Pentagon Conducts First Test of Previously Banned Missile (apnews.com) 142
The U.S. military has conducted a flight test of a type of missile banned for more than 30 years by a treaty that both the United States and Russia abandoned this month, the Pentagon said. The Associated Press reports: The test off the coast of California on Sunday marked the resumption of an arms competition that some analysts worry could increase U.S.-Russian tensions. The Trump administration has said it remains interested in useful arms control but questions Moscow's willingness to adhere to its treaty commitments. The Pentagon said it tested a modified ground-launched version of a Navy Tomahawk cruise missile, which was launched from San Nicolas Island and accurately struck its target after flying more than 500 kilometers (310 miles). The missile was armed with a conventional, not nuclear, warhead.
Defense officials had said last March that this missile likely would have a range of about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and that it might be ready for deployment within 18 months. The missile would have violated the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, which banned all types of missiles with ranges between 500 kilometers (310 miles) and 5,500 kilometers (3,410 miles). The U.S. and Russia withdrew from the treaty on Aug. 2, prompted by what the administration said was Russia's unwillingness to stop violating the treaty's terms. Russia accused the U.S. of violating the agreement. The Pentagon says it also intends to begin testing, probably before the end of this year, an INF-range ballistic missile with a range of roughly 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles) to 4,000 kilometers (2,485 miles).
Defense officials had said last March that this missile likely would have a range of about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and that it might be ready for deployment within 18 months. The missile would have violated the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, which banned all types of missiles with ranges between 500 kilometers (310 miles) and 5,500 kilometers (3,410 miles). The U.S. and Russia withdrew from the treaty on Aug. 2, prompted by what the administration said was Russia's unwillingness to stop violating the treaty's terms. Russia accused the U.S. of violating the agreement. The Pentagon says it also intends to begin testing, probably before the end of this year, an INF-range ballistic missile with a range of roughly 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles) to 4,000 kilometers (2,485 miles).
Have SpaceX land on them (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I rather doubt it.
Right now SpaceX is tapping an international launch market, and tapping into widespread excitement about finally starting to become a space-faring species. The minute they start intentionally blowing people up (or even just symbollically demonstrating their capability to do that) they face huge negative PR and probably a whole lot of international blowback - almost certainly translating into lost business for them and better funding for their up and coming competitors.
Plus, as a native So
Russia abandoned it years ago w/SSC-8 (Score:5, Informative)
The US it abandoned it last month after years of trying to get the Russians to comply.
https://missilethreat.csis.org... [csis.org]
Russia reportedly began covert development of the SSC-8 in the mid-2000s, and started flight testing in 2008.2 It was first test fired in July 2014.3 It was again reportedly test fired on September 2, 2015, although U.S. officials said it did not fly beyond the 500 km INF range limit.4
A November 2018 DNI statement clarifies Russia’s testing regime: “Russia initially flight tested the 9M729 – a ground based missile – to distances well over 500 kilometers (km) from a fixed launcher. Russia then tested the same missile at ranges below 500km from a mobile launcher. By putting the two types of tests together, Russia was able to develop a missile that flies to the intermediate ranges prohibited by the INF Treaty and launches from a ground-mobile platform.”
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like Russia wouldn't have really needed to develop the missile in secret if they did their testing on a ship instead on land.
It's just semantics, really. Pretty weak treaty if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
"The US it abandoned it last month after years of trying to get the Russians to comply."
And after years of Russia trying to get the US to 'comply' with the spirit of the law:
Is Russia Solely to Blame for Violations of the INF Treaty?
https://www.thenation.com/arti... [thenation.com]
Confused (Score:3)
Perhaps the treaty only covered land based systems because Tomahawks have been in service at sea for quite a long time. The favorite to carry is the land-attack variant but they come in several flavors ( A, B, C, D, etc ( Nuke, Anti-Ship, Land-Attack, Land-Attack Submunitions respectively )
The only thing that changed for the Sea Based units is they no longer deployed with nuclear warheads.
Fun trivia: The RGM-109A unit had the Dial-a-yield feature via the W-80 warhead it carried.
