flame away.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Once nukes are used there's no precedent that's good. But responding with a nuke just because someone else used one is also setting a bad precedent. With so many smaller countries getting nuclear weaponry, I don't think we want to set the precedent that using a tactical nuke guarantees nuclear annihilation. But it should still guarantee annihilation (of the offending government). There are other ways to accomplish that, and no matter how many tactical nukes Russia uses in Ukraine, it is still not the same as launching an ICBM into New York. The problem with brickhistory's logic is that weakness emboldens aggressors. When it becomes clear that you will avoid something at all costs, you no longer have any leverage against someone whose desires do not overlap your own. In this case, Putin can wave nukes around and therefore, we can no longer intervene. Well. What if he decides to start using nukes if we don't lift the economic sanctions? What if he threatens to use nukes if we keep supplying Ukraine with stingers and javelins? Isolating Russia, similar to North Korea would not be an acceptable solution to the use of nuclear weaponry. Deterrence only works if annihilation follows, so the current regime would have to be destroyed. Anything short of Putin's head would be an endorsement of the use of nuclear weaponry to the tyrants of the world. Of course, the response to this would be that we are guaranteeing war. But that's also bullshit. We're not guaranteeing anything, we're just responding to the world we exist in. It's self-flagellating to claim any sort of responsibility to this by the United States. We're the first non-imperial power of this magnitude in history, and just because we didn't disband NATO after the USSR collapsed (though we absolutely did attempt to get Russia to join the West, and they refused), doesn't mean we have any responsibility for what's going on in Ukraine. Bumbling and missteps do not equal guilt, the guilt lies squarely with the Russian government, and should they decide on this path, that will be their fault as well.

What’s your thinking here? We’re the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the second largest nuclear arsenal and the most capable conventional forces by a long shot. Short of an all out nuclear exchange, in which NOBODY comes out on top, in what world conflict scenario does the US come out behind China or Russia?

With the intelligencia increasingly convinced that nuclear weapons are a realistic possibility, what does the "hands off" crowd here think should be the response should Putin use a tactical nuke in Ukraine? Is there any condition where Russian action within the Ukrainian border justifies an increased and direct global response? If so, explicitly spell out the red line. Personally, I think any use of nuclear weapons justifies the immediate declaration of war with Russia. In fact, that goes for any country. And not economic war. War war. No nuclear counter response, that I believe can/should only be used in response to a nuclear attack on the US, but an immediate and total blockade of Russia, establishment of no-fly over the Western nations surrounding Russia (we aren't going to send US planes over China, but I think they'd join the West against Russia to protect their own nuclear assets), and immediate sanctions against any country that continues to trade with Russia. The only acceptable "surrender" is the removal of the Putin regime and the denuclearization of Russia. Basically, everything short of actually invading Russia. The danger of losing the concept of nuclear deterrence, which explicitly requires the nuclear powers to use nukes for defense only, is too vital to let perish because Putin is afraid of losing control of Russia. Barring nuclear use by Putin, the question of genocide is a much tougher red line to draw. I'm not sure what the right answer is there, because the real strategic victory is for the Ukrainians to defeat Putin rather than the West. It seems more and more likely the Ukrainians can win with enough supplies from the West, but it's by no means certain. If they are overrun and a prolonged insurgency becomes a genocide, what do we do? I find it hard to believe the answer is to just watch.

I don’t care what the media or any network talking heads have to say about Ukrainian freedom or democracy (and based on your previous posts I don’t think you do either). Why any adult with critical thinking skills would is largely beyond me. I think most people on this forum would agree that Ukraine is a young democratic state with serious issues regarding corruption and some press/information freedoms; it’s far from a perfect democracy. However imperfect a democracy they are, they are still one. And they’re being invaded/destroyed by a neighbor who is a flat out autocracy ruled by a guy that implicitly rejects the liberal international order, runs his country like a police state, and sees democratic countries on his border as a threat. There are very few (possibly none) democratic countries in the world that haven’t made serious mistakes in their past. The US made serious mistakes as we were developing as a country. My dad grew up on a Native American reservation so I have direct family experience with some of the ones the United States has made. I still made the decision to join the US military and serve our country knowing that we’re imperfect and that we make mistakes. As shitty as some things in America’s history is, we’re still a whole lot better than most places I’ve been in the world. From your posting history I’ve gathered you’ve been in the military a long time. In spite of some of the serious mistakes we as a country have made over the last 20 years, I believe you continue to serve, even though we as a democracy have had some struggles. The Ukrainian government is having to make some extraordinarily difficult decisions as their entire way of life and state is under threat of destruction. Banning political parties that support the destruction of your country may not be completely democratic, but IMO we don’t live in a black and white world. Assuming that Ukraine survives in its current state, history will probably judge whether the steps they took to preserve themselves we’re justifiable or not. I sure as shit am not going to be too critical of anything they’ve done up to this point. Make you a bet, if Zelensky/Ukraine survives, in 5 years (or whatever their election cycle is), if the Ukrainians continue to banish all opposition parties/there’s no or a staged election, and Zelensky basically becomes a dictator, I’ll buy you a bottle of your favorite. If Ukraine continues to work towards being a democracy and a part of the liberal international system, you owe me.

Anybody here know if the NGB is taking > or < 60 days for for recent approvals to appoint? hoping to hit OTS this summer/fall. Update on the now 2 year old timeline: AFOQT test: March 2020 TBAS test: May 2020 Interview & Selected as Alternate: Aug 2020 AFOQT retake: March 2021 TBAS retake: April 2021 Interview & hired: July 2021 Submitted request to FC1: Oct 2021 Received FC1 Date: Nov 2021 FC1: 18 Jan 2022 FC1 stamped: 1 Feb 2022 Enlistment: 5 Feb 2022 NGB Submission: 16 March 2022

The rest of the world doesn’t have to accept his narrative that backs his maniacal plan. Quit giving in to his bs.

Off the street hire, guard, heavies. Here's my timeline so far: Application Submitted: Aug 2020 Interview (virtual): Oct 2020 Interview (in-person): Oct 2020 Selection: Nov 2020 MEPS: May 2021 MEPS Approval: Jul 2021 Enlistment: Jul 2021 NGB Submission Aug 2021 FC1 Medical: Oct 2021 FC1 Approval: Nov 2021 NGB Approval: Jan 2022 OTS: ????? UPT: ????? It's been a long one for sure. Does anyone have any idea how long it takes from packet approval to getting OTS dates? Seems like some people get them pretty fast. Scheduled within a week or two after NGB approval for class dates that are 3-4 months out. I've got nothing so far.