# Eagle Takes a Dive?



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Say it ain't so!

I was sitting mid-shift when it was announced that the U.S. would be developing an air superiority interceptor to replace the F4.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-15c-eagle-and-replace-it-with-upgraded-f-16s


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Alas, we are witnessing the ongoing destructive effects of sequestration. These ongoing budget cuts are cutting all the way through the muscle and right down to the bone. Our military forces are a mere shadow of what they once were. Certain weapons systems are being eliminated to insure the sustainability of the remaining few. Uncharacteristically, black ops weapon(s) systems and operations are also being emasculated by these ill considered and cowardly decisions made by former Congresses and Administrations. In many future world war scenarios, the USA will have their proverbial A** kicked and handed back to us!

On a less serious note, when the USAF grounded this "eagle2250," they sent me a letter, just four months after the 30th anniversary of my first donning the uniform, advising that I was getting old and that they were "looking for a few younger men!" Four months after receiving that letter, I was a civilian(). Damn cradle robbers! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Alas, we are witnessing the ongoing destructive effects of sequestration. These ongoing budget cuts are cutting all the way through the muscle and right down to the bone. Our military forces are a mere shadow of what they once were. Certain weapons systems are being eliminated to insure the sustainability of the remaining few. Uncharacteristically, black ops weapon(s) systems and operations are also being emasculated by these ill considered and cowardly decisions made by former Congresses and Administrations. In many future world war scenarios, the USA will have their proverbial A** kicked and handed back to us!


Lack of sufficient funding has left only unpalatable choices. And anyone who believes politics doesn't exist in the military has never served.

I like this young writer, Tyler Rogoway. He's cogent, usually insightful and always entertaining.



eagle2250 said:


> On a less serious note, when the USAF grounded this "eagle2250," they sent me a letter, just four months after the 30th anniversary of my first donning the uniform, advising that I was getting old and that they were "looking for a few younger men!" Four months after receiving that letter, I was a civilian(). Damn cradle robbers! LOL.


Doesn't SAC have a geriatric command? :tongue2:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> ...................................................
> .................................................................
> Doesn't SAC have a geriatric command? :tongue2:


Ironically, the B 52 Bombers are still flying and presently deployed executing strikes against ISIS, but the old flight crews have been retired and even SAC, the Command, has been determined obsolete and deactivated! That's pretty sad...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

C'mon chaps, even an archaic old misfit such as myself recognises that the battlefield of future conflicts will be cyberspace. Olympic Games et al. Spending money on hardware is futile at best and a shocking waste at worst.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

A wise old philosopher once said, "those who sweat more in peace, bleed less in war!" Damn, I wish I could remember who it was that said that. In other words, we prevent war by preparing for it...having superior weapon systems in place and having soldiers, sailors and airmen trained to the point that they can use them better than any potential adversary.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Superior weapons are now superior computer virus. The stone ax was made redundant by the iron sword which was made redundant by the pistol.... do you see where this is going?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

You cannot destroy the enemy with a computer virus. You still have to blow things up on the battlefield. Cyberwarfare is important but it's useless unless one can exploit its effects with machines of war. 

By the way, the Marines are still issued bayonets.

I'm not terribly familiar with the versions of the F15. He article mentions the F15 C/D. Is that an older model? Perhaps they are retiring that fighter yet keeping the newer versions.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Forgive me for mocking you but you seriously underestimate the power of computer virus. Imagine every single thing you rely upon being denied. Hungry yet? Cold yet? Poor yet? Ill yet? Dead yet? Got the picture yet?

As to obliteration of infrastructure and mass destruction of an enemy then I can only, generously, assume you remain unaware of what was originally labelled stuxnet.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't underestimate it in the least bit. It assumes, of course, that ones opponent has no countermeasures. 

To win a war one must still destroy the enemies ability to fight, which means he has to destroy the enemies army and arms.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Ironically, the B 52 Bombers are still flying and presently deployed executing strikes against ISIS, but the old flight crews have been retired and even SAC, the Command, has been determined obsolete and deactivated! That's pretty sad...


Nice work by a B-52 crew on an ISIS weapons cache and HQ in Mosul -

https://video.dailymail.co.uk/video...0825274482/640x360_MP4_798193370825274482.mp4



Shaver said:


> C'mon chaps, even an archaic old misfit such as myself recognises that the battlefield of future conflicts will be cyberspace. Olympic Games et al. Spending money on hardware is futile at best and a shocking waste at worst.


An important one, but the poor fellows kneeling below demonstrate not the only one.

And this happy-go-lucky, roly-poly fellow sees your cyber and raises you a fist full of ICBM's.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I don't underestimate it in the least bit. It assumes, of course, that ones opponent has no countermeasures.
> 
> To win a war one must still destroy the enemies ability to fight, which means he has to destroy the enemies army and arms.


Please see my edit. A nation may be disabled. If you cannot imagine that then try harder.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Nice work by a B-52 crew on an ISIS weapons cache and HQ in Mosul -
> 
> https://video.dailymail.co.uk/video...0825274482/640x360_MP4_798193370825274482.mp4
> 
> ...


All of which are merely pretty metal sculptures without an ability to launch.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am away to do something marginally more important than discussing with two of my favourite members (remember it is 10pm in England) but I would encourage you to consider the power of virus in this aeon.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> All of which are merely pretty metal sculptures without an ability to launch.


For a bit, perhaps. But I doubt the residents of Seoul and Tokyo take much comfort from that.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> For a bit, perhaps. But I doubt the residents of Seoul and Tokyo take much comfort from that.


Drat it! I'm hooked on this conversation (despite having more options) but I cannot be bothered reading crap written by the media. May I implore you, my friend, to make your own points?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

One organization that needn't worry about a computer virus; US missile command. They still use 5.25 inch floppies.


----------



## cellochris (Dec 14, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> One organization that needn't worry about a computer virus; US missile command. They still use 5.25 inch floppies.


Yes, and we're aware of the dangers of relying on electronics.

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-back-navigation-by-the-stars-for-officers


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

It will be more difficult to avoid war in the near future if the current budget is passed. My agency, Department of State, is being asked to take a 30% cut this year.

Despite what one thinks of foreign aid, and there is certainly waste that needs to be eliminated, it does buy goodwill and provides leverage.

Speaking of interceptors, my uncle flew the F-106 for the USAF and the FANG. The "Sexy 6" is still, in my opinion, the most beautiful single engine jet fighter/interceptor ever built. I believe it is also still holds the record as the fastest?

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Great picture and I agree, the F-106 was indeed a work of art in the air. Back in the early 1970's Wurtsmith was a SAC Base, supporting a strategic bomb wing made up of B-52's and KC-135's, as well as hosting ADC's 2nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron, flying F-106 Delta Darts. What a contrast in cultures. The SAC aircrews, wearing the OD flight suits were a very serious and businesslike lot, while the F-106 pilots, wearing the blaze orange flight suits were a bunch of "wild and crazy guys" in almost every way! While we stood strategic alert tours, waiting to take off and deliver nuclear destruction against our enemies, the 2nd Fighter Interceptor pilots stood ADC alerts, waiting to take off at a moments notice, intercept and destroy the enemy bombers that were incoming to deliver such attacks against us! What a way to make a living(?). 