So, depending on mission parameters, you could go boom or you could go BOOM.
Finally, tax dollars at work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't have to worry about nukes being used by Russia, US, China, or other similar large militaries.
Now letting a crazy person like in NK or a theocracy like Iran having them is far scarier. Crazy people don't nesc abide by MAD, and a theocracy could certainly choose to use one with righteousness as the basis. Want to know why Iran shouldn't have a nuke? Just imagine if the Catholic church had nukes to use 500 years ago - they would have used them.
Re: (Score:2)
And I meant strategic nukes in specific. Tactical nukes can be used with very minimal fallout when designed correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
tactical nukes can be used with very minimal fallout when designed correctly. ...
On the ground, no. Simply, no.
As an anti aircraft or anti ship weapon (e.g. Nike Herkules) perhaps
Re: Finally, tax dollars at work! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm...
The Treaty in question limited theatre-range delivery systems. For which you may read "missiles capable of hitting the EU from Russia".
It did NOT limit warheads in any way, nor did it prevent testing of warheads (there are other treaties covering that sort of thing). Nor did it limit aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons.
W
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, government spending on both education and health care exceed the defense budget [usgovernmentspending.com]. They're a bit deceptive because they're funded substantially at the state and local level. So e.g. looking at the Department of Education's budget grossly underestimates how much is spent on education nationwide. If you add up federal, state, and local government spending, for 2019 it'll be $1.7 trillion on health care, $1.1 trillion on education, and
Re: (Score:2)
"Both sides." Yes, "both sides" have violated the INF treaty for six years as the other side begged them to come into compliance, "both sides" are developing nuclear-powered cruise missiles and nuclear-armed long-range torpedoes and other ludicrous doomsday weapons, and "both sides" are invading their geographic neighbors and occupying their sovereign soil for absolutely no damn reason other than revanchist imperialism.
Some people just can't help but shill for dictatorships, I guess.
ilkhider should show support for arms reduction (Score:2)
Nobody wants arms limitation treaties -- or even better, arms reduction treaties -- to work more than I do.
Which I why I'm so disappointed that Russia habitually violated this treaty, to the point that unilateral observance of it by the U.S. became untenable.
Why don't you share my disappointment in Russia's behavior? Your post is more interested in spewing anti-U.S. propaganda, than in supporting arms reduction efforts that could save millions of lives.
GLCM (Score:2)
Ah...Ground Launched Cruise Missiles...BGM-109. Played with them in Belgium in the USAF in 1987 & 1988 until the INF treaty sent me home a civilian.
Plus ca change, plus c'est les meme choses indeed.
Si vis pacem, para bellum (Score:2, Informative)
"If you seek peace, prepare for war."
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and probably others I missed, have all been acting very aggressively lately. They've done their own weapons tests, moved material and people into strategic locations, and did I mention they've done their own weapons tests?
US allies, specifically those in NATO, have not been taking these threats seriously lately. Our allies and our adversaries need to see that the US military is doing their own preparations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and probably others I missed, have all been acting very aggressively lately.
Hmm, what's the common factor in all of those?
Well the US has troops on NK's border and the president was talking about attacking them. Brinkmanship brought him to the negotiating table.
The Iran situation was created by the CIA and was getting better but then the president decided to tear up the deal with them.
Russia has been emboldened by the weakening West, struggling to deal with the divisions and political strife that Russia stirred up. Unfortunately the self-described leader of the free world doesn't s
Re: (Score:2)
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and probably others I missed, have all been acting very aggressively lately.
Hmm, what's the common factor in all of those?
Well the US has troops on NK's border and the president was talking about attacking them. Brinkmanship brought him to the negotiating table.
NK doing missile tests is the nation-state equivalent of a baby crying. It's how they get your attention and tell you they aren't happy with something. Annual war game between US and SK? Missile test. New round of sanctions? Missile test. Some minor government official says something NK doesn't like? Missile test. Dennis Rodman tweets out that Pizza Hut delivered a cold pizza? Nuke test (you do not want to mess with Supreme Leader's best friend).
