US Military Needs 7th Branch Just For Cyber, Leaders Say (therecord.media) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Record: A national association of current and former military digital security leaders is calling on Congress to establish a separate cyber service, arguing that the lack of one creates an "unnecessary risk" to U.S. national security. In a March 26 memorandum, the Military Cyber Professional Association urged lawmakers to establish a U.S. Cyber Force in this year's annual defense policy bill.
"For over a decade, each service has taken their own approach to providing United States Cyber Command forces to employ and the predictable results remain inconsistent readiness and effectiveness," according to the group, which boasts around 3,700 members. "Only a service, with all its trappings, can provide the level of focus needed to achieve optimal results in their given domain," the memo states. "Cyberspace, being highly contested and increasingly so, is the only domain of conflict without an aligned service. How much longer will our citizenry endure this unnecessary risk?"
The creation of a Cyber Force would follow the arrival of the Space Force in 2019. It was the first new branch of the U.S. military in 72 years, bringing the total to six. The association's missive is likely to spark fresh debate on Capitol Hill, where an increasing number of policymakers see a cyber-specific military service as an inevitability. [..] In its memo, the association says that while "steps should be taken to establish such a service, with urgency, pursuing it in a hasty manner would likely prove to be a source of great disruption and risk to our own forces and operations." Therefore, any legislative approval of a Cyber Force should be accompanied by a "thorough study to determine what this military service should look like, how it be implemented, and the applicable timeline," according to the group.
"For over a decade, each service has taken their own approach to providing United States Cyber Command forces to employ and the predictable results remain inconsistent readiness and effectiveness," according to the group, which boasts around 3,700 members. "Only a service, with all its trappings, can provide the level of focus needed to achieve optimal results in their given domain," the memo states. "Cyberspace, being highly contested and increasingly so, is the only domain of conflict without an aligned service. How much longer will our citizenry endure this unnecessary risk?"
The creation of a Cyber Force would follow the arrival of the Space Force in 2019. It was the first new branch of the U.S. military in 72 years, bringing the total to six. The association's missive is likely to spark fresh debate on Capitol Hill, where an increasing number of policymakers see a cyber-specific military service as an inevitability. [..] In its memo, the association says that while "steps should be taken to establish such a service, with urgency, pursuing it in a hasty manner would likely prove to be a source of great disruption and risk to our own forces and operations." Therefore, any legislative approval of a Cyber Force should be accompanied by a "thorough study to determine what this military service should look like, how it be implemented, and the applicable timeline," according to the group.
Hmmm.... yep (Score:5, Interesting)
I loathe anything that makes the federal government larger, more expensive, less accountable, or take more power from the people (and States). HOWEVER, the idea of consolidating the existing duplicated cyber security efforts in each branch into a single "force" actually sounds like a good idea. Theoretically it is just moving positions and responsibilities around and the needs should be similar (if not almost identical) for each military branch.
I would love to hear counter-arguments.
less military & more of civil position desk jo (Score:3)
should be less military and more of civil position for an mostly desk job.
Yes there are some field needs for tech work on / near the battlefield
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Maybe. But Signals intelligence (and to be clear, thats what this is) has always been something inside of militaries, and to some extent spooky 3 letter word agencies.
Really the only difference is originally "Signals" spied on radios, now it spies on your teenagers tiktok (or whatever the heck the kids are using these days. Hey man, what was wrong with good old fashioned Usenet, the original social network!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is just SIGINT, then why is this needed at all? Just move some roles into the NSA which already exists and call it a day.
A Cyber branch of the military sounds more like offensive capabilities, such as Stuxnet. Although that's almost certainly from NSA anyway.
This whole idea sounds like it would just create a whole lot of duplication of roles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for a signal brigade.
There's a serious issue of cronyism and lack of aptitude in Signal. At least where I worked at. You can look at my accounts age, see how long I've been commenting, get a feel for how long I've been in tech.
