Colokent
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Colokent
-
-
Way to add to the conversation dipshit
Glad to help-- the extremely limited O-2/O-3 perspective on display in many parts of this thread (with a few exceptions) seems largely due to the fact that many of the commenters are UMB-wearers with ZERO experience/knowledge in nuclear weapons issues...which is getting tiresome.
My point was/is that unfortunately the nuclear problems go beyond a simple policy change at unit level. Again, this will require a fundemental rethink of nuclear policy to determine the continued relevance of the mission (which won't happen with the current administration). The resulting vector will govern in large part how many ICBMs we need, and how we will modify training, equipping and operating that force in the future.
For the record (and JQuintana), uninformed, flippant, blowhard comments by elitists whose perspective and experience appear to not extend beyond any missions other than their own, and who largely believe themselves "too good" to perform ICBM duty don't add anything to the conversation, either. It's a myopic view of national security policy in general, and the AF's role in it in particular.
Lesson over, young "studs". Go ahead and go back to your dart game and ripping each other's flightsuit patches off at the bar...
K
-
20
-
-
I agree with the statement another poster just made about need to retain enough weapons to ensure a credible second strike capability. There are other critical benefits that ICBMs bring to the table, but it doesn't involve getting drunk, and shooting your watch down, so it's probably too hard to explain to you...False. You sound like one of the Cold War relics in the big offices of the missile wings.
Let's say we're neighbors having an argument and were both pointing guns at each other's heads. You have a .45 colt cowboy action revolver and I have a 50 bmg semi auto. You have no other guns in your home but I am loaded up like Fort Knox. Disregarding reaction time, does one of us have an advantage over the other? No. If either of us pulls the trigger were both dead. Just because I have a bigger gun (hehe) doesn't make me "less" dead. Nor do all my other guns. By the same analogy, if you have bigger nukes or more nukes (to a point) like Russia, you don't have an advantage because getting shot in the face with a cowboy action revolver still makes you very dead.
If I'm being unclear (I blame the gin), I'm saying we don't need as many nukes or upgraded ICBMs to maintain a credible threat to counter the threat of any other country with a nuke and a viable delivery system.
-
1
-
7
-
-
I don't think anyone is saying CGOs always know better, however, sometimes they do. Thankfully my commander actually solicits the opinions and suggestions of their junior officers for solutions to problems. Also echo chambers and group think among leadership isn't helpful in solutions either so maybe that guy that new Lt who's only qualification is having 20/20 vision might hold an idea. The leader that doesn't listen to his subordinates because he has more experience is probably a "legend in his own mind", history has proved time and again that age and experience isn't the key to being a great leader or having good ideas.
Glad you understand CGOs have their place and time..We'll ask for their opinion when we want it and when it is appropriate...
K
-
9
-
-
"It's not BGen Olds' AF anymore...."
Yeah...that's kind of the problem, isn't it?
K
-
1
-
-
It's the way staff workers think. Assume it's OK because he's "leadership"….
That's painting with a pretty broad brush. So let me get this straight...
Staff workers and leadership = automatically stupid, unenlightened
UMB wearer who passed his eye test at age 20 but has next to ZERO developed leadership skills = automatically brilliant, enlightened
Somehow, I don't think so...
Friendly prediction/advice: You're headed for a great big surprise once you leave the AF, unless you lose your attitude and start showing other people respect in a hurry. Discounting others' opinions and ideas because you come across as a "legend in your own mind" will prove to be a quick path to the door for you. Final thought: Remember that life outside the AF is not optimized for pilots, and they are pretty much a dime a dozen (translation - MANY more applicants than positions)-- it's how well you are able to work with others that will determine whether you remain employed, or end up an unemployed blowhard.
Best of luck...
K
-
1
-
2
-
-
Panch shacks it...
K
-
Leaders "vaguely" enforcing rules rarely gets picked up by the lower ranks. In every instance I've seen a commander try to do that, most dudes in the rank and file aren't sure of the commander's intent and will just err on the side of caution and abide by the rule 100%. In all honesty, it comes off as a CYA move by the commander even though it may be well intentioned. In other words, it's mostly chickenshit.
I didn't disagree until the "chickenshit" comment. So, here's a GREAT idea: We should have CGOs and junior FGOs (preferably those who haven't supervised more than a 3 to 5-person space, missile, or aircrew in their career) give presentations to AWC, NWC, and CAPSTONE classes so that Lt Cols, Colonels, and Generals will understand the "correct" way to command. Wish I would have thought of that...