It's a game that NK plays to get what they want, and
Re: (Score:2)
No they just come an contaminate London with Polonium and kill British born citizens with nerve agent they dumped in a park during a failed assassination attempt. Nothing to fear at all.
Things have changed since 1987 (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess who wasn't ever in the INF treaty -- CHINA. The treaty didn't cover that eventuality.. therefore Russia abounded..(covertly) the US abounded it - and it now a new agreement needs to happen that includes China.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's my nuclear-powered missle? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
design something that turns out to be crap for billions then get billions more to try to fix the crap
So much this - they incentivize failure.
hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Propaganda.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and a such a test shows that the plans and equipment were already in place to perform it.
They literally bolted a navy missile launcher to a test stand on the ground, and fired a navy missile.
No need for any secretive long-term R&D.
Dr Strangelove (Score:2)
Has anyone asked Dr Strangelove for his analysis of this situation?
Some people are getting upset about the idea of the religious extremist regime in Saudi Arabia getting nuclear reactors. Is nobody worried about the religious extremists in the Pentagon, Langley, & the Whitehouse having a massive arsenal of nuclear missiles?
Summary confusing (Score:2)
". The missile would have violated the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, which banned all types of missiles with ranges between 500 kilometers (310 miles) and 5,500 kilometers (3,410 miles)."
Banned? You mean banned development of? Because tomahawks can fly 1500 miles carrying a tacnuke, and we didn't exactly throw the old ones away.
Re: (Score:2)
They just assumed you were following the context, and thus didn't need to be quite so specific in later sentences.
"...which banned all types of ground-based missiles with ranges..."
Re:Unless they cobbled it together in a month... (Score:4, Insightful)
It was illegal to test them, not design or build them. Nice try though.
Incorrect ! (Score:4, Informative)
It was illegal to test them, not design or build them. Nice try though.
"The treaty prohibits both parties from possessing, producing, or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500â"5,000 km. Possessing or producing ground-based launchers of those missiles is also prohibited. The ban extends to weapons with both nuclear and conventional warheads, but does not cover air-delivered or sea-based missiles"
What aprt of your pretention it was allowed is insightful ? The possession and construction was also forbidden. the FACT that they tested so quick prove they were in breach as well as Russia. Since the USA started the nuclear race by outright lying about russia capability I am not surprised. What i find surprising is that people could simply google INF treaty and see you are outright worng but modded you insightful.
Re:Incorrect ! (Score:4, Informative)
Possessing or producing are fantastic words. If the missile is in 3 pieces and just needs to be bolted together the USA does not possess one nor has it finished producing one.
Re: (Score:2)
Possessing or producing are fantastic words. If the missile is in 3 pieces and just needs to be bolted together the USA does not possess one nor has it finished producing one.
If we use the same rules that the BATFE uses, then constructive possession is sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But isn’t that what Russia was doing?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they started testing a new missile.
Russia claims it doesn't fall under the INF. US says it does.
Re: (Score:2)
So we give them an excuse to continue by doing something that definitely does fall under the INF.
Smart move. *golfclap*
Re: (Score:3)
It really is since China isn't bound by the INF and those cruise missiles on roids dramatically enhance our non-nuclear capabilities. Even with the shorter range we used them extensively before the gulf war... errr... after... I mean during, it must have been during.
Re: (Score:2)
So we give them an excuse to continue by doing something that definitely does fall under the INF.
They were already doing it, so an excuse really does nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I did. They said you both suck, as friends at least as much as as enemies.
Re:Unless they cobbled it together in a month... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you seriously comparing the US to Russia and the Taliban? Look, I know you are butt hurt because we spying on our allies but that hardly comes close to putting us in the same class. As bad as things have gotten in the US it doesn't even compare with surveillance states found in Western Europe let alone dictatorship under Putin or oppression under the religious zealots of the Taliban. Also, those zealots hijacked a couple of our planes and flew them into buildings. They are lucky we decided to be merciful and restrained in our response.
P.S. Rebel against our culture's success in all the petty jealous "the US isn't the center of the world anymore" nonsense you like but don't be stupid enough to actually attack us. Since everyone already hates us it won't impact our relations in the slightest to wipe out our enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say we've surpassed the Soviet Union. You can fuck off now.