I watched as people with less aptitude get promoted over me. With the exception of my lead who was super smart, which caused strife with our leadership (for some reason they got along with stupid people better)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You also get 1 point of failure. While I do see the benefits of having one place to do it, I don't see why it has to be a separate branch, can't the separate parts work together? Isn't that a quality you want in your armed forces?
You've made someone happy today (Score:3)
The PR people in the Pentagon love to spread the idea that the armed forces are a happy family that are ecstatic about cooperating together. The reality is that fight like ferrets in a sack over gaining larger budgets for themselves rather than the other guys. In that context a single cyber force seems the obvious solution: the only difficulty is how much of the NSA should be inside it.
Re:Hmmm.... yep (Score:5, Interesting)
The best position from which to secure a unit is from within the unit. Presently security duties fall peacemeal to a whole lot of soldiers, airmen, etc. adding somewhere between a little bit to their duties. Each HQ has a specialist or two focusing on that unit's needs and a number of people, such as IT generalists, who help implement security. Most units of the wing/battalion/etc size have a unique threat profile they're responding to. A battalion based in the US which pretty much stays in one place for decades has much different security needs from a battalion which has seen five deployments in the past ten years. A tank battalion has different needs from an air wing or aircraft carrier.
It may be possible to consolidate all the specialists into one location but not without adding information traffic (and potential interception) friction, and taking people away from the unit in question mentally and physically. The guy securing a carrier may no longer have memories of the sea, which is fine. But he also won't have memories of maintaining that one older program used to run the fuel pumps. The guy securing USAG Ansbach in Germany won't have memories of sweating in fear the first time his previous unit was deployed to a war zone, which is fine. But he also won't remember that the colonel over there in building 3302 is an idiot prone to download anything to see the cute kitten. You're increasing risk and adding somewhat to the overall workload for very little benefit.
Re:Hmmm.... yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right. The different security needs of the frontline troops are difficult to understand by someone not familiar with the mission or equipment. The security needs of long-range bombers, fighter's digital data links, AWAC's overall situational awareness, Identify Friend or Foe encryption, laser designation, etc are all unique to the Air Force. The Army has encrypted drones, targeting networks, encrypted communications, etc. Add in the Navy's surface fleet and submarine communications and you start to see a very broad area of expertise that a new military branch would not have.
What the military needs is a new Joint Command that deals exclusively with Cyber Security, much like Special Ops Command integrates the different branch's special operations assets to work together. It needs to merge the professional cyber security experts with the equipment specific subject matter experts to make sure security is implemented from the drawing board all the way to the battlefield.
Imagine the damage that would be done in Ukraine if the telemetry data could be spoofed to feed inaccurate GPS data to the artillery in the rear. The enemy could sit back and let friendly fire destroy half a battalion without firing a shot.
Re: (Score:3)
What the military needs is a new Joint Command that deals exclusively with Cyber Security, much like Special Ops Command integrates the different branch's special operations assets to work together. It needs to merge the professional cyber security experts with the equipment specific subject matter experts to make sure security is implemented from the drawing board all the way to the battlefield.
I think you have the right idea there. A JCSC with service members seconded for training, or on assignment from their service branch for long term service. This would serve to establish standards and practices across branches with defined specialist training, while still respecting the chain of command within a unit.
A much better idea than creating another competing branch of military service.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is what the various cyber security branches are doing today; their roles are more strategic than sysadmin. I would not expect all cyber security responsibilities to be shifted into this new division; local security would still be a thing-- just hopefully with better guidance from a centralized group that has better resources.
Re: (Score:3)
I would love to hear counter-arguments.