The Wing Commander had decreed (or legend had it that it was the Colonel's wife had decreed) that flight suits would not be worn in the Wurtsmith AFB Officers Club, other than in the stag bar and that proper attire would be worn in the dining room. Several of the Delta Dart pilots, wearing their orange flight suits wandered out of the bar and into the dining room and proceeded to order dinner. They were promptly told to haul their blaze orange clad a**es back in the stag bar and that they could eat their dinners there. They obediently went back to the bar and promptly began deconstructing the wall separating the stag bar from the rest of the club. From that night forward the 2nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron was forever banned from the WAFB Officers Club! Those F-106 jocks had B*lls...big blaze orange ones. LOL.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> It will be more difficult to avoid war in the near future if the current budget is passed. My agency, Department of State, is being asked to take a 30% cut this year.
> 
> Despite what one thinks of foreign aid, and there is certainly waste that needs to be eliminated, it does buy goodwill and provides leverage.
> 
> ...


Please name countries with whom we are at odds or who are strategic competitors whom we supply with foreign aid and how that leverage has been working.

I'm quite certain the transfer of funds from the US to third-world dictators under the guise of climate change funding is a good place to start looking to save money.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Drat it! I'm hooked on this conversation (despite having more options) but I cannot be bothered reading crap written by the media. May I implore you, my friend, to make your own points?


Hmm . . . . who shall I believe, The Washington Post or Flanderian? 

But the long and short of the article is that it's believed that north Korea can currently put a bomb atop missiles that can reach Tokyo and and certainly Seoul, and will likely be able to do the same with ICBM's in the not too distant future.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> The Wing Commander had decreed (or legend had it that it was the Colonel's wife had decreed) that flight suits would not be worn in the Wurtsmith AFB Officers Club, other than in the stag bar and that proper attire would be worn in the dining room. Several of the Delta Dart pilots, wearing their orange flight suits wandered out of the bar and into the dining room and proceeded to order dinner. They were promptly told to haul their blaze orange clad a**es back in the stag bar and that they could eat their dinners there. They obediently went back to the bar and promptly began deconstructing the wall separating the stag bar from the rest of the club. From that night forward the 2nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron was forever banned from the WAFB Officers Club! Those F-106 jocks had B*lls...big blaze orange ones. LOL.


Great story! Such tales became known in civilian life with intended humor as "war stories." Sounds as if the U.S.A.F. managed to find the right men for the right jobs in this instance. "Wild and crazy guys" slinging nukes is generally thought a poor idea.

We non-careerists are even more numerous. I learned last week that my new-ish internist is also an Air Force vet of Vietnam vintage. However, during my 4 years I was not let near F-106's or F4's or any such hardware, rather I was assigned to fly an MC-88, quite similar in appearance to what is pictured below, except being light grey in color. (As was every gosh-darn, ding-dang surface in the entire OP's site!!! :mad2










Upon obtaining mastery of said aircraft, I graduated to truly sophisticated devices and joined my fellow misfits in a scene uncannily similar to what is pictured below. In fact, the buck-sergeant 2nd from the camera with Marlboro clenched in paw, who at the same time was actually halfway around the world from *my* ops site, could have been my doppelganger.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> It will be more difficult to avoid war in the near future if the current budget is passed. My agency, Department of State, is being asked to take a 30% cut this year.


Nah, State don't need no money! We'll just make a deal, it will be a wonderful deal, a biggly deal, it will be such a great deal it will make your head spin! :happy:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Great story! Such tales became known in civilian life with intended humor as "war stories." Sounds as if the U.S.A.F. managed to find the right men for the right jobs in this instance. "Wild and crazy guys" slinging nukes is generally thought a poor idea.
> 
> We non-careerists are even more numerous. I learned last week that my new-ish internist is also an Air Force vet of Vietnam vintage. However, during my 4 years I was not let near F-106's or F4's or any such hardware, rather I was assigned to fly an MC-88, quite similar in appearance to what is pictured below, except being light grey in color. (As was every gosh-darn, ding-dang surface in the entire OP's site!!! :mad2
> 
> ...


LOL. When I was commissioned, there was no expiration date on the commission...just an "Indef" notation in the expiration block on the ID card. Unlike the fictional Forrest Gump, I never got around to saying, "I'm tired and want to go home!" However, as time went by, countless first term enlistees (such as yourself) and career Master Sergeants and Senior Master Sergeants kept me out of trouble and made me look so good that they kept promoting meeek. I figured why leave?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Sadly, my uncle went down in his F-106 off the coast of Florida in Feb 77 and was never recovered. A Cold Warrior who stood post on the wall and protected us all. 

As for the nations we support with foreign aid who are strategic competitors, I would start with Saudi Arabia where I worked for 2.5 years. We give them a boat load of foreign aid, which they in turn dump back into our defense industry. They are strategic competitors in terms of energy, in case one has not been paying attention for the past 40 years. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

With respect to Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't necessarily call them competitors. We are not competing with them in the oil business. In fact, they do much to keep the spigots open and keep the cost down. 

As for their reliance on our weapons system, what you call foreign aid others would call corporate welfare. I wonder how much of that money goes to nefarious organizations in the region in order to have local influence. 

Your uncle sounds like he was a great guy. If only he were alive and could tell his stories.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Part of our aid to the Saudis is keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. The US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain. At its narrowest point, the Straight is 2 miles wide. 35% of the worlds surface transported oil flows through this tiny gap.

Since we have maximized shale oil production our reliance on Saudi oil has dropped significantly. We are now neck and neck with them for the worlds #1 oil producer. Now we produce a surplus for the first time in decades. 

There are only a handful of major shipping choke points in the world. The Panama Canal, Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Hormuz. 3 of these are the responsibility of the 5th fleet. 

But I come from the old school "Drill baby drill" faction of national energy production. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Hmm . . . . who shall I believe, The Washington Post or Flanderian?
> 
> But the long and short of the article is that it's believed that north Korea can currently put a bomb atop missiles that can reach Tokyo and and certainly Seoul, and will likely be able to do the same with ICBM's in the not too distant future.


I am obliged to request fnord a summary as I no longer fnord read news items.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Sadly, my uncle went down in his F-106 off the coast of Florida in Feb 77 and was never recovered. A Cold Warrior who stood post on the wall and protected us all.
> 
> .................................................
> Cheers,
> ...


I am so sorry to hear of your uncles untimely passing. He was truly a hero, who made the ultimate sacrifice doing a job that I'm sure he loved. Too often we forget that the Cold Warriors accepted the same risks as those involved in more traditional combat operations and all too frequently were called upon to make the ultimate sacrifices.

I hope the anecdote showcasing the 2nd FIS at Wurtsmith AFB was not offensive to you. If it was, I do sincerely apologize for sharing it.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

He was a real hell raiser himself, no offense taken at all! It takes a special breed to keep us safe and warm at night! This is my favorite of all his rides....