Re: (Score:2)
"People are being told who to vote for and that if you don't vote for the right candidate you are an enemy of the state."
Ummm... yeah. That is nonsense. At least with the implication you are making, nobody is being declared an enemy of the state BY the state on the basis of who they vote for in the US. Now people can label you as "enemy of the state" all day long because they have the right to free speech and strong opinions but the voting itself is confidential.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously comparing the US to Russia and the Taliban?
Why would an Afghani care which side is bombing his village? He probably just wants the bombing to stop.
...surveillance states found in Western Europe...
How would you know? You've never been there. I can you that whatever Fox News is telling you about Western Europe, it is wrong, however.
Also, those zealots hijacked a couple of our planes and flew them into buildings.
Those guys were Saudis.
Re: (Score:2)
There is always a reason. Read up on history. Afghanistan became a communist country all on its own, lead by Muslims. If allowed to spread and with support from the USSR, the fear was that Islam and Communism ideology could merge and you'd have 1/3rd of the world Communist.
What later became the Taliban fought against that "impure" Muslim ideology and the US was happy to help, the country tore itself apart after the USSR retreated and warlords fought each other for control, eventually coming largely under Ta
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately wrong. ... when the russians invaded.
Afghanistan was already communist
the fear was that Islam and Communism ideology could merge and you'd have 1/3rd of the world Communist.
Only idiots would fear something like that.
The truth is simple, the big players planned to build gas and oil pipelines in Afghanistan. But there was no regime "allowing" that.
Taliban control who then turned against the US in a quest for taking over the world with Islam (quite literally their goal).
That is what you get told
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan was already communist ... when the russians invaded.
The communists staged a coup against a democratic government, then found they didn't really have the popular support they thought they did, so the USSR invaded to prop them up. Despite the US having just lost the Vietnam war for pretty much the same reasons.
The next 40 years have been Russia and the US refusing to admit they've totally screwed Afghanistan up and ought to leave them the hell alone.
The Fox News viewers who comment on this site know exactly nothing of history.
Re: (Score:2)
And your response to Afghanistan, fuck off asshole. 3,000 people died in 911 and Afghanistan harbored the person that orchestrated that attack. Next time I hope it is either you or all of your f
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan did offer to extradite if shown some evidence, like most countries, which also require some evidence before extraditing.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a small section of a gun is actually considered the "gun" by law. That is what makes it so easy to acquire and build yourself a "ghost gun" as the media likes to refer to it as. So, me being a felon can possess all the pieces needed to make it including the 80% lower, and the tools to make it. But if I haven't made the "gun" portion yet it is 100% legal for me to have and even show to a cop. Sure, might not be a smart thing to do as they would probably start watching me after I showed it to them. But I
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unless they cobbled it together in a month... (Score:5, Informative)
Not really - the Tomahawk already has a range which puts it squarely in the "banned" category under that treaty *if* it was ground launched, and there isnt going to be much you need to do to the missile itself in order to accommodate it launching from a ground position rather than a ship. The vast majority of any modifications required are going to be in the vehicle carrying the system, so if this test simply consisted of an existing Navy vertical launch system canister fixed to a test stand and few other modifications, then there is utterly no reason why this couldn't be put together in a month.
Its the fact that it exceeds 310 miles range and is ground launched which would make it a violation - and out of either of these things, it was really the US saying "ok, we won't put the Tomahawk on a ground launcher then" which kept them in line with the treaty until now. They scrapped the ground launcher system in 1991 when this treaty went into effect, but that doesn't mean the missile functionally lost the ability to be launched from a ground launcher...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, was going to say the same. This is likely a ground launcher for a Tomahawk, not a new missile.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a Tomahawk with more fuel - not hard to enhance an existing design given the advances in technology in the intervening decades. US and Russia both violated the spirit of the treaties, anyway. For example, the Topol-M violates the spirit of SALT2. At the time SALT2 was written. Topol-M is exactly the kind of missile that SALT2 was supposed to limit, but at the time SALT2 was written it was only possible to deploy this class of missile in fixed installations. Technology improved to the point wh
Re:Unless they cobbled it together in a month... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not even a Tomahawk with "more fuel", its a standard US Navy Tomahawk launched from a fixed test stand - that alone is enough to violate the treaty, as the Tomahawk already exceeds the range limits. Its the "its not ground launched" that kept the US "legal" all these years.