Just have the nerds in Space Force do it.
only if uniform is robe & wizard hat (Score:2)
just imagine the fun the erstwhile nerds will have debating which is cooler[*], the " Space Force" or the " Cyber Force"
[*] for indeterminate values of "cooler", which could just as well include fucking lame
Re: (Score:3)
I loathe anything that makes the federal government larger, more expensive, less accountable, or take more power from the people (and States). HOWEVER, the idea of consolidating the existing duplicated cyber security efforts in each branch into a single "force" actually sounds like a good idea. Theoretically it is just moving positions and responsibilities around and the needs should be similar (if not almost identical) for each military branch.
I would love to hear counter-arguments.
The main counterargument is interoperability remains mostly a buzzword. If the branches all "got along" that efficiently, we wouldn't be here talking about a seventh branch within the same military force.
"Cyber" Security is required across ALL aspects of a business. Same goes for the military, unless you plan on taking someones internet toy away completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but now the Shriners will have to get yet another mini Jeep and the Coast Guard won't be the butt of all the jokes anymore... Won't someone think of the Shriners?!
Re: (Score:2)
> I would love to hear counter-arguments.
Merge them into one military. Having the army separate from the navy separate from the air force separate from the marines separate from the coast guard? To say nothing of "Space Force", which doesn't need to exist at all.
Nah, cyber branch of military not needed.... (Score:2)
I, too, loathe anything that makes Federal government more expansive and costly.
But I think this is just an attempted money-grab on the part of the military. The more divisions of the military you have, the more opportunities you have to ask for bigger budgets. You're going to essentially fight for a budget for EACH of them. They're not negotiating for everything as though it's one package.
I doubt the Air Force or even the Army would give up duplication of cyber efforts anyway, even if this new arm was crea
hi (Score:3, Funny)
a/s/l?
wanna cyber?
Re: (Score:3)
a/s/l?
wanna cyber?
Yeah, that's kind of how I read it. As though the military doesn't have enough sexual harassment problems without a whole branch dedicated to it. :-D
Re: hi (Score:2)
no boot camp & no age max & no up or out & (Score:5, Interesting)
Needs to have
no boot camp yes the PT + DI in your face one but do have some kind of tech class room.
no gun skills needed
no max age join
no up or out that can push good tech workers into management roles or even out the cyber unit as they may only be so many slots the higher up the ranks you go.
pay boost over other military
maybe even an 100% at all times pot waver
Re:no boot camp & no age max & no up or ou (Score:3)
If you are imagining Cyber warriors as a bunch of tech nerds in the basement of a building protecting cyberspace, then perhaps.
If you include cyber experts that understand actual weapons, field communications, ICS datalinks, laser designators, etc. then perhaps some actual field time in all three major environments (land, sea, air) would be beneficial.
Only 6% of the US population are military veterans. Most people have no idea what actually happens in a conflict. Expecting college graduates or tech workers
Re:no boot camp & no age max & no up or ou (Score:5, Interesting)
As a veteran I’d argue the military is deluded thinking it can take random recruits, teach them “the cybers” like a trade, and then get good results. It’d be much easier to turn a nerd into a soldier than a random soldier into a nerd.
The military has zero respect for us or what we do, our casual culture, distrust of authority, and attitudes about servant-leadership are repulsive to the kind of person who wants to be a career officer.
Re: (Score:3)
As a veteran I'd argue the military is deluded thinking it can take random recruits, teach them "the cybers" like a trade, and then get good results.
As a veteran, I totally agree it would be a poor choice to take a random recruit and try to train them as a cyber security specialist. But I think that is true for many of the specialized jobs in the military. There are soldiers/sailors/airmen who are extremely talented as engine mechanics, culinary specialists, heavy equipment operators, avionic technicians, musical specialists, nuclear propulsion ratings, logistical specialists, infantryman, etc. etc.
Trying to train someone who is mechanically minded in
No (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cyber is hot for the military roght now and a bunch of bureaucrat types wanna put out bold announcements and attention grabbing think pieces to see if they can get a place at the table.