Cheers,

BSR


----------



## John inSC (Mar 20, 2016)

Well, at least the USAF is throwing Boeing a bone and keeping the Strike Eagle going, beautiful jet, always been one of my favorites. Besides, Lockheed-Martin has a big enough piece of the pie on the defense side ;-p Interestingly enough, Lockheed is moving all f-16 production from Texas to Greenville SC, and perhaps the speculated trainer aircraft as well, maybe the upgraded f-16?


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

All is not lost for old warriors. After exhaustive searching and pleading with old contacts, I have finally been told that there is a place in the Corps for me. In case of an all out war, I will be re-activated and used as a mortar plate!


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm quite certain the transfer of funds from the US to third-world dictators under the guise of climate change funding is a good place to start looking to save money.


And I'm quite certain that if we eliminated even 100% of all foreign aid that it wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket. If you want to fix the deficit, there are two places to look: the military, and entitlement programs. That's it. That's the overwhelming majority of spending. Everything else combined is minuscule.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> And I'm quite certain that if we eliminated even 100% of all foreign aid that it wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket. If you want to fix the deficit, there are two places to look: the military, and entitlement programs. That's it. That's the overwhelming majority of spending. Everything else combined is minuscule.


I'm not naive enough to think that foreign aid is the cause of our debt and I don't believe I alluded to that.

But why give money to our competitors. Over the past 4 years we've given nearly $60 million to China. It's absolutely absurd. If we're going to waste money, for God's sake, let's at least waste it domestically.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

unionboss said:


> And I'm quite certain that if we eliminated even 100% of all foreign aid that it wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket. If you want to fix the deficit, there are two places to look: the military, and entitlement programs. That's it. That's the overwhelming majority of spending. Everything else combined is minuscule.


...and if you take a look at our Constitution, it calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense. It does not prescribe that a cradle to grave safety net be provided for those who actually need it and certainly not for those who are unwilling to work and just plain want such to be provided! Liberals have characteristically built a lot of idealism into their schemes, and very little fiscal reality! Conservatives no longer have much of an idea where they want to go or how to get there. Move over Greece...here we come.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

I'm sure we're not going to come to any agreement here about the purpose of government and what the Constitution actually allows, so I won't bother with that. I'm just pointing out that cutting foreign aid is a fool's errand. It doesn't amount to a single molecule in the bucket.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

^ Your thoughts on rebuilding the military, that being the case.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)




----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> I'm sure we're not going to come to any agreement here about the purpose of government and what the Constitution actually allows, so I won't bother with that. I'm just pointing out that cutting foreign aid is a fool's errand. It doesn't amount to a single molecule in the bucket.


This is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that we can balance the federal budget on the back of foreign aid. And yes, I get it that we have the largest defense budget in the world and thank God for that.

As for what the constitution allows and does not allow, I'm not sure how this factors into any of this. Are you suggesting that the maintenance of the military is unconstitutional?


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> This is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that we can balance the federal budget on the back of foreign aid. And yes, I get it that we have the largest defense budget in the world and thank God for that.
> 
> As for what the constitution allows and does not allow, I'm not sure how this factors into any of this. Are you suggesting that the maintenance of the military is unconstitutional?


Of course not. I'm certainly suggesting that we waste way too much money on it, however. And if someone wants to cut foreign aid, which doesn't amount to squat, I'm going to push cutting what actually does amount to a whole lot, which is the military.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> Of course not. I'm certainly suggesting that we waste way too much money on it, however. And if someone wants to cut foreign aid, which doesn't amount to squat, I'm going to push cutting what actually does amount to a whole lot, which is the military.


Please give specifics as to what you would like to see cut.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Please give specifics as to what you would like to see cut.


That would be a pretty exhaustive list, as I'd like to cut it pretty severely.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> That would be a pretty exhaustive list, as I'd like to cut it pretty severely.


Give me your top 10. You mentioned cuts so I assume you've thought this through.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Give me your top 10. You mentioned cuts so I assume you've thought this through.


I don't think you understand. When I say severe cuts, I really mean severe. There isn't a list of which specific items to cut, because EVERYTHING would be cut. Less planes, less soldiers, less tanks, less nukes, and on and on and on. I realize the thought of that makes neo-con heads explode, but just remember that we'd still be spending far, far more than every other country.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> I don't think you understand. When I say severe cuts, I really mean severe. There isn't a list of which specific items to cut, because EVERYTHING would be cut. Less planes, less soldiers, less tanks, less nukes, and on and on and on. I realize the thought of that makes neo-con heads explode, but just remember that we'd still be spending far, far more than every other country.


You can make your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Give me some programs you'd like to cut. How many bombers should we have? How much would you cut from the B1 and B2 fleet? How many carriers should we have? How would you restructure a carrier group under your proposed cuts?

How large of an army should we have? How many tanks?

Again, you're the one who brought up severe cuts to everything. I'm just asking for a couple of specifics. Should be easy enough as I'm sure you've thought this through.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

I'll be glad to provide specifics as soon as conservatives start demanding them from the current CIC.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The fact is you have no idea what you're talking about or you'd give some specifics. 

The problem with people who rant from atop a bar stool about cuts to this and that usually haven't a clue as to what they're talking about.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The fact is you have no idea what you're talking about or you'd give some specifics.
> 
> The problem with people who rant from atop a bar stool about cuts to this and that usually haven't a clue as to what they're talking about.


No, the fact is, your question is so absurd as to not deserve a serious answer. It isn't the job of individual citizens, or even individual congressmen or senators, to decide details of the B-2 program. It is our job to decide how much money we're going to allocate, and then it's up to the Pentagon to make it work as best they can. We don't just throw unlimited billions of dollars at NASA because we think NASA is swell. But when it comes to the military, no amount of money is too much, even if we're borrowing it from China, and now with Trump, cutting diplomacy, the arts, and even meals on freakin' wheels to make up the difference.

It's time to realize that we don't need to spend more money on the military than the next ten countries (most of whom are allies) combined. At some point we actually have to balance the budget, pay down debt, and set priorities. And as for me, my priorities skew towards feeding old people and providing health care rather than building more bombs.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You said cuts. Severe cuts. I assume you have some sort of policy insight on this. Of course you can just say you want to cut funds and then leave it to someone else to determine the details but to say you want to make cuts assumes you know something in terms of defense policy and that you're some sort of defense intellectual. 

Otherwise, how would you know that the DoD is bloated and needs to be cut. You're like every other person who goes on and on about cutting this and that yet hasn't a clue as to where to start or what you want cut. 

Of course, programs that provide healthcare and "feed old people" are all run on the up and up without any waste. Waste only occurs in programs that you don't like.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ You said cuts. Severe cuts. I assume you have some sort of policy insight on this. Of course you can just say you want to cut funds and then leave it to someone else to determine the details but to say you want to make cuts assumes you know something in terms of defense policy and that you're some sort of defense intellectual.


I'm not exactly sure what a "defense intellectual" is, but it certainly doesn't take one to understand that we spend more money than we bring in, and that that isn't sustainable. I'd love to own a 150-foot yacht, but sadly, the most I can afford is a 30 foot sailboat. I make do. The Pentagon should have to do the same.



> Of course, programs that provide healthcare and "feed old people" are all run on the up and up without any waste. Waste only occurs in programs that you don't like.


