FourFans

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what's actually happening in China. They have none of these advantages anymore. The one thing they had going for them was being the world's workshop...but that was economics planned by central committee. It came at many costs, one of them being technological innovation, and it's over. They are in the process of a demographic collapse thanks to 40 years of the one child policy. Even if they implemented a national breeding campaign, it would take 30-40 years for them to reap the economic benefits...and they haven't. The wage 'advantage' is no more. Mexican labor is cheaper by almost three times now. Mexican production quality is ALSO better. China may be able to make things, but they can't do it cheaply anymore (their middle class wages have skyrocketed) and they can't produce anything of high quality. What's more, they never had a national unity advantage. Everything their government does it to control their people, not dominate the world. We don't have to do anything to beat the Chinese economically besides wait. Militarily, all we'd have to do is close the Strait of Malacca and watch them starve in the dark, as they import so much food and energy. Oh-by-the-way guess what kind of weapons we just leant to the Australians in Darwin: Cruise missiles that can hit ships in the strait of malacca from over the horizon. As for national debt? You think we're hurting? Go google Chinese hyper financialization. The dollar may or may not remain the reserve currency, but the Yuan will NOT be taking it's place in our lifetime. Yes, the Chinese are great at long term intellectual planning, but NONE of their execution has followed any of that planning. They are screwed and all we have to do is not save them. Multiple historians, demographers, and geopolitical analysts have reached the above conclusions. Ray Dalio would be one exception, but reading his work it's clear his love of china is underpinned by strong emotional ties that clearly color his analysis. But even he doesn't paint a very rosy picture for them, specifically because of their economics and debt. Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at the details and facts.

I run the Glock 48 MOS. No red-dot yet. Handy and dependable. I debated between one of the 365 models (likely the macro) or the G48. In the end the budget won out as I got a nice military discount on the 48. $450 out the door while the 365 macro was over $800 at the time. Still want to get the sig, but I also have teenage kids to feed. Choices.

The Hurricane Hunters strike again.

Oh. I am a full believer that the US federal government should play absolutely no part in 'regulating' our weapons. The regulation isn't talking about making a registry or some such. Use the analogy of a pickup basketball team. You got the guy who practices alone all the time. Great at shooting freethrows on an empty court, but never practices or plays with a team. Another guy who never exercises and never shows up to practice but still declares he's on the team. Another who claims to be the team leader but has no clue how to run a play. That's not a team. That's an unregulated bunch of people who think they are something that they aren't. The intention behind the 2nd Amendment to not about making sure you have a gun. It's about making sure that you have a gun that you're able and willing to use in defense of your local community against tyranny (from abroad or within) while operating as part of a team, militia, or unit doing the same thing. The founders wanted to make sure that the country maintained it's ability to have grass roots self defense forces that were not mandated or controlled by the federal government. Remember that the revolutionaries were largely volunteers, and were largely disbanded after that war. There was originally to be no standing Army. The heart of the 2nd Amendment is two fold. A: Citizens - Keep your weapons and yourself ready so that if you're needed and you choose to volunteer, you can actually be useful. B: Government - Stay completely out of their way. Beyond that, the Amendments were never meant to stand individually. The biggest thing we as US citizens have forgotten is that citizenship is a responsibility, not a privilege.

People tend to forget the first portion of the second amendment and proceed directly to "shall not be infringed" For reference: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nothing says well regulated like lack of accountability (which is effectively what an untraceable gun is). 'A militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' goes on to indicate that this right to bear arms is not for my own personal liberty, but me contributing to the liberty of my community. With regulated and controlled force if necessary. It implies that we have this right in order to serve and defend something bigger than ourselves, such as a community, city or state. I've yet to encounter law enforcement, military, or paramilitary organization that doesn't place a high emphasis on accountability and training. Karen with her .38 special that she carries loaded but never trains with does not fall into that category. Moreover, it's kinda difficult to rectify untraceable firearms with a well regulated civil defense. Not saying I'm totally against production of your own weapons. I think that's great! But it needs to be done responsibly.

because he's off...or will be thereso getting...Biff says:

@Biff_T: See that yellow circled part? Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

Have you done any international assignments?

So, you've partied with some airline captains too, eh?

FIFY

...and that's why we need corporal punishment...

Oh, I know how I WANT us to respond. Respond with rational and reasoned thought and applying common sense while still holding out enemies accountable for their actions. But that's NOT how we've been acting. I'm curious about the most likely action our current leadership would actually take. It could get kinda interesting when you consider that those making recommendations to NCA are probably argyle wearing academics who have never had their lives placed in any form of peril. Put those people on the receiving end of a suspected nuclear launch and I'd be surprised if they make totally rational inputs. Beyond that, I highly doubt Joe Biden has the cognitive ability to make a good snap decision in such a case. Hence the question: What would we actually do?

Interesting thought experiment I came across: What do we do if Putin tries to launch nuclear weapons, and they don't work? We now know that a large section of China's rocket forces are inop due to corruption. It stands to reason that Russia's might be suffering the same fate. How do you think we'd respond to that?

Fair enough. I'm glad to hear there are still some good leaders out there. Game off.

@nsplayr You should run for press secretary. You literally reworded and reinterpreted every question and statement I asserted. This is the hypocrisy thread after all, so...par for the course. To respond to your specific questions and assertions. No, because the US military does not directly work for the a church, a dietary persuasion, or a fitness group. We work for politicians, which means that our political opinions are subject to a unique level of scrutiny, as they should be. Specifically, we don't get to disobey orders based on political opinion...though I've seen some try. To clarify my statement about "hard over": That's implying that someone ISN'T capable of keeping an open mind and is no way willing to change their opinions based on a line of reasoned logic. Not debatable. You literally said those exact words in previous threads. Go re-read you own posts. The green transition being physically unsustainable with current technology is ALSO not debatable and it's certainly not a political discussion. It's a fact. There isn't enough lithium ON THE PLANET to sustain only the USA's intended EV transition. Again. That's a fact, not a political debate. Not the question I asked. I asked how it impacted your unit, not how your unit deals with DEI issues. Has going to mandatory training about 'you are white and you have prejudice that needs fixing' (a direct quote from DEI training at my southern, mostly white AFRC unit) hurt or helped your unit moral or unit capability? Is the unit better able to accomplish it's mission because of this training? I'm glad to hear your unit is able to remain focused on the mission. I'm curious if you can tell if the current senior leadership is focusing on social issues instead of mission ones. It was clear to me and many of my in my cohort. It wasn't good.