They might not know what a heap or a datagram is but “they have impressive policy experience” and want people to know they’e ready to be in charge of thousands of lowly subject matter experts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the current setup would be like having Accounting, Sales, C-level and Management each handle their own cybersecurity, device management, network, with their own little IT fiefdoms.
It would be better to have centralized security policies, networks, intrusion detection etc. and perhaps a single point for offensive capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is just about consolidating the protection of the Department of Defense assets then it’s probably n
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's necessary because the NSA exists, but Cyber is definitely a form of modern warfare that is different from general operations.
Shutting down enemy systems with offensive cyber tactics is a necessary part of modern warfare, and doesn't fit neatly into the other branches of the military.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope some of the NSA's resources would get folded into this division. Maybe not all, but some kind of restructuring seems necessary for today's threats and operational requirements.
Isn't this the NSA's mission ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Our Mission
Cybersecurity
NSA Cybersecurity prevents and eradicates threats to U.S. national security systems with a focus on the Defense Industrial Base and the improvement of our weapons’ security. Through our Cybersecurity Collaboration Center, NSA partners with allies, private industry, academics, and researchers to strengthen awareness and collaboration to advance the state of cybersecurity.
Government's answer to everything - create a new bill to supplement the 2000 others that supposedly already did the same thing, or create a new federal department because another one isn't performing their mission.
Re:Isn't this the NSA's mission ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This might actually streamline the current situation. Currently each branch of the military is standing up its own cyber infrastructure. There’s probably massive amounts of duplication there. Having a single professionalized military-cyber organization might even cost less.
Re: Isn't this the NSA's mission ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This might actually streamline the current situation. Currently each branch of the military is standing up its own cyber infrastructure. There’s probably massive amounts of duplication there. Having a single professionalized military-cyber organization might even cost less.
Or create a new branch to fight over mission, budget, etc. and further fragment responses. Centralized oversight and control of a mission has not worked well in the past, that was the idea behind the CIA and later ODNI; an yet we still have separate intelligence branches in virtually every government agency, none of whom will give up their toys in the name of one unified approach. I doubt a Cyber Force would fair much better, and I fear geeks would come up with an even worse song than Space Force.
Good luck (Score:4, Interesting)
So lemme get this straight, you want me to go through a boot camp where a double-digit IQ moron gets to yell at me for a couple weeks, only to eventually pay me a fraction of what I can get by sitting on my ass and just doing my work?
How about no?
Re: (Score:1)
They’d probably have at least military nerds running the boot camp. It’s been a long time since I was in but in my day the military was laughably bad at IT so you might still get an idiot for a DA (Drill Administrator)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but an idiot who is pissed at the fact that this egghead will make more money per month than he'll make in a lifetime while sitting on his ass at a desk job, so let's grind him down to the bone extra hard so he at least remembers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but an idiot who is pissed at the fact that this egghead will make more money per month than he'll make in a lifetime while sitting on his ass at a desk job, so let's grind him down to the bone extra hard so he at least remembers.
Pay will certainly be an issue; but the military already does that for pilots, nuclear trained sailors, and other specialties to lessen the gap, while offering job security and a pension that is generous as well as allows for retirement early enough for a second career. Money is important but so are other things.
As for blindly following orders, that is not how the US or other competent military fights. There certainly is training and dogma on how to fight, but you need independent thinkers for when things
Re: (Score:1)
Nah contrary to popular belief drill instructors are pretty professional. I’m not inclined to say nice things about the military either. I was shocked when I ran into my “crazy one” about a week after boot camp. He was really nice and told me that I was one of the funniest recruits he’d had in awhile.
He showed no signs of ever being amused by my antics when I was in boot camp though. When he would yell at us I liked to respond with positive messages of friendship and love and th
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
They would have to relax some rules for the Cyber Command if they want to get the right people. Pay is a real issue though. So is blindly following orders. The thinking people they want are going to question things and are going to want to get paid properly.
Re: (Score:2)
The thinking people they want are going to question things and are going to want to get paid properly.
