I see opportunity. US arms industry needs DevOps methodologies to increase velocity.
That comment reminded me of this twitter account: https://twitter.com/devops_borat
U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
11–20 of 67 posts
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#12Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?
They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?
If you want to cut off the snake at its head, cut the money supply. Its not like we live in some great era of terrorism - there's always been deranged people who wish to destroy and whom get a few followers. The difference between that phenomenon and ISIS is they've secured some land that produces oil, and have a buyer - Turkey. This suggests hard-nosed diplomacy before military intervention, especially as the result of the latter 10 years ago is literally the reason we have this current mess.
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#13"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 citi…
where is that quote from? It sounds old.
500,000 bushels of wheat is only about $4m. What fighter plane is this a comparison to?
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#14That's what happens when you supply both sides of a conflict.
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#15Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…
Awesome I'd never heard of 'war is a racket', thanks! In return let me reccomend "the ruses for war" by john quigley and confessions of an economic hitman (and others) by john quigley as well as "a game as old as empire" with foreward by the same.
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#16"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 citi…
For those who aren't familiar with it, the parent is quoting from Eisenhower's 1953 Chance for Peace speech [1].
There's an interesting piece from the NY Times in 2013 about what a bomber would buy today [2]. The situation has become considerably worse.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech
[2] http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/what-would-a-fight...
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#17Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?
They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders.
Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today).
They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence.
This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way.
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#18Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?
They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?
A military response plays directly into their hands so no, this does not merit a military response. What it does merit is isolating them and making sure they have no further access to weapons or funds and to assist those that want to flee.
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#19Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…
Agree. Current patterns in discussion board designs are very unsophisticated and drive content toward uninformed debate and reader exhaustion, rather than constructing understanding.
Our entire news infrastructure (blogs/articles, television, etc) also suffers from similar problems.
Its like we can't break orbit of much shallowness, except in relatively esoteric, insular communities online and offline.
Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?
A military response plays directly into their hands so no, this does not merit a military response. What it does merit is isolating them and making sure they have no further access to weapons or funds and to assist those that want to flee.
You can't tackle the threat already within the borders without a France-style state of emergency, unfortunately.