There is always waste in every program. But it's a matter of degree. You wanted to cut foreign aid, for example. Let's assume that foreign aid is 50% bloat. Even if we cut it all, it has a negligible impact, because the foreign aid budget is minuscule. But if even 5% of the military budget is bloat, then the amount of money is enormous, and the impact on the deficit extreme.

But again, it doesn't even matter if there is or isn't bloat, because there isn't enough money! This concept seems to be lost on conservatives when talking about the military, but they seem very capable of understanding it when it comes to health care for poor people. I wonder why that is.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> I'm not exactly sure what a "defense intellectual" is, but it certainly doesn't take one to understand that we spend more money than we bring in, and that that isn't sustainable. I'd love to own a 150-foot yacht, but sadly, the most I can afford is a 30 foot sailboat. I make do. The Pentagon should have to do the same.
> 
> There is always waste in every program. But it's a matter of degree. You wanted to cut foreign aid, for example. Let's assume that foreign aid is 50% bloat. Even if we cut it all, it has a negligible impact, because the foreign aid budget is minuscule. But if even 5% of the military budget is bloat, then the amount of money is enormous, and the impact on the deficit extreme.
> 
> But again, it doesn't even matter if there is or isn't bloat, because there isn't enough money! This concept seems to be lost on conservatives when talking about the military, but they seem very capable of understanding it when it comes to health care for poor people. I wonder why that is.


So again, what's your plan? You haven't given this a scintilla of thought beyond just wanting cuts to some monolith you call "the military". You don't know where or by how much, nor can you even venture a guess, to cut. You don't know which branches of the military are receive what or haven't tried to educate yourself on which weapons systems we can do without.

Furthermore you betray your lacks of understanding about our debt and our overall economy by stating that we keep "borrowing from China." The fact is that of the nearly $19 trillion that is the US debt, nearly $13 trillion is owned by the American people. China owns just over $1 trillion. A large sum certainly but hardly a qualification for "borrowing from China". The fact is that they have nowhere else to go with it.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> So again, what's your plan? You haven't given this a scintilla of thought beyond just wanting cuts to some monolith you call "the military". You don't know where or by how much, nor can you even venture a guess, to cut. You don't know which branches of the military are receive what or haven't tried to educate yourself on which weapons systems we can do without.


Again, not the responsibility of even congress, let alone the constituents. If my business loses 30% of its revenue next year, I'm forced to make cuts, whether I like them or not, and my employees have to find ways to make do with what they've got. The military is not special. They need to do the same.



> Furthermore you betray your lacks of understanding about our debt and our overall economy by stating that we keep "borrowing from China." The fact is that of the nearly $19 trillion that is the US debt, nearly $13 trillion is owned by the American people. China owns just over $1 trillion. A large sum certainly but hardly a qualification for "borrowing from China". The fact is that they have nowhere else to go with it.


It scares me that you think $1 trillion in debt is something to sneeze at, seeing as how total government revenue is less than $3 trillion. Do you not see the problem with your mentality? There is only so much money to go around!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ you obviously don't understand the difference between sovereign debt and personal/business debt. 

Still, you haven't given me a single defense program or weapons system program that you would cut.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ you obviously don't understand the difference between sovereign debt and personal/business debt.


Oh, I understand it quite well. I simply disagree with your nonchalance about it.



> Still, you haven't given me a single defense program or weapons system program that you would cut.


I thought I was pretty clear: ALL OF THEM.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> Oh, I understand it quite well. I simply disagree with your nonchalance about it.


Not nonchalant in the least bit. I just know the difference.



> I thought I was pretty clear: ALL OF THEM.


By how much? How many aircraft carriers is enough under your plan?


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> By how much? How many aircraft carriers is enough under your plan?


We've been over this several times. You just don't like the answer. How many aircraft carriers is a function of how many we can afford and whether the experts at the Pentagon would rather prioritize aircraft carriers or something else. It isn't the job of an individual citizen or congressman to decide how many aircraft carriers to operate. It is our job to decide how much revenue to collect, and then how to allocate that revenue in a more general sense. Tax revenue is roughly $2.5 trillion. If it takes $3.5 trillion to have all of the aircraft carriers, planes, tanks, and nukes that you want, guess what? Too bad, some of them have to go.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Would you say the same about programs for feeding old people, supplying healthcare and other social programs? Just cut them? Just curious.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Would you say the same about programs for feeding old people, supplying healthcare and other social programs? Just cut them? Just curious.


I would say that we can only afford what we can afford, and items have to be prioritized and means tested. I would put a higher priority on medicare and medicaid than I would on maintaining current defense spending. But I would also means test social security and raise taxes so we have more revenue to play with. In the end, the answer has to be that we don't spend more money than we have just because we like shiny new airplanes.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

How about we just spend less on medicare/medicaid and means test social security?


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> How about we just spend less on medicare/medicaid and means test social security?


Still wouldn't balance the budget without seriously cutting the military. There's simply no way to get to a balanced budget without military cuts.

I'm all for means testing social security, by the way, despite the fact that it means I wouldn't get it. In fact, the cap on my income that is taxed for social security should be lifted, and benefits increased for those who aren't means tested out. As for medicare/medicaid, I'm in favor of Medicare for all, so we'll have to disagree on that one.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Raising Taxes takes away spending (which is taxed). Take away spending and tax revenues go down: how is that winning? Lowering taxes increases spending, which creates more revenue. It also creates more jobs. 

Why would any union member vote Democrat, nowadays? Democrats want clean earth, which eliminates union jobs. The environmentalists have won the Democrats heart, and playing up they still care for unions. At this rate unions will be in the history books. 

Look at what the unions are teaching in schools. Momma government will take care of you. What happened to the rugged man?


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> How about we just spend less on medicare/medicaid and means test social security?


At some point we will have no choice. The national debt is chump change compared to future unfunded liabilities of almost $130 trillion, which is mostly Medicare and Social Security. People are living longer than they ever have by far, using more healthcare and fewer works to foot the bill...something has to give at some point. This assumes every state and municipality can cover their future payouts in perpetuity which is folly.

I'm not delusional....at 48 I am assuming I will be working until death.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
How about if we just get serious about eliminating the fraud, waste and abuse that historically have run rampant through the various programs that constitute our social safety net? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> How about if we just get serious about eliminating the fraud, waste and abuse that historically have run rampant through the various programs that constitute our social safety net? :icon_scratch:


In theory that's the fix, but the Federal bureaucracy today resembles "the blob" from that old horror flick and I am afraid we are beyond the point of no return.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

A few things that can be done:

1) eliminate social security now. Obviously this will need to be phased in but people should be allowed to have private accounts that they own. 

2) raise the Medicare age to 68-70. When Medicare was first enacted, people tended to die with a few years of eligibility. Now we're living into our 80's and 90's thanks to our wonderful medical system. The bureaucracy hasn't kept up. 