Basically, nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be drastically out of touch with European power - Germany operates the Eurofighter (and is augmenting that with the F-35, not replacing them with it), and has the Taurus stand off attack missile, while France operates the Rafale and has the Storm Shadow stand off attack missile. Both operate an independent (but cooperative) air defence system. Frances nuclear deterrent is completely independent of the US as well (as is the UKs - we may buy warheads and missiles, but we don't need US authority
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Neither side violated the letter of the treaties. Both sides violate the spirit of the treaties.
Re: (Score:3)
The treaty was only a ban on land based intermediate range missiles, not air or sea launched missiles. I don't think there were any restrictions on designing land based intermediate missiles either. It probably really doesn't take long to take a ship based launching system and cobble together a land based version of it -- esp. if the design is already done. Seems like a job that could take just a few days to complete.
Also, the US announced [cnn.com] on Feb 1 that they were suspending the treaty and Russia followed su
Re:Unless they cobbled it together in a month... (Score:5, Insightful)
The INF treaty banned land based intermediate missiles, including cruise missiles. The United States and the Soviets both continued to deploy nuclear-armed naval intermediate range missiles that were identical to the stuff that was banned on land.
So the INF treaty didn't ban any missiles so much as it banned *launchers*. It has always been the case that either country could deploy systems that violated the treaty with just a few months of preparation. Maybe even weeks.
If this makes no sense to you, it actually made a great deal of sense at the time. The Soviets had forward-based IRBMS in Warsaw Pact countries, and the US was under political pressure to respond to that by stationing its own IRBMs in NATO countries. If you think about that situation, it would be incredibly stupid: forward based nuclear forces which would put commanders on both sides in a "use it or lose it" scenario if a conventional war broke out.
So the INF was us and the Soviets both agreeing not to store gasoline near the thing that makes sparks.
INF did a lot of good, but it solved a problem that belongs to a bygone era. The Russians had understandable problems with it, since it left them with no response to China having a shit-ton of road mobile IRBM launchers. Trump did the Russian a huge favor by abrogating the treaty. As for us, leaving the treaty doesn't do anything for us strategically, until we start worrying about Canada or Mexico developing a nuclear arsenal.
Re: (Score:2)
It only really takes a few hours to weld a naval launch canister to a truck, if you're in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm allowing for CYA time between someone having the idea to do it and everyone who'd have to approve signing off.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in a hurry, the only person you need approval from is the highest ranking person on site.
If people are stopping to cover their asses, they're not in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we're not at war, I assume people aren't in a hurry.
Even if we were at war, it's hard to see why we'd be in a hurry. What kind of scenario would have us rushing to put nuclear warhead on the ground in disputed territory? Even if such a scenario existed, unlike Russia we have a blue water navy that could deliver a tactical nuclear strike virtually anywhere we're likely to want one, including landlocked countries like Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unless they cobbled it together in a month... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Trump did the Russian a huge favor by abrogating the treaty. "
Some people might say that a treaty the Russians were casually ignoring and breaking wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Besides, as our NATO allies have made it clear, defense isn't important enough to spend euros on, so why bother maintaining a treaty that was mainly aimed at protecting them?
Re: Unless they cobbled it together in a month... (Score:2)
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. The most useful thing about nuclear weapons is other people knowing you have them, and the obfuscation required by the treaty limits their deterrent effect.
Re: (Score:2)
You got that completely backwards. China and Russia are doing nothing but cooperating against us now, and China's INF-range missiles pose a dire threat to American forces in the Pacific - as evidenced by China's explicit practice strikes targeting mock-ups that look a hell of a lot like our military harbors in Japan. [warontherocks.com] This is the biggest threat to the United States right now, given the high probability of a war between the US and China in the coming decade. You might want to update your view of the internati
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Russia and China cooperating against us doesn't mean they trust each other.