This is already a recruitment problem for all the TLAs, now they want to add an ETLA which will have the same problems...
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that to take this job you pretty much already need a college level education, or rather, if you can do it without, you don't need one.
Re: (Score:1)
As an officer there are plenty of opportunities for continuing education on the taxpayers dime. Also while they’re big on scooping up college educated officers for jobs like this they also fully believe that Comptia is capable of producing enlisted “cyber-warriors”
The military constantly underestimates the kind of training required to actually do this work, When I was in they struggled to run a lan with two switches and uhhhh other problems.
How about audit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: How about audit? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean the Russians spent a fraction of that on a similarly opaque military to have a similarly impressive arsenal just collapse because superpower militaries are only for show and a default employer of last resort anyway. We can see Russia got a bad deal, spending a fraction the amount we are.
Let's see the numbers. Because at this point, there's only a few ways this could go.
Re: (Score:2)
More inter-service rivalry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
private companies (Score:2)
The US can have a Cyber Command, it can protect the government I guess. Maybe they could regulate things like utilities. But a lot of cybersecurity issues happen with private companies. How is the Cyber Command going to protect the average business? They probably can't very easily and won't be able to do anything affordably.
Anyone ready to have the Great Firewall in the US? Not me.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this would be the start of a slippery slope where we are suddenly classifying these issues as the military attacks on civilian infrastructure that many of them are. Except mixed in with random opportunists in it for the money. Still, retaliation and escalation would become inevitable.
Overlap (Score:2)
Cybermen (Score:2)
So will there be competition... (Score:1)
Sorry Sir can turn on communications (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Space Force" was give the wrong name? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cyberspace Force ;)
US Military Needs 8th Branch, Leaders Say (Score:2)
we already have one (Score:2)
undoing mistaken mod by posting (Score:2)
I haven't seen this work well (Score:2)
I work in a government agency where they created a whole org to handle "cybersecurity". It lead to a weird relationship, where we're all governed by documents we never see or are allowed access to, infrequent internal audits with a confusing agenda, and the lack of training or knowledge of any of our engineers.
The worst part to me is on the software engineering side: they just kind of said it's "All Cybersecurity" and all they worry about is port scanning and public network holes; nobody here learns how to
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Informative)
Given that no human has traveled beyond beyond the Earth-Moon gravitational orbit (Hill sphere) nor beyond Translunar space, I'd say having a space force is a bit premature. We don't have any "force" beyond Earth local space, mostly unarmed and unmanned craft in xGeo orbits. It's like declaring yourself a navy when you have no seaworthy vessels, only some row boats. When we have Space Ships for our Space Force I'll be impressed.
In December of last year, the US Senate authorized a record $858 billion in annual defense spending, $45 billion more than proposed by President Joe Biden. It doesn't take a big brain to wonder where the blame lies here.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that no human has traveled beyond beyond the Earth-Moon gravitational orbit (Hill sphere) nor beyond Translunar space, I'd say having a space force is a bit premature.
It's even worse than that considering United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) has existed for literally decades as a US/Canadian multinational joint organization.
If you haven't heard of them before, it's likely because they're tucked deeply inside Cheyenne Mountain (NORAD).
The "Space Force" sounded quite wastefully redundant when I first heard it.
Re: (Score:2)
NORAD hasn't been in Cheyenne Mountain in a LONG time.
Re: (Score:2)
NORAD hasn't been in Cheyenne Mountain in a LONG time.
Cheyenne Mountain still serves as a warm standby to Peterson AFB where NORAD is now headquartered. NORAD has been minimized but still represents part of the daily population in the facility. And given the threat of EMP attacks in which NORAD is basically impervious to, it still holds considerable value with regards to sustaining critical communications in the event of such an attack.
