Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kingfisher1112]

If we get a large influx of equipment NOW, it will both cost money to store and maintain it, and by the time we need it, it'll be both worn out AND obsolete. Old gear tends to cost more to service than brand new stuff, you know.

e.g. saving money for next-gen jets is better than buying jets now you're not going to use until later.

A lot of our stuff is already old and worn-out US Army and Marines Gear. We could save money by grabbing German tanks that run on diesel, and a cheaper rifle that doesn't cost 7000$ a pop.

Cutting down on training costs. If we get a large influx of people and equipment now, then training and orientation can be done en masse, instead of courses for few people.

Hmm, I want to cut costs for my business, so I should hire a lot of staff and procure a lot of equipment now, far more than I actually need, so they are ready in the future.

Also, I'm pretty sure that somewhere out there the spirits of a thousand managers are screaming out in agony.

Hmm, I have many capable staff with which to train new staff. Let's hire one at a time, and have the trainers waste time on one when they could teach 50. And it's more of an efficiency thing than cost-cutting thing.

[Max White]

Hmm, I have many capable staff with which to train new staff. Let's hire one at a time, and have the trainers waste time on one when they could teach 50. And it's more of an efficiency thing than cost-cutting thing.

Yes. Exactly. It actually trialed and proven is!
Because we don't need a sudden influx of 50, so it is cheaper to just get 1, and then maybe later when we need another, get another. Don't get 50 just for much later on.

[kingfisher1112]

Hmm, I have many capable staff with which to train new staff. Let's hire one at a time, and have the trainers waste time on one when they could teach 50. And it's more of an efficiency thing than cost-cutting thing.

Yes. Exactly. It actually trialed and proven is!
Because we don't need a sudden influx of 50, so it is cheaper to just get 1, and then maybe later when we need another, get another. Don't get 50 just for much later on.

Oh, we don't need any? Sorry, small, poor nations, no combat engineer support to build infrastructure for you!

[Reelya]

You can have professional actual engineers to build civilian infrastructure cheaper than trained military personnel, so that fails on the "efficiency argument".

Why have "combat support personnel" doing non-combat support roles in the first place (they're not professional civil engineers so they won't do that job as well as a specialist would). The fact that they're doing something only marginally connected to their core training is indicative of the fact we don't have enough relevant work for them in the first place.

[Blargityblarg]

As we go further into the future, a strong military will become less and less necessary.

This is assuming the world turns into a happy adventure-filled place with no war. That is the least likely occurrence.

Look at the historical trend. We're getting less violent. That said, America's not going to decrease its military anytime soon because rrr commies something something socialism, so that's a largely unused umbrella we can (continue to) take shelter under.

[Max White]

Oh, we don't need any? Sorry, small, poor nations, no combat engineer support to build infrastructure for you!

Need engineers? Call the armed services! Right?

[kingfisher1112]

You can have professional actual engineers to build infrastructure cheaper than trained military personnel, so that fails on the "efficiency argument".

So combat engineers who would otherwise do nothing being sent to do stuff is less effective then engineers here building infrastructure here and are under the command of private companies who have no interests in small, poor nations?

As we go further into the future, a strong military will become less and less necessary.

This is assuming the world turns into a happy adventure-filled place with no war. That is the least likely occurrence.

Look at the historical trend. We're getting less violent. That said, America's not going to decrease its military anytime soon because rrr commies something something socialism, so that's a largely unused umbrella we can (continue to) take shelter under.

Ahem. North Korea, Middle East, Israel? Those are all fairly likely to explode soon, I.e, 15 years.

Oh, we don't need any? Sorry, small, poor nations, no combat engineer support to build infrastructure for you!

Need engineers? Call the armed services! Right?

See above.

[Max White]

So combat engineers who would otherwise do nothing being sent to do stuff is less effective then engineers here building infrastructure here and are under the command of private companies who have no interests in small, poor nations?

No they wouldn't be doing nothing, they would have civilian jobs. Remember, the idea is to not have these positions in the first place.
You aren't very good at this, are you?

[kingfisher1112]

So combat engineers who would otherwise do nothing being sent to do stuff is less effective then engineers here building infrastructure here and are under the command of private companies who have no interests in small, poor nations?

No they wouldn't be doing nothing, they would have civilian jobs. Remember, the idea is to not have these positions in the first place.
You aren't very good at this, are you?

The kinds of countries that these guys will be in aren't the most stable. Civilian engineers are not suitable. PMC's are too expensive and a little dickish. Hey, we have trained personnel! Let's use them!
The world will never be without war as long as we are here. That is a fact. There will be less and less, but there will still be war. Even then, if there was an international No-War agreement, what would we do if someone broke it? Declare war?

[Blargityblarg]

As we go further into the future, a strong military will become less and less necessary.

This is assuming the world turns into a happy adventure-filled place with no war. That is the least likely occurrence.

Look at the historical trend. We're getting less violent. That said, America's not going to decrease its military anytime soon because rrr commies something something socialism, so that's a largely unused umbrella we can (continue to) take shelter under.

Ahem. North Korea, Middle East, Israel? Those are all fairly likely to explode soon, I.e, 15 years.

As opposed to the fuckin' superpowers thirty years ago. These are all relatively small nations, and many of them are really just the dying throes of the Cold War in the first place.

The world will never be without war as long as we are here.

I agree, if 'we' is shorthand for 'people who believe we will never be without war'

[Max White]

Civilian engineers are not suitable.

Care to tell me the difference between a civilian and a soldier?

[kingfisher1112]

Civilian engineers are not suitable.

Care to tell me the difference between a civilian and a soldier?

Civilians have no combat training. I.e. Rebel comes out of bush when civilian is building bridge. Civilian gets shot. Rest of civilians get shot.
Combat Engineers: Rebel comes out of bush. Soldier shoots rebel.

[Max White]

What countries do you think we are helping here?
I mean we pretty much support the Asia-Pacific region, but it doesn't have much military conflict going on right now. The Middle East and parts of Africa that are torn with war lords we are staying out of for the moment.

[Blargityblarg]

Civilian engineers are not suitable.

Care to tell me the difference between a civilian and a soldier?

Civilians have no combat training. I.e. Rebel comes out of bush when civilian is building bridge. Civilian gets shot. Rest of civilians get shot.
Combat Engineers: Rebel comes out of bush. Soldier shoots rebel.

I'm sure that would be an issue if we were providing humanitarian aid in the middle of battlezones.

[Sheb]

Well, you're rarely building infrastructure in the middle of a war zone when you're doing development work. Plus, if your argument for maintaining an army is that we need to build bridge in Africa, you agree that we don't need tanks, or a real air force, or a navy? that's plenty of money that can be saved.