Of course, they are politically unpalatable but then again, so is going broke.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
As was suggested earlier in the thread, how about indexing individual SSA entitlements based on means, similar to the SSA Federal Employee Offset program that is applied to determine what if any SSA payments will be made to Federal employees retiring above a certain level. Such measures should be applied to potential SSA recipients across the board.



unionboss said:


> View attachment 17036


You fail to mention that the chart you present does not represent a typical budget year, but rather one that incorporates the substantial additional costs of the USA fighting wars on two fronts. That's arguably misleading, wouldn't you say?


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

WA said:


> Raising Taxes takes away spending (which is taxed). Take away spending and tax revenues go down: how is that winning? Lowering taxes increases spending, which creates more revenue. It also creates more jobs.


Ahh, good old trickle down voodoo economics. Disproved for decades now, but conservatives still cling to it. How quaint.



> Why would any union member vote Democrat, nowadays? Democrats want clean earth, which eliminates union jobs. The environmentalists have won the Democrats heart, and playing up they still care for unions. At this rate unions will be in the history books.
> 
> Look at what the unions are teaching in schools. Momma government will take care of you. What happened to the rugged man?


My screen name is old. Been a number of years since I was a union officer. I own several businesses now. Left the union world. But regardless, your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of how things work in collective bargaining. Everything in the union world is dependent upon the NRLB or NMB, depending upon which industry your union is in. Members of those boards are appointed by the president, and if the president is a Republican, your chances of any improvements in collective bargaining are next to nil. President Obama's appointees gave us eight years of progress after eight years of stagnation under Bush.

As an aside, are you actually admitting that you DON'T want a clean earth?


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> As was suggested earlier in the thread, how about indexing individual SSA entitlements based on means, similar to the SSA Federal Employee Offset program that is applied to determine what if any SSA payments will be made to Federal employees retiring above a certain level. Such measures should be applied to potential SSA recipients across the board.


I'm on board with means testing. No arguments there. It's usually conservatives who start whining that they want their money that they paid in, though.



> You fail to mention that the chart you present does not represent a typical budget year, but rather one that incorporates the substantial additional costs of the USA fighting wars on two fronts. That's arguably misleading, wouldn't you say?


Actually, that's not true. This chart only includes only normal budgeted amounts, not off-budget additional spending for the wars. Once you include that, the spending jumps to over a trillion.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> How about if we just get serious about eliminating the fraud, waste and abuse that historically have run rampant through the various programs that constitute our social safety net? :icon_scratch:


"Fraud, waste, and abuse" is lovely right-wing newspeak, but the reality is that every study done has shown the amount of money that could be saved is minuscule. Despite what Fox News tells you, there aren't many poor people using their food stamps to buy lobster.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

unionboss said:


> "Fraud, waste, and abuse" is lovely right-wing newspeak, but the reality is that every study done has shown the amount of money that could be saved is minuscule. Despite what Fox News tells you, there aren't many poor people using their food stamps to buy lobster.


Unionboss,
You'd probably do much better and give folks a bit of a better opinion of you if you weren't so utterly dismissive of the opinions of others.

In a way, you argue as would a child and I'm left really with no other conclusion than to assume that at least intellectually, you're development was arrested in your early 20's.

You may disagree with people but you should at least have some respect for their opinions and not just allude to news speak and to Fox News as cover for your inability to carry on a conversation.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Unionboss,
> You'd probably do much better and give folks a bit of a better opinion of you if you weren't so utterly dismissive of the opinions of others.
> 
> In a way, you argue as would a child and I'm left really with no other conclusion than to assume that at least intellectually, you're development was arrested in your early 20's.
> ...


It's cute that you want to deflect from your inabaility to make your argument by claiming such ridiculous things about me, but I'd suggest honing your arguments instead.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

unionboss said:


> "Fraud, waste, and abuse" is lovely right-wing newspeak, but the reality is that every study done has shown the amount of money that could be saved is minuscule. Despite what Fox News tells you, there aren't many poor people using their food stamps to buy lobster.


On the contrary I think fraud waste and abuse are rampant based on direct experience. I have a good friend who is an obstetrician who won't take Medicaid cases anymore...people routinely lie or delay getting married purposely until they have children so they can push their medical bills off on the tax payer. Also while they drive up in luxury SUVs and discuss recent vacations to Disney and the Caribbean.

The best part - due to patient confidentiality there is no mechanism to report said fraud!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Means testing those on benefits is a deplorable notion. The price we pay for our kindness is a few flagrant scammers. 

However, as I am given to understand it, in the UK at least, it costs the taxpayer more to expose the fraudsters than it does to simply pay them. A humane person would accept this almost imperceptible siphoning off from our taxes rather than routinely humiliate the unfortunate.

All of this said, I would sterilise those on benefits. As I would also cancel paid maternity leave for those in work. If you cannot afford your favourite hobbies then tough luck, find alternative hobbies. 
.

.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> You can make your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Give me some programs you'd like to cut. How many bombers should we have? How much would you cut from the B1 and B2 fleet? How many carriers should we have? How would you restructure a carrier group under your proposed cuts?
> 
> How large of an army should we have? How many tanks?
> 
> Again, you're the one who brought up severe cuts to everything. I'm just asking for a couple of specifics. Should be easy enough as I'm sure you've thought this through.


C'mon SG, my friend, you must realise that the statement in no conceivable manner qualifies as ad hominem. It is a broad generalisation directed at no-one in particular.

It is also a fair point and a position which many reasonable chaps might adopt.

Asking 'how many bombers' is simply trivializing the argument- which I suspect you realise quite adequately.

There is little to be gained from rubbishing this chap's perspective whilst advancing flimsy rejoinders.
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> C'mon SG, my friend, you must realise that the statement in no conceivable manner qualifies as ad hominem. It is a broad generalisation directed at no-one in particular.
> 
> It is also a fair point and a position which many reasonable chaps might adopt.
> 
> ...


Well he's the one who mentioned "severe cuts". That's a quantitative assessment and I would expect that he have at least some idea of what he would like to see cut.

As for means testing, we do that all of the time with government benefits. Our kindness need not be blind or without discrimination. If we are kind to everyone, then it ceases to be kindness and becomes the norm. Kindness is also wisdom and kindness also the allocation of scares resources to those truly in need as opposed to something arbitrary designed to mollify one's constituency.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The quantity is 'severe' the manner in which the reduced resource is allocated may be negotiated. 

As to means testing, this draws arbitrary distinctions for heartless administrators to apply. Outsourced agencies who guarantee savings and so forth. 

Kindness is unquantifiable and often deliberately blind. Have you never given to a beggar you were certain would spend your donation on alcohol or Heroin?

Edit- with my apologies for the afterthought but kindness becoming the norm is surely the ideal of civilisation?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> The quantity is 'severe' the manner in which the reduced resource is allocated may be negotiated.
> 
> As to means testing, this draws arbitrary distinctions for heartless administrators to apply. Outsourced agencies who guarantee savings and so forth.
> 
> ...


There's kindness true in spirit and form and kindness when a politician wants to make a point of just how kind he/she may be, or better yet how unkind the other is.

There is nothing kind of humane about wasting resources that could truly benefit the needy. Economics is the allocation of scarce resources. I would rather provide food for the homeless than heroin for a homeless heroin addict. If that makes me arbitrary and capricious, then so be it.

We are means tested all the time. I get certain tax breaks that end once my income rises to a certain level. I don't qualify for food stamps as I would suspect that my applications would be rejected. But how kind of someone if they did allow me food stamps.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Wasting resources that could truly benefit the needy? How much does a single aircraft carrier cost these days? 

As to homeless Heroin addicts - give $20 to the next one you come across. I promise to transfer that amount to you via PayPal if the experience does not alter your perspective for the better. Agape is our finest expression of humanity.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Means testing those on benefits is a deplorable notion. The price we pay for our kindness is a few flagrant scammers.
> 
> .....................
> .
> ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Eagle, I honestly don't know what this means. Could I encourage you to elaborate?

May I also take this opportunity to state that, as I understand it, eagle is an extraordinarily charitable fellow who's works are to be much admired. Don't blush old boy.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Truth be told, I'm just having a bit of fun with you, but on this side of the pond, when a Federal civilian employee retires and eventually reaches an age appropriate for filing for social security benefits that they have earned, the SSA applies regulations and procedures called Federal Employee Retirement Offset provisions to compute the actual dollar value of SSA payments that that Federal retiree will actually receive. As one's CSRS retirement benefits go up, a formula is applied that gradually eliminates a growing percentage of their earned SSA benefits. In my case that offset percentage came out close to 95%. That's OK...I'm not complaining. It was my great honor to serve this great nation of ours in both a civilian and military capacity for sufficient lengths of time to retire from each. I am comfortable and welcome those who need and will receive the SSA dollars that I will not be receiving to live well and prosper!


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

Dcr5468 said:


> On the contrary I think fraud waste and abuse are rampant based on direct experience.


"Direct experience" is another name for "anecdotal evidence," which as we all know (or should know) is relatively useless. People to send to see what they want to see when it comes to "direct experience," and ignore the things that don't confirm their biases. That's why we have studies to examine these things scientifically. And as Shaver pointed out, the studies show that the very limited abuse that takes place is more expensive to eliminate than it is to simply let go. We saw this in Florida where we wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on drug testing for benefits receipients, all to save a few tens of thousands of dollars in benefits. It just doesn't work.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ Wasting resources that could truly benefit the needy? How much does a single aircraft carrier cost these days?


Bravo.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

Maybe you are right. Similar to the fortunes wasted on Federal projects paying Bacon Davis prevailing wages rather than competitive bidding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I would like to see defense cuts to programs that try to advance a "greener" navy or that try to design more environmentally friendly ammunition. 

I'm not sure how much that amounts to but I'm quite certain the funds could be better allocated.


----------



## unionboss (Mar 8, 2009)

Of course, conservatives are always happy to destroy the environment. That goes without saying.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> As to homeless Heroin addicts - give $20 to the next one you come across. I promise to transfer that amount to you via PayPal if the experience does not alter your perspective for the better. Agape is our finest expression of humanity.


Enabling addiction is the absolute least kind thing that you can do.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

On the original topic, the F 15 has certainly been a workhorse, but it was designed and built 50 years ago. It is just too old to be viable any more and needs to be replaced. The same thing was true for my favorite modern plane, the F14. And the F4U long before that. 

What I don't get is replacing it with the F16, which is of its same basic age.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Enabling addiction is the absolute least kind thing that you can do.


Are you entirely certain that it is the 'absolute least kind thing'?

Dousing a homeless addict in lighter fluid and tossing a match (as example) might be worse, no?

You and I, no doubt, differ in our interpretation of enabling - and I imagine we may be about to experience your interpretation at some length. 

However, I would suggest that, whilst over a longer term it may be considered enabling, in the short-term it is help.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

To he honest, getting doused with lighter fluid and lit on fire gets probaly gets the addict closer to getting help. It would certainly be a more direct route to rock bottom. 

You were very specific in your example that you knew the money would go towards drugs or alcohol, so in no way could it be considered help to the addict. 

It could however be considered as help to person giving the money as they mistakenly pat themselves on the back.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

vpkozel said:


> On the original topic, the F 15 has certainly been a workhorse, but it was designed and built 50 years ago. It is just too old to be viable any more and needs to be replaced. The same thing was true for my favorite modern plane, the F14. And the F4U long before that.
> 
> What I don't get is replacing it with the F16, which is of its same basic age.


Shame they closed the assembly line for F-22. From what I've read it's superior to anything in the works or on the assembly line, including the F-35 which sounds like a fiasco.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> To he honest, getting doused with lighter fluid and lit on fire gets probaly gets the addict closer to getting help. It would certainly be a more direct route to rock bottom.
> 
> You were very specific in your example that you knew the money would go towards drugs or alcohol, so in no way could it be considered help to the addict.
> 
> It could however be considered as help to person giving the money as they mistakenly pat themselves on the back.


If you wish to dispute that helping someone can be considered as help then perhaps one of the members will engage with you.

For my part, aware of your compulsions, I will nobly refrain from enabling you.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> If you wish to dispute that helping someone can be considered as help then perhaps one of the members will engage with you.
> 
> For my part, aware of your compulsions, I will nobly refrain from enabling you.


I am not disputing that helping someone is help. I am disputing that your notion of help and saying that it is flawed as it it focused on the benefits to you as opposed to the benefits to the person you are trying to help.

If you really wanted to help an addict, give them a ride to a meeting or bring along a recovering addict to talk to them.

That might be too much effort for you though.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I have bot really kept up with the latest generations of planes and until I googled the replacement for the F15, I was unaware that they had cancelled the F22. 

Your suggestion makes sense to me though and there have certainly been a lot of problems with the development of the F35. I believe that some of those are caused by the govermnent changing scope and political requirements (in additon to bad design and production issues by Lockheed). 

I do think it is advantageous that the F35 can serve in all 3 branches with air corps though.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> I am not disputing that helping someone is help. I am disputing that your notion of help and saying that it is flawed as it it focused on the benefits to you as opposed to the benefits to the person you are trying to help.
> 
> If you really wanted to help an addict, give them a ride to a meeting or bring along a recovering addict to talk to them.
> 
> That might be too much effort for you though.


Your pattern is long since established.

Try harder old boy, if you are capable. :cofee:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Your pattern is long since established.
> 
> Try harder old boy, if you are capable. :cofee:


Once again you attack me instead of actually trying to have a discussion. Speaking of well established patterns....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Once again you attack me instead of actually trying to have a discussion. Speaking of well established patterns....


Do excuse me. Were you speaking? I am afraid that I nodded off. Bleating is excessively tedious to me.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Do excuse me. Were you speaking? I am afraid that I nodded off.


Equally additive to the thread.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Yawn.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Why are we even building manned fighters anymore? Wouldn't you be able to make a more maneuverable, faster, and cheaper fighter without all of the systems needed to support a human? 

Not to mention the actual elimination of the risk of losing a human life....


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Why are we even building manned fighters anymore? Wouldn't you be able to make a more maneuverable, faster, and cheaper fighter without all of the systems needed to support a human?
> 
> Not to mention the actual elimination of the risk of losing a human life....


Then what the heck would you do with all these guys!?!?

