SurelySerious

Maybe, maybe not. They've got their almost-new Eurofighters. The UK has a specific role to throw the F-35B into, whereas that's not a capability ze Germans needed a replacement for. The Netherlands has a bunch of F-16s to replace. I'm not saying they're not slacking, just that they might not have been compelled to buy into the JSF for other reasons that NATO partners do have.

Just some humorous Saturday night juxtaposition.

Russia loves turbulence in the international community, and especially within NATO. Anything that weakens the resolve or causes certainty to waffle is good, in their mind. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-01-04/rapprochement-russias-terms Recent and similar topic.

Probably worthy of its own service because of how different a medium it is to any of the other services; Bender made a case, though, at his 2015 A/TA speech that every service will have cyber needs of some sort that are unique to them (although mostly in the customer service sense). Maybe a cyber entity for the operations supplemented by the regular NIPR things within each component. Whatever it is, it isn't sticking it inside AFSPC sts, that's for sure.

I think that's highlighting exactly why Gen Bender is out talking to people, actually. There's a large difference between cyber operations operations and the "operations" that are customer services they provide the users of NIPR...but 96% of us only care about the customer service side in a direct manner, whereas he sees the need for cross-talk about the extreme amount of effort and innovation needed for the other 4% that are the warfare tools of the future. It's very akin to the beginnings of Army Aviation in the signal corps, and trying to get people to take using those new tools to fight seriously versus thinking they're nice trinkets.

It's been known to happen. YMMV.

Sounds like recall to active duty on a (hopefully?) voluntary basis.

True story. Where they want to rank the failed-out-of-wic guy behind joe bagodonuts finance guy because he didn't pass training.

Since everyone's favorite altruistic cyber activist was mentioned, fortuitously he was a hot topic in the WSJ this weekend. TLDR version from the House report: Full Opinion: The Fable of Edward Snowden by Edward Jay Epstein WSJ_-A009-20161231.pdf

McCain could pick any number of actual monetary abuses in the DOD, but instead picks one that will impact compensation for the military members. It's as if he's so senile as to have forgotten that he was once in these shoes.

Too much time campaigning and fund raising with too little time legislating.

I will admit that I haven't read all 23 pages yet, but the TLDR version is these individuals think Trump is in violation of the letter, spirit and intent of the Emoluments clause. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf I think it's interesting, could have applied just as much to HRC, and will likely be a problem for any high-profile candidate that, for instance, runs a big money charity or philanthropy organization.

Tangentially related to discussions here and the cyber thread: How to improve and move forward for the fourth estate: https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-the-debate-over-journalism-post-trump-gets-wrong/

If you're familiar with his talk at the 2015 A/TA convention, was Gen Bender's talk at your location similar in nature to that? If not, and you can post the notes, I'd be interested in seeing what his current topics are. I think his ideas are solid based on my perspective having seen that speech video, having perused through his flight plan, and having met him briefly.

Again, Dem, don't play try playing the red/blue piece here. I didn't say I was ok with the action of hacking; I said I don't think we should be taking escalatory/retaliatory action on hacking a political party with their tail between their legs. Foreign powers are more inside the political parties with their purse strings than with their computers. The harm here is superficial. It's not actual secrets, nor actual government infrastructure, nor commercial espionage.

I view it through the Russian agenda as a whole over the last 70 years. They've been running info ops the whole time trying to mess with and subvert our existence. New medium for the same means, in this case. That's why I view the admin trying to twist the policy for cyber effects of critical infrastructure to cover a political party as baloney. They're not actually the government, as with the OPM or JCS, so I don't think we should be employing response measures in their name over a domain where no one is sure what constitutes an act of war and where cyber turns to armed conflict. This response is just the DNC being embarrassed, in my view; they lost the election by pushing a poor candidate, poor assessment of the political landscape, and and a poor campaign strategy wrt gaining electoral college votes. Getting into a voting system and actually changing votes? Now you've got my ear about critical infrastructure. Affecting power systems, as I alluded to earlier, yes that's the intent of the cyber policy posturing, I'd say. I don't disagree that there are concerns with the cyber domain, but we should think carefully about employing measures with a cyber peer. These things are worth our time and effort. I like where you're going with capabilities/policy development.

In the context of my position sts that we should not be taking steps putting us closer to conflict just because the DNC is embarrassed that their dirty laundry has been aired, yes, I do equate those things.

Interesting piece, although a conclusion is never really presented. Quirks of negotiations with Putin https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/12/26/vladimir-lets-make-a-deal/

I'm a Dem, but nice try. And Americans observing the level of corruption within the DNC should probably be turning over that information to American journalists. The foreign influence in the Clinton Foundation, the intentional tanking of Sanders' campaign, etc. Those things should not be part of our political process. Let's fix that stuff. Snowden: don't tell me that you equate stealing/releasing classified information with uncovering political underhandedness committed by some cronies. Not the same.

Nonsense, now you're just arguing an obtuse position. That's like saying we should never have have had the Watergate tapes. This is exactly the kind of corruption bullshit that journalists are supposed to be exposing, instead of jerking off about tweets and hollow one-liners. They're supposed to develop contacts, get a whiff of something foul, prod for someone they know who has knowledge of it and doesn't like what's going on, then expose it. In this election, the DNC was more threat to our national sovereignty than any foreign state, so no, I would rather not take steps towards conflict about it. Let's save these "red lines" for things that are actual problems. Edit: Like hacking part of our grid with spearphishing, maybe.

No, but when you're making decisions that could push us closer to conflict with Russia about some DNC shenanigans that should have been unearthed by an investigative journalist worth their salt, it seems warranted to provide some real justification.

His claim was that it provided some new insight that proves the nation is more diverse than we think. I claim it only shows the same as all the other voting maps: big cities are blue strongholds, everywhere else is generally red.

I think it shows just the opposite. All of the blue are in high population concentrations, whereas the red are in less populated areas, just as in all the other depictions.

Yep. Most airliners already have ranges in the realm of 7.5k nm, or 8.5knm for your 777-200LR. There are very few routes that would need this; for those that could use it, the cost to implement alone would probably kill the slim profit margins, let alone any hiccups like rendezvous timing etc.

Still the reigning champion: