Drums of war

I’ve advocated for a mandatory 5-year exclusion period between when a military member is discharged and when they can join the police. Soldiering is not policing (or at least, is not what policing ought to be).

6 Likes

4 Likes

Hmm. I’ve said that in 2020 the difference between soldiers and police is that soldiers have rules of engagement.

1 Like
1 Like

Was wondering what thread this should go in. Unfortunately it’s this one here.

FYI ask your lawyer,. But if you are intending to break the law it’s better to do it in some vague, undefined, non specific way.

ETA “disapplying the law”, how peak fucking Tory.

5 Likes

Update on this:

The AG should go too. Advising the government to break the law should be a firing offence.

Further to the above (breaking the law in specific ways, in this case EU law direct effect) this will usually trigger specific remedies. In this case the UK has signed a treaty saying the ECJ is the arbiter. So they seem to be saying that they will ignore that as well.

No trade agreement with the UK is worth shit. The Tories cannot be trusted to do business. Count your fingers if you shake hands with one of those shady fuckers.

ETA
And of course don’t shake hands and particularly not with a Tory. There’s a global pandemic out there!

10 Likes
7 Likes
1 Like

Except as Beau pointed out, it’s not the top brass that makes appropriations for contracts. It’s Congress, who also has the power to authorize wars in the first place (though that’s been given over to the executive to some degree).

This isn’t to say the top brass doesn’t have a role to play in the military industrial complex, but despite the black hole the defense budget is, congress and the executive have a lot of say in how much money they get, how the money gets appropriated, and where the military goes in the world.

7 Likes

There have been a number of recent weapons systems that have been funded and shoved down the military’s throats despite them saying they don’t want them or they were not applicable. Absolutely not defending the generals, but I don’t think he can lay the MIC exploitation at their feet.

9 Likes
3 Likes

It’s a military-industrial-political complex.
The political element provides funding, use-cases and proving grounds.

4 Likes

Forget Terminators, says US military, the next-gen AI battles will hinge upon net infrastructure, not killer robots

The nation to dominate modern warfare with AI will not have necessarily built the most deadly killer robot or algorithm – it’ll be the one that has the best infrastructure to support and quickly deploy new technologies in the battlefield, according to US military experts.

Colonel Brad Boyd, the chief of Joint Warfighting Operations at the Department of Defense’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), said the most important work is “all the unsexy stuff.” The ability to collect data, curate it, and move it seamlessly across software pipelines to train new systems or improve old models is more critical than developing the best autonomous weapon.

2 Likes

For example:

6 Likes

Yes, but:

The senior ranks of the US military are just as corrupt as Congress. Which is to say, pretty much absolutely and universally.

Post-retirement, almost all of them end up as lobbyists for the arms industry; pre-retirement, they’re highly prone to acting in the interests of their planned future employers.

Both the politicians and the generals work for the billionaires that own basically everything in the USA. And those billionaires absolutely love the forever wars; they benefit directly via MIC profits, and indirectly by maintaining the white supremacist capitalist empire.

6 Likes

I don’t disagree. They’re not the puppet masters, tho.

That’s the key here, I’d argue, which Beau does address.

That’s the thing about something like the MIC, it’s complicated and there are no “puppet masters” as much as there are beneficiaries. Trump is a beneficiary and is trying to blame less central actors in shaping the MIC to his own benefit.

3 Likes

Here’s another relevant podcast:

4 Likes

The marines have done away with tanks completely. I thought the Army was getting theirs.

image

9 Likes

Probably not. For one, they already have more than they need. Second, there are some differences between the USMC variant and the Army variant which would require a pricey conversion. I’m sure the Army said it wasnt worth the investment. Easier to mothball the USMC tanks.

1 Like