(But relax, drone warfare is just a hop, skip and jump away. Multiple programs are underway. People are dumb, and too many G's turn them into marmalade. Of course, once the machines figure out they're smarter than us . . . . oh well! :eek2


----------



## John inSC (Mar 20, 2016)

Lighter and faster perhaps, drone or human piloted is still going to have the issue with g forces ripping the airframe and wings apart. But, really though, how many American planes are being shot down to warrant drone fighter jets? As an aside note, I work for Boeing and there's nothing more badass than hearing the f-16s and f-35s taking off behind our F/A building with the hangar doors open. :beer:


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Once again you attack me instead of actually trying to have a discussion. Speaking of well established patterns....





Shaver said:


> Your pattern is long since established. Try harder old boy, if you are capable. :cofee:


Here's the fun part! I know both of you and actually get a kick out of this exchange. You are two intelligent fellows who, believe it or not, would have a spirited (but amicable) conversation over cups of tea or coffee. I see each side of the "enabling" argument as a function of the prevailing paradigm of addiction. You are both correct, but it all boils down to perception. Shaver giving the addict $20 may not be a positive lifetime solution, but he is correct in that it will certainly improve the addicts short-term quality of life. I have personally bought vodka for people in extreme alcohol withdrawals. It was not done with the intent of furthering their addiction. It was done out of human kindness until they could get the proper medical treatment (which I would help to secure). Agape, as Shaver indicated, is a very apropos term for this type of charity. And, vpkozel, do not confuse short-term "enabling" with assisted suicide. My goal is the eventual eradication of the offending vice from the poor soul's life. However, I must keep the addict alive to witness the recovery.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I cannot under any circumstance understand how giving an addict money to buy drugs may be considered compassionate. 

What if the dose I helped him buy is the one that kills him. There are plenty of aid organizations that actually try to help these people. 

Addicts don't need our pity nor do they deserve our disdain. They need our help. Just giving someone money may seem like a virtuous act but it's not what is needed.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I cannot under any circumstance understand how giving an addict money to buy drugs may be considered compassionate.
> 
> What if the dose I helped him buy is the one that kills him. There are plenty of aid organizations that actually try to help these people.
> 
> Addicts don't need our pity nor do they deserve our disdain. They need our help. Just giving someone money may seem like a virtuous act but it's not what is needed.


I hate to further derail the thread, SG_67. I once thought the same as you. I have been dealing with opioid addicts for several years now. I have personally watched someone die in front of me from an overdose. I have also witnessed Narcan being administered to bring a person back from the brink of death. If someone was being properly treated, would I give them money? No... While deaths from withdrawals are more likely to occur in alcohol or benzo addicts, opioid withdrawals are very serious.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

John inSC said:


> Lighter and faster perhaps, drone or human piloted is still going to have the issue with g forces ripping the airframe and wings apart. But, really though, how many American planes are being shot down to warrant drone fighter jets? As an aside note, I work for Boeing and there's nothing more badass than hearing the f-16s and f-35s taking off behind our F/A building with the hangar doors open. :beer:


I too love interceptors and have since a boy. I also have as much skepticism regarding the political nature of the allocation of resources as I suspect anyone can. And certainly your observation regarding G-forces pertaining equally to unmanned flight is undeniable, but my understanding has been that the ceiling for such forces is substantially higher for unmanned rather than manned flight. No?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> I hate to further derail the thread, SG_67. I once thought the same as you. I have been dealing with opioid addicts for several years now. I have personally watched someone die in front of me from an overdose. I have also witnessed Narcan being administered to bring a person back from the brink of death. If someone was being properly treated, would I give them money? No... While deaths from withdrawals are more likely to occur in alcohol or benzo addicts, opioid withdrawals are very serious.


No one is ever going to decry the phased withdrawal from an addiction as the wrong thing to do.

But shaver was very specific. He was belittling sg for not giving out cash that he knows would be used to continue and addiction. THAT is what I was challenging.

Addiction is a *****. And it ruins lives and kills people.

Which is why I said that enabling that addiction is the absolute least kind thing you can do. Because, in the end, deciding to end addiction lies only with the addict and anything that delays that decision continues the hell for the addict and all that love him or her.


----------



## John inSC (Mar 20, 2016)

Flanderian said:


> I too love interceptors and have since a boy.I also have as much skepticism regarding the political nature of the allocation of resources as I suspect anyone can. And certainly your observation regarding G-forces pertaining equally to unmanned flight is undeniable, but my understanding has been that the ceiling for such forces is substantially higher for unmanned rather than manned flight. No?


Indeed you are right I would think, seeing as the aircraft is built around what the pilot is capable of. I would love to see some theoretical stress test on what a fighter drone is capable of.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"The Hell of the addict". How quaint. 

'People think it's all about misery and desperation and death and all that sh*t - which is not to be ignored, but what they forget is the pleasure of it. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. After all, we're not f*cking stupid. At least, we're not that f*cking stupid' - Mark Renton.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

If it wasn't hell, people would not quit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The Hell of unfaithful ex wives, alimony payments, ungrateful children, unreliable friends, overbearing bosses, unfulfilling jobs, low wages, potential unrealised, the myriad of opportunities by which to waste one's life.

A man has the right to choose.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> The Hell of unfaithful ex wives,alimony payments, ungrateful children, unreliable friends, overbearing bosses, unfulfilling jobs, low wages, potential unrealised, the myriad of opportunities by which to waste one's life.
> 
> A man has the right to choose.


So you think that addiction is a choice?

How quaint.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Until you can find it within yourself to provide a more engaging response please forgive me if I enjoy a little snooze.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Until you can find it within yourself to provide a more engaging response please forgive me if I enjoy a little snooze.


You can answer when you wake up then.

Have a nice nap.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Having reflected for a moment I realise how we might perhaps wring something at least momentarily amusing from this tedium. 

Hot on the heels of the spectacular non explanation vis-a-vis helping and help can we encourage a statement to clarify the difference between a decision and a choice?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Having reflected for a moment I realise how we might perhaps wring something at least momentarily amusing from this tedium.
> 
> Hot on the heels of the spectacular non explanation vis-a-vis helping and help can we encourage a statement to clarify the difference between a decision and a choice?


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decision

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choice


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apparently not. How dreadfully dull.

Zzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I'm somewhat enjoying this thread, but, as a participant observer, I find the snide remarks distressing and unhelpful in furthering the discussion.

The difference seems to me to be connected to ideas about the "deserving poor," as in we should help virtuous indigents in difficulties not of their making, but let shiftless bums take care of themselves.

For what it's worth, I assume a panhandler knows what he or she needs, whether it be food, booze or drugs. I briefly tried handing out dollar coins but bills are more practical. 

I normally do not enjoy the company of the indigent, but I feel an obligation to try to accommodate them -- through paying taxes and supporting the establishment of social services, and by having a few dollar bills in my pocket to pass along as occasions arise for doing so.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Unfortunately some members are simply, figuratively and literally, begging for it. Pun certainly intended. 

For my part I remain keen to witness a reconciliation of the statements 'deciding to end addiction lies only with the addict' and 'so you think that addiction is a choice?'