K
-
I'm a retired O-6 (Reserve, though my last 12 years were spent attached to AD units)...been in several command positions, been in ICBMs (where the active duty Wing/CC was a good sh*t [made 2-stars, BTW], but trying to be a "good soldier" by **vaguely** enforcing the ban on morale patches...all while the Vice Wing/CC and OG/CCs [two other good sh&ts, BTW] wore them!!!). All I can say is (other than "RustyPipes" and "FlyinGrunt" are probably geniuses without knowing it for their comments above) is:
I personally cannot for the life of me...understand the **obsession** (read that "hard-on") that leadership has for "Friday" patches-- I personally think that it's BULLSH&T, and an unnecessary morale-buster. 2nd best one I ever saw was a desert subdued "New Belgian Brewing" logo on a guys flightsuit in "The Muff" at Al Udeid (okay, #2 is a tie...the other one was a tab I also saw in the desert saying "F&ck it's hot here..."). Here's the cleverest I ever saw:
Again, just my .02 cents. IMHO, the current-day AF is a morale-devoid wasteland, where in near-hysterical efforts to be promoted, many senior leaders are working overtime to ensure it is a politically correct Mecca...NOT the world's most capable air and space force.
Kent
-
3
-
-
Nice touch, albrtschu!!!
-
Can't disagree with either of your comments, "day man" or ""BitteEinBit"...
Instead of just being dealt with, everything is only a few mouseclicks away from being fodder for the media...Sometimes I wish ALGORE had never invented the internet...
K
-
If washing out of UPT and getting sent to the shithole that is missiles didn't do it, what do you think will?
Karl, I think you might have missed my point-- even if you wash out of UPT, just gracing everyone with your presence at the missile wing isn't "enough punishment"-- besides the fact that would not be a very professional attitude to show up with. Rather, you are expected to roll your sleeves up and learn the weapon system in IQT (the missile equivalent of UPT) and apply what you learn operationally at the wing-- it's like any other AFSC in that respect.
It is very true that strutting around like an arrogant dick (ie "FIGJAM syndrome") is not a part of ICBM culture, runs counter to the operational ethos, and will typically bring you unwanted attention and some wall-to-wall counseling REAL quick-- that crap is not a staple of being a 13N as it is in some other AFSCs. So you are probably right-- to some people, that would seem like a fate worse than death.
By the way-- very few ICBM crewmembers these days are UPT/CSO washouts.
As for it being a "shithole", to each to his own...
BTW--GREAT, sage observations, "deaddebate"...you hit the nail on the head...The Chief is in a tough place with all of this.
K
-
This isn't a particularly "new" situation..."Test intel" has pretty much always been out there in that career field-- largely because of some of the games played by the some of the instructors....meaning the tests tended (many, many years ago) to not reflect reality, but rather a concerted effort to play the "gotcha" game.
Here's the example I like to use, which is a very simplified example of the types of questions we had (obviously the actual subject areas were different!):
1. Everyone understands the need to dim your headlights for oncoming traffic at night (assuming they were on bright to begin with).
2. It is dark out and at 2123, a car approaches...Question: will you dim your lights for the car? (If you anwered yes, you're right)
3. At 2142, you note an oil light illuminate, and take corrective actions. At 2154, the light extiguishes.
4. At 2205, you recieve direction to change radio frequencies, after following the procedure, you accomplish that.
5. At 2217, another car approaches...Question: will you dim your lights for te car?
If you answered "yes" to question #5, you'd be wrong, because we never told you back in question #2 to put your lights back to bright.
Bottom line, in the real world (or the simulator), you'd know if your lights were on bright or not. So the question doesn't prove knowledge of the concept-- it's a built-in gotcha that wouldnt be seen in the real world.
Not saying these guys were right for cheating, but the fact that it happened is no revelation...it had been known to happen with some people "back in the day" (1980s)...
BTW, as a guy with 286 nuclear ICBM alerts, I don't buy the "Gen Y" whine that they are "burned out"...They've got a job to do, and they need a swift kick in the a$$-- probably the first they will have had in their overindulged young lives. Not saying leadership couldn't be enhanced/improved (or hasn't stepped on their cranks from time to time), but it's also healthy to remember that was also the full time excuse we had for "why things suck" back when I was a CGO too....we thought we were loads more brilliant than senior leadership...in some ways we were...in some ways we weren't. We too, tended not to think that we **just might** bear some responsibility for the way things were as well.