Ironically enough, CMAS is now owned by AF Space Command. So not entirely defunct. It takes a LOT to sustain that particula
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I didn't mean to say that Cheyenne was shut down, just that norad isn't headquartered there anymore. Although I thought that norad was now at Offutt AFB now?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I didn't mean to say that Cheyenne was shut down, just that norad isn't headquartered there anymore. Although I thought that norad was now at Offutt AFB now?
It's been a minute for me personally, but NORAD HQ is at Peterson. Would make sense given the warm standby location. CONR appears to be a mix of several bases within the US. NORAD is more the monitoring side, while Offutt more represents the weapons side (nuclear deterrance and response) as USSTRATCOM HQ. They certainly work hand in hand.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Space Force" sounded quite wastefully redundant when I first heard it.
Not really. It was just a formalization of things being done already by the USAF wrt to satellites and whatever we put in orbit. The "Space Force" is mostly made of USAF personnel that were already doing these things.
A lot of the blowback was because of bad PR and the cringe fanfare that the 45 used to announce it while we were dealing with several crises.
It might be more expensive upfront, but it is not necessarily wasteful if we now have a dedicated branch focusing on these things we were already do
Re: (Score:2)
So says you. There are all kinds of experimental and top secret space craft we know about and don’t know about. Just admit that you think it was a bad idea because “orange man bad”. If Obama or Biden proposed it, you would be hailing it as the “great idea ever!” and “long overdue”.
Cyber-war is the biggest threat (Score:2)
Yeah, this was the obligatory joke I was looking for, but you're still feeding a troll and propagating it's Subject.
Re: (Score:2)
In English, a ship carries cargo or passengers to and from a destination. a satellite by definition has no practical destination.
If you want to mean in the most general sense possible, a spaceship is a vessel that flies through space. But I did point out in my previous post that I don't consider Earth orbits with in Hill Sphere to be Outer Space.
Re: (Score:1)
Wut, the satellite's destination is the edge of space and carries information. Information is now deemed more valuable than oil. Most if not all satellites operate beyond the Karman line which is generally deemed "outer space" by the scientific community.
Re: (Score:2)
A satellite orbits the Earth, therefor it is not in outer space but in a region dominated by Earth's gravity. You and I also in a region dominated by Earth's gravity.
As for an orbit being a destination, that's a stretch in my opinion. And it's not how people normally interpret the meaning of the word destination. Practically speaking, a satellite runs out of power long before it reaches its final destination. The end result being a splashdown on Earth or burning up skidding through the atmosphere. But I'm o
Re: (Score:1)
Satellites are outside the atmosphere
No, they are not.
"Earth's atmosphere stretches from the surface of the planet up to as far as 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles) above. After that, the atmosphere blends into space" (National Geographic Society, May 19, 2022) The vast majority of our satellites are at altitudes between 160 and 2,000 kilometers.
Re: (Score:2)
Space? I keep telling you. It's not even translunar space, let alone beyond the Hill Sphere.
As for outside the atmosphere, only a few of the satellites we have in orbit are completely beyond the atmosphere (exosphere), more are well in the thermosphere [wikipedia.org], especially all the satellites the Space Force would conceivably control. It's unlikely they will replace the US Air Force's Project Vela [wikipedia.org] satellites for nuclear detonation detection. That program was a product of its era's geopolitics.
For convenience of handi
Re: (Score:1)
You should kill yourself now. Hopefully you did not procreate.
Yes, I can see why you would think that. It would be terrible if there were yet more people smarter than you.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution means I can form a fully armed Space militia. And 10 U.S. Code SS 246 b.2 would define this as an unorganized militia. Hoping that Elon Musk will send us up at a discounted rate I can afford.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My personal favourite was when the General Assembly of the United Nations laughed at him.
I neve thought I'd see the day when the whole world laughed at the President of the United States of America. Hilarious.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> My personal favourite was when the General Assembly of the United Nations laughed at him.
My favorite too. Germany's reaction aged like fine milk. Now they're paying the US top dollar for natural gas.