However, if my sparring partner may manage to maintain enthusiasm for the bout without an audience, and the slim prospect of a public victory, then I encourage him to offer this illumination via PM.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Unfortunately some members are simply, figuratively and literally, begging for it. Pun certainly intended.


I am genuinely curious why you continue to try to make things into a personal feud. Sorry, but I shan't be participating in that any more.



> For my part I remain keen to witness a reconciliation of the statements 'deciding to end addiction lies only with the addict' and 'so you think that addiction is a choice?'


Certainly, and I would have been happy to do so earlier had you responded with this request instead of with not so veiled insults. With that in mind I will take it on faith that you are actually interested in a response, as opposed to gathering more fodder for the personal attacks.

With that said, the answer is fairly simple. Addiction is a disease, plain and simple. No one knows the cause, although hereditary factors are definitely a major contributing factor. But not everyone with the predispositions will become an addict. They are simply at higher risk to do so if they engage in the addictive behavior.

Once someone becomes an addict, however, they will remain one for life. There is no cure. Crucially, this does not mean that the addict must continue to participate in the addiction. This is known as being a recovering addict. No one who has even a cursory knowledge of addiction would ever say recovered addict, as there is no such thing.

Once one enters into the addict category, there are physiological changes in the brain that make it impossible for them to ever engage in the offending behavior again. In fact, they must be ever vigilant not to replace one offending behavior with another (e.g., swapping heroin for alcohol, or alcohol for sex, or sex for shopping, etc.).

There are many ways that addicts recover, but by far the most effective and well known are through 12 step programs such as Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous. One of the guiding principles to such programs is that an addict must recover one day at a time, but not participating in his or her addictions for that day, although a day can certainly be broken down into smaller chunks if necessary. Each addict has a choice every day, hour, minute, or second to participate or not. If he or she chooses to do so, then he or she is back into the deep, dark hell that is addiction.

So, the question 'so you think that addiction is a choice?' was quite clearly in response to your derisory comments of flippantly lumping addiction in with bad choices that have no physiological component, as opposed to trying to understand that once addiction has taken over, the addict has no choice except to refrain from ever engaging in that offending behavior again - which is what was meant by the quote 'deciding to end addiction lies only with the addict' . You would never say that cancer or heart disease survivor that they should have chosen better and that their disease was like a crazy ex wife, or jackass boss.

Simply put, one does not choose addiction, they simply end up there. Once there, however, they must decide to leave or to stay. If the decision is to leave, that decision must be reaffirmed at least daily, and sometimes more often than that.

And that brings us back to the original response that I made to you. When you think you are helping an addict by giving him 20 quid to get high you are not helping, but rather, you are hurting him. Because only someone in active addiction would be begging for money, someone trying to recover would not.



> However, if my sparring partner may manage to maintain enthusiasm for the bout without an audience, and the slim prospect of a public victory, then I encourage him to offer this illumination via PM.


You have not been sparring at all, rather lobbing childish insults and running. Which is annoying, but something that I should look past or simply ignore. I didn't do that though, and that failure is mine alone. So, thank you for reminding me that it is my responsibility not to respond to petty personal attacks. I truly appreciate that.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

On the way to my daughter's school, there is a guy who stands on a certain corner almost every day. He holds a sign that simply states, "I am not going to lie to you. I just need money to by(sic) booze." Needless to say, I always hand him a buck. I see it less as enabling and more as rewarding his honesty.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Oh dear, it seems that the audience was required after all. 

Still, a masterclass in hypocrisy from a fellow who is (or pretends to be) unaware of his own shortcomings. 

Please do ignore me in future. I believe that we could all appreciate it if you would.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Oh dear, it seems that the audience was required after all.
> 
> Still, a masterclass in hypocrisy from a fellow who is (or pretends to be) unaware of his own shortcomings.
> 
> Please do ignore me in future. I believe that we could all appreciate it if you would.


Looks like my faith was misplaced. Oh well, such is life.

I am not sure where you got the idea that I plan to ignore you. I am simply not going to respond in kind to your personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I certainly reserve the right to respond to anything that you or anyone else posts thought.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That case of lastworditis is showing no signs of clearing up then?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> On the way to my daughter's school, there is a guy who stands on a certain corner almost every day. He holds a sign that simply states, "I am not going to lie to you. I just need money to by(sic) booze." Needless to say, I always hand him a buck. I see it less as enabling and more as rewarding his honesty.


I do applaud his honesty in the sign. And I hope that one day he finds that same honesty with himself about his addiction.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Looks like the t-word to me.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Orsini said:


> Looks like the t-word to me.


There is a certain symmetry here as you begin to resemble the c word.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The *real* Eagle learns Alden is having a flash sale, and needs to get there PDQ!!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I can't tell for sure but from that angle, but that looks a lot like the Spitfire.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I can't tell for sure but from that angle, but that looks a lot like the Spitfire.


P51D Mustang, Cadillac of the air! WWII vintage, arguably the finest prop interceptor ever made. Holder of speed records for flight in prop aircraft. Saw service with the U.S. military through Korean war and with the Dominican Air Force until 1984. And still popular with civilian pilots for recreation.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> The *real* Eagle learns Alden is having a flash sale, and needs to get there PDQ!!!


LOL. A good sale is hard to resist, but getting there can be expensive. A P-51 costs between $1200 to $1500 per hour to fly, equating to the cost of two to three pair of those 'on sale Alden's!' That does not include the cost of rebuilding the engine every 700 hours of flight time ($125,000).


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Flanderian said:


> P51D Mustang, Cadillac of the air! WWII vintage, arguably the finest prop interceptor ever made. Holder of speed records for flight in prop aircraft. Saw service with the U.S. military through Korean war and with the Dominican Air Force until 1984. And still popular with civilian pilots for recreation.


A fine plane, to be sure, but I was always partial to the F4U.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. A good sale is hard to resist, but getting there can be expensive. A P-51 costs between $1200 to $1500 per hour to fly, equating to the cost of two to three pair of those 'on sale Alden's!' That does not include the cost of rebuilding the engine every 700 hours of flight time ($125,000).


Wow! :eek2:

(But think how great those shell LWB would look in the cockpit! )


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

To each his own. I find the 20mm in the nose of the Lightning comforting. Had the commanders thought of the idea, this baby could have been the Warthog of WWII and given the Panzerwehr nightmares.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> To each his own. I find the 20mm in the nose of the Lightning comforting. Had the commanders thought of the idea, this baby could have been the Warthog of WWII and given the Panzerwehr nightmares.


I believe it actually was used in that role, and in part because it could also carry a lot of ordinance. I believe as the war progressed it was used more often as a ground attack aircraft rather than an interceptor. I've heard reports that it wasn't particularly nimble.

Despite that reputation, while growing up near a large urban airport in the years immediately following WWII, I recall to this day looking up in the bright blue summer sky and watching a P38 doing acrobatics only a few thousand feet over my head. Very exciting to a little boy. No doubt war surplus at the time.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The P38 always struck me as the most exotic of that era's warplanes. 

While there's a romanticism with the Spitfire and the Mustang, the P38 is something out of a SciFi movie. Even today it stands out.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The Night Fighter: P38M. Pod under nose is radar, bubble behind pilot is for radar operator.


----------