K
-
1
-
-
Thread derail? Well, if it was, it wasn't the first in this thread... In reply to your question, no different (retired last fall...reserves)-- I was being sarcastic. Basically, my way of saying that I believe we are focused on many of the wrong things in the AF these days.
I told folks that PME was not particularly relevant-- except as a negative discriminator if you didnt do it. I agree that's not very motivating, but unless we get rid of our "up or out" system, and let people "hang out doing their thing" for 20+ years, people are going to have to do the Masters and PME thing-- if they want to progress and be around to continue to bestow their "brilliance/coolness" on the AF.
-
Wonder if he has PME done, his last three OPRs were stratified and his PT scores are acceptable-- everything else is forgivable...
If they find him at night, he'd better have his reflective belt on, that's all I can say...
K
-
Well, okay...they could certainly use some...A huge problem in that career field is that playing the old Cold War rhetoric doesn't work anymore...and that was something I saw leadership in that field unable to cope with. Today's ICBM crewforce didn't grow up with the Commie Menace...so that's an empty concept for motivation
I believe if anything, we better come up with a more relevant rationale for these systems if we're going to keep them.
K
-
My implication being that it sounded like a lack of familiarity with current mission requirements in that area...
K
-
Ouch. Not exactly strategic level thinking...not headed to SDE, I take it.
Anyway, $hit-hot LAPES avitar though...I like that...takes me back to my MAPS days...no better airframe to be associated with than -130s...
K
-
"I guess the question becomes.....is the system safe enough to remain on line?" <--- Weapon system safety is not the issue-- so I'm not understanding the comment-- would love to understand the point you are trying to make.
"You would think that since the consequences of an "incident" could be so serious, the Chief of staff would be camped out in NODAK until the question is decided." <-- You'd think so, wouldn't you?
".............................................Lt. get my stars warmed up And hike up that skirt............................." <-- I have NO clue what this has to do with anything....
Do elaborate...
K
Dismantle the Triad. Remove the bombers, downsize the silos. Subs are a go.
Done. 6900 less people on PRP, the morale of entire cities just went up by orders of magnitude. Next....
Unfortunately, this is not an issue that's going to get solved anytime soon...it's not sexy, it doesn't have a stick, you can't solve it by bragging or shooting your watch down, and until the SECDEF is threatened with getting $hitcanned if it's not corrected ASAP, there won't be a solution-- this is a problem that transcneds the AF, although we've stepped on our crank more than the other services in this mission.
K
-
Not saying the Sq/CC above was not clueless..she was. However, this is a much bigger issue than a handful of crappy subordinate commanders at the ICBM wings...
Clearly, the foundation in nukes is corroded and in need of redefinition.
K
-
While I don't believe a blanket condemnation of all ICBM leadership is in order (although I saw my share of boneheads back in the 80s as a CGO, and as a senior officer in the mid-to-late 2000s), there can be no argument with the fact that since the end of the cold war in the early 90s, and McPeak's misguided experiment (which still haunts us), AF leadership has not been able to articulate a "new" nuclear vision that resonates with anyone.
I've discussed this with several friends who have had senior leadership positions in the ICBM world (as have I), and we've come to the conclusion we'll be hearing about screw-ups in the nuclear arena for the forseeable future because of the following:
- At the national level, over the course of four US presidential administrations, there has been no attempt to "recalibrate" our nuclear strategy to bring it in line with a post cold-war context that makes sense
- Despite lip service to contrary, few in the AF senior leadership really gives a rat's you-know-what about nukes, beyond covering their a$$es and not screwing up their promotion potential
- The proliferation of the internet and easy communication with the media has made mistakes, missteps, and wrongdoing easier for someone other thn PA to "upchannel" to the media (not sure there is more bad stuff happening than in the old days, but I am very sure it is easier for word of those deeds to be leaked or released to the media)
Just my .02 cents...
K
Study: Nuclear Force Feeling 'Burnout' from Work
in General Discussion
Posted
Danny....I got it-- commenting on sh%t you know nothing about is second nature for you. Check. SF-squared, Captain.