(2) Chinese land-based missiles pose a threat to US forces and allies in Asia, but any future US land-based intermediate range missiles remain pretty much useless to us.
Put those facts together and the sensible thing would be to try to bring China and Russia into a more comprehensive INF treaty, if that were possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be a dunce. What was banned was ground-launched ones. Both sides agreed to stick to what they can shoot from a ship or plane.
These are just normal cruise missiles, with the launcher installed on the ground instead of on a ship.
All they're actually testing is that the mounting brackets aren't damaged by the launch.
Re: (Score:2)
And now you know why NASA exists and what the space race was really about.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, but you can't exactly just let hostile nations beat you in the arms race either. As long as there is an asshole on the block you get little choice in the matter. Unless you are just going to roll over and take it.
Natually... the usual group of thugs will be getting rich from it as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA bankrupted Soviet Russia with arm proliferation.
Well, it's payback time...
Re:Who has mates.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Spending all the money in the world won't matter if you are honoring an agreement not to produce the best toys which highly enhance your capabilities while the other guy is breaking that agreement and leapfrogging your capabilities.
Re:Who has mates.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the "always will be". Civilization has been making progress, albeit very very slowly. Things just come in cycles though which makes the slow progress seem highly turbulent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I posted a timeline previously from the state department where they documented treaty violations that were being recorded early in the previous administration. I then posted articles where the Russians were worried about the Chinese and their building of weapons that were illegal under the treaty. Why do you EXCUSE the previous
Re: (Score:2)
"and so often a coincidence of him doing something for entirely different reasons"
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Whether he was before or not he is now a politician and about the only thing you can be sure of is they only do things for the reasons they state now and then so that you can't rule out that possibility either. They give a sales pitch to get people to buy into what they want.
Bush didn't invade Iraq over 9/11 or WMDs, Obama didn't pass his health care bill to help people, Lincoln wasn't trying to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither side can stop a nuclear strike.
Neither side - no anyone else - will survive a nuclear strike.
We have enough nuclear missiles to destroy the planet.
I think it's time to pull our heads out of are fucking asses and work towards ending this nuclear madness.
Re: (Score:2)
"Neither side can stop a nuclear strike. "
You mean without shooting down the missiles? It isn't a neither side issue, there are far more than two nuclear powers. It may be probable that the world wouldn't survive unrestrained nuclear war with Russia but that isn't the only option. For one, the option of restrained war exists, for another the option of war with someone else exists.
"We have enough nuclear missiles to destroy the planet."
We have individual nuclear weapons which can make a solid claim of being
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The defense industry prefers peace to war, because Congress is stupid and is easily sold on stupid shit even the Pentagon doesn't want. Witness the last... four? Or is it five? programs to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle that blew billions of R&D dollars and never produced a single damn vehicle? But then you get into a war, and suddenly the Army is buying M72 LAWS again (a Vietnam-era weapon) and then some other guys dig some ancient Korean-war era recoiless rifles out of a depot and they work so w [thedrive.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Being a taxpayer instead of a profiteer.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is the only US president for ... 100 years? ... that hasn't started a new overseas conflict.
Peace and a strong economy. Thanks Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're condoning everything that is wrong with the US? Because thats what that comment sounds like you're saying.
Re: (Score:3)
Because trade wars kill so much soldiers. If all wars were trade wars, we'd be a bit better off.
You could make the case that exacerbating the growing famine in China would not be a good thing, but their own government has to draw the line somewhere. However, China is still a communist dictatorship, their government doesn't care about their people (see Hong Kong) because their people can't vote them out but economic hardship is generally a good accelerator for change. A democratic China would be a lot better
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's me, but murderers-for-hire being killed on the job while doing the dirty work of a government with a long history of using it's murderers in wars of aggression around the world (and almost never for defense, because there's basically nobody around anymore who is able to mount much more than a symbolic attack) seems to me to be not such a terrible problem.
The only real problem I have with it is the number of gullible patriots that signed on thinking they were going to defend their country only to
Re: (Score:2)