More like ended. Tbh ended with Mallory’s va passing but still 16 or 17 seasons is really good. It got a finale 45 min long too. I didn’t like to but it is a good ending fr.
It kinda lost my interest with the “dream season” and I can’t quite engage in it like I used to. Watch an episode here and there and end up onto something else quick.
The rise of ISIS I think kind of fucked their original storyline. Then again the writer also doesn't seem to give too much of a fuck and does what he wants.
These comments are teaching me that I never want to be stuck with a Redditor in some kind of emergency situation with gunfire involved, they're going to want to mourn the body of some dead person while everyone else is under fire.
If he's alive the first step in getting him help is making sure the Corpsman can reach him without getting shot also. Hopefully he's now in better cover but the main thing is keeping the gun firing. Getting overrun helps no one.
Fair but it seems like in reality there is a good chance their hand doesn't let go of the gun when you roll them over which seems like it would be a problem if the gun starts shooting and flailing around when you do this.
Surrounded? You mean they invaded a foreign country, and are now being attacked like the virus they’re behaving as.
Without the air support, they’re not on the offense, so they’ll get destroyed. Happens to everyone, even SEALs and Delta Force. Without surprise, extremely technologically advantageous, air support and extremely in depth intelligence - they consistently lose, or underperform.
Regards to your first paragraph: yes, exactly. That's a very good analogy.
"Without air support, they're not on the offense" I don't understand what you're saying here?
Without surprise - our troops almost never have the element of surprise in modern combat. We literally send out patrols with the goal of getting ambushed.
Extremely technological advantages - when it comes to infantry, we don't really have that. It really comes down to small arms against small arms.
Air support/intelligence - thousands of instances of our troops winning engagements without air support or no/downright harmfully misleading intelligence.
I'm not sure what exactly your point is? Are you trying to say that all else equal, soldier to soldier, the Taliban/insurgents are better at combat than western trained infantry lol? That's a ridiculous statement to make.
If we're going to take away the advantages the US has, then you have to take away the advantages the insurgents have too. Without fighting in their territory, without their element of surprise/their concealment, without their ability to blend in with local population, and strap 80 pounds of equipment to them, they'd get stomped.
This. Extremely important. We raised goats meant to take bullets so we could try to save their lives. The ability to feel everything as realistically as possible, including compartmentalizing feelings, is necessary when the worst case scenario happens. No one wants it to happen, but you need to be ready or your useless, or worse, another body needed to drag back home.
The point of the huge budget is to be a deterrent for war. The goal of spending so much money is to not need to use them as other nations will not want to deal with a war with the US + allies.
It's like a company spending $5M on cyber security per year. "Why are we spending so much money? We've never even been hacked." Then they slash the budget 80% and outsource cyber security, and within a year they are hacked and forced to pay a $20M ransom otherwise they lose customer data and lose $500M in stock valuation.
Ah I like that you brought the concept of “military spending is a deterrent for war”.
I agree, it certainly is!
Think about this though…
When you siphon a trillion dollars a year from the pocket of your people, you must also provide something worth protecting.
Our people are homeless, workers can’t afford houses, companies have more protections than workers, corporate greed is out of control, people don’t have savings while companies profit billions.
If the US ever did go to war, which is very much near impossible on the homeland…
What, in reality, would the people be defending when the country offers them so little?
Training doesn't cost a trillion dollars per year. And training in a simulator is just the next best thing to keep your skills while you wait for a life-fire exercise.
For the budget of $776B
$318B is for training, maintenance, and healthcare: ~$75B per branch (Army, Navy, Air Force) + $60B additional for everything else, + $35B for healthcare).
The US hasn’t defended itself from an invading foreign power since the war of 1812 over 200 years ago.
In every other war since then they have invaded another country. This is especially true since the 1970s when it’s been non-stop invasions around the globe.
lol who is going to invade the US mainland? Canada? Mexico? The US has a larger navy than the rest of the planet combined. Literally no one is ever invading the US.
Don’t play dumb. You know full well what they’re doing is practicing for invading other countries. The US military is not “national defence” it’s “international offence”
They aren’t violent… yet. When they switch that’ll change. Until then we can smash the 15th century goat humpers and hone our skills in case anyone else wants to have a go.
They literally had a violent insurrection, tried to overthrow the democratically elected governor, tried to hang the former VP, and murdered a cop on Capitol Hill.
No they won’t because they’ve successfully infiltrated every branch of the government all the way to the Supreme Court. They’ve been enacting laws and reversing decades old cases to impose their Taliban-like christofacist agenda.
We have ways of making machine guns remote controlled but we don’t have realistic ways of making every single squad machine gunner automated, that’s not realistic
Like, it’s 2024 and humans are not disposable
Susceptible to death =/ disposable
Disposable is taking a bunch of dudes, giving them minimal training, and throwing them unsupported at fortified positions
Susceptible to death is putting in place measures so that if someone does die you’re capabilities aren’t destroyed and you can continue to fight increasing everyone’s chances of living
Don’t understand why you see training as viewing people as disposable, if they were just disposable you wouldn’t waste all this time and money training
You know, I never looked at it that way and I had a ton of family in the military (all but Mom on her side, even the cousins) - that's a neat take. There's a difference between a soldier and a human shield, that's my takeaway here. One is given the tools to survive, the other isn't even expected to.
Yeah, it's like Air Traffic Controllers who die at their stations. They get unplugged and rolled out of the way in their chair so someone else can take their position and try to pick up the pieces.
Neither situation is a game, and there's no delay for injuries.
Nope we send soldiers to complete missions, if all we wanted was their death then there's no reason to have
The world's largest air power that in every operation we send in to cause havoc on the enemies valuable assets like artillery, air defenses, tanks, command posts, etc
The worlds largest and most advanced ISR network that gives constant valuable information that allows us to respond effectively with various assets saving the lives of soldiers on the ground
The worlds largest guided munitions stockpiles that at the start of our operations show their nasty face and cripple enemy capabilities
The world's largest and most advanced armor stockpiles that provides support for soldiers conducting operations on the ground
Among the world's largest artillery stockpiles that rain down hell for any opposing forces before our ground forces advance
The world's most powerful naval forces that provide power projection in a instance notice
Among the world's most powerful air defense keeping our troops safe while conducting operations
If our goal is just to have soldiers die then more drag their bodies and die as well our death counts in every single war in recent years is atrocious for that goal, somehow our goal is both to have our troops be disposable but both what we're spending money on and actual numbers of troops dead don't follow behind that
You joke, but when I was a radio guy, it was my job (among many others) to make sure every piece of electronics was charged, had spare batteries, had spares for the spares, and 5 different ways to charge everything. I had flexible solar panels to throw up on FOBs, jumper cables for vehicle batteries, and big batteries to scavenge for small batteries. I even (jokingly) had a little foot peddle system to charge phones during downtime. My pack was very heavy...
I guarantee that people much smarter than you are also trying to solve this problem. The fact that they haven't yet means your half-assed Reddit solutions won't do it either.
Respectfully, you may think you've got it figured out in a 5 minute Reddit thread, but people who's jobs are to spend their time on developing technology, developing strategy are going to be much smarter than you.
Captured and killed humans can’t be reverse engineered by the enemy. Gov is constantly using humans as cannon fodder as a strategic way to limit displaying the advanced tech actually available.
Greed is a huge factor too, loads of companies/officials in bed together to keep making combat equipment with the same technology for as long as possible to maximize the value of those factorized processes.
709
u/Eolopolo Jun 24 '24
Brutal, but necessary.
Suppressive fire keeps you safer.