Germany Reacts to Trump's UNGA Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
German minister criticizes U.S. over ‘astronomical’ natural gas prices
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/0... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We all laughed at Trump because of what he is.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they laughed at Trump because they didn't believe him. To the Fourth Reich and the UN, Russia invading Europe and cutting off their gas supply was preposterous, after all even in the most remote possibility where you got a weak US President and a weak Germany that allowed it, they had a green backup plan. Turns out, Trump was right.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they laughed at Trump because they didn't believe him.
They laughed at Trump when he told them he was the greatest president America had ever had.
We all saw it, you can pretend something else happened, but the whole world heard hm say that and we all thought it was funny.
The other really funny moment was when he looked all confused, because when he spouts that crap at his rallies people don't laugh.
To the Fourth Reich and the UN, Russia invading Europe and cutting off their gas supply was preposterous,
Russia didn't cut off Europe's gas supply.
Turns out, Trump was right.
No he wasn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump could be even worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump could be even worse than handing Ukraine to Putin...
Russia is still an expansive empire, one should have no illussions they would stop after Ukraine... they expand as far as they can...
Invaded Georgia, no one objected?
Took Crime, response was not hard?
Took land bridge to Crimea.
If left with that - in 10 years they will go for land connection to Transnistria...
And with Trump 2.0 breaking NATO in 30 years they could reach for Baltic States and land bridge to Kaliningrad through Northern Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia isn't America's job to police though.... (Score:2)
Unpopular opinion, I know. But as far as I'm concerned, it's foolish to waste money trying to stop an expansionist nation like Russia (or China for that matter) from trying to take over surrounding areas. This war in the Ukraine should have been the Ukraine's to handle on their own. And if they couldn't afford to fight the war against Russia or lacked the manpower? Then let them lose it to them.
Do I like that situation? No, not at all. But it's the outcome you're inevitably going to get when major parts of
Re: (Score:1)
Putin didn't invade Ukraine during Trump for good reason. Same reason North Korea didn't launch missiles or Iran didn't retaliate or Saudi Arabia joined Israel in trade deals. Because Trump wasn't scared to say what he did and world leaders knew that a rocket up the ass (as in what happened to some Iranian leaders) was on the table.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
He chased many H-1Bs out of the US, and the entire quality of IT in US businesses suffered and almost tanked because of the lack of world class professionals able to run critical infrastructure.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
STOP suggesting that these people are able to string 10 words together into a coherent thought. They are worse than hollywood actors off screen. At least the actors tend to have scripts and can do multiple takes and edit them before anyone see thems. The DC actors are mostly impromptu and most of them can't even spell shoe laces let alone tie them.
As far as military command goes. It's quite strange that I've met quite a few high ranking officers and it seems that from major up, brain power tends to drop exponentially. I think that higher ranking officials are too dependent on letting their subordinates think for them that when it comes time to dust off the old brain, it's more trouble than it's worth.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to be able to string 10 words together, you just need to ensure that inflation isn't so high that eggs are $6 a dozen, Gas is cheap enough to where commuting is easy, and the economy is strong enough I have a job to go to. Check those 3 boxes and my president could be hitting himself in the head while screaming "FRANK AND BEANS" for all I care. Problems sometimes have to be simplified and reduced t
Re: (Score:3)
As far as military command goes. It's quite strange that I've met quite a few high ranking officers and it seems that from major up, brain power tends to drop exponentially.
You have stepped into an area of which I have had considerable experience. I agree that the chances of meeting a true genius above the rank of major is... well, an impossibility; however, the number of truly incompetent personnel is very limited. What is being selected for at the higher ranks is reliability and consistency. This usually requires being smarter than average, but not very smart overall.
That is why I object to your characterization of "brain power dropping exponentially". I have met some amazin
Re: (Score:2)
That ship sailed a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it's such a stupid term. But what's a better word to use?
Re: (Score:2)