Why is America not using it's technology to end wars?

>end wars
Do you even realize how much of the economy is based on building ships, guns making uniforms, food and so on...do you know what would happen? You really think the goal is to end wars?

Machines contain secret technology, use them to much in non decisive battles, the enemy can extract them, reproduce them and you loose the edge.

Are you fucking kidding me?
So what when you get in a fight you just slap around weakly?
Because I'd get a baseball bat and knock your fucking teeth out and end the fight

What makes you think they have any interest in ending wars?

Finally, a valid point.
But what about missiles fired from an unreachable area somehow, isn't that possible?

But wait a second, I thought our JERBS were going to be replaced by robots? So why are they pushing the robot meme while not being able to have a military fully powered by machines with the amount of spending that we do each year all while sending in immigrants because human lives are....cheap? But I thought they were sending in their best? Doctors, lawyers, firemen...why is it all so confusing?

I'm sure big scary Jews make you very frightened but this isn't really a conspiracy thread so don't derail please and thank you.

Like you've ever been in a fight.
Too busy getting stoned and rolling around in the grass.

No one posts anything serious on Jow Forums anymore, so fuck me for bothering, but: we use a fuck ton of technology in the various warzones/peacekeeping operations. The problem is reconstruction support and counter insurgency are enabled by soldiers who can hold territory. Air power, drones, missiles, bombs, artillery, etc don't defend ground.

This is an entirely fair point, and I wasn't actually taking a lefty anti-war stance, though I realize it could have seemed that wa. There's a cost associated with using military tech, and I include that in it.
Military hardened, super stealth, speshul killing machinery is more expensive. Also, the air force has to put those 10k coffee mugs somewhere in the budget. Interestingly, a Blackhawk helicopter has a unit cost of 30 million dollars, for a base model, and costs something like 20k per hour of flight time. So.

Attached: OH-58D_1st_Squadron,_17th_Cavalry_Regiment_(cropped).jpg (908x619, 132K)

I've been in plenty of fights but that has nothing to do with this or even what we were talking about you fucking troll, I'm not even a fucking liberal. Seriously next god damn shitpost is getting reported.

So you're saying because it's more difficult for us to get into the areas we aren't supposed to be in?

because they need to sacrifice goyim to the volcano demon to fulfill the end time prophecy

Attached: a7db735cdd2245396683eae1f1d8d19aec37b0fa3ef00088de5debfe0dbe1168.jpg (816x404, 44K)

>We keep sending humans in... Why?

You can't win a war from the air, you have to take and hold land, and this still has to be done by people on the ground as it has been done for all of human history.

Afghanistan is solid proof of this, we can bomb the Taliban all we want, but they are just going to keep coming back unless we actually go in, occupy their country and take absolute control, which we aren't willing to do because we "don't want to destroy their way of life".

Attached: 1552674438028.png (1190x1194, 1.33M)

gee, I wonder who's behind this post

Attached: rub rub rub.gif (444x225, 360K)

Attached: feed me.jpg (495x921, 444K)

Interesting point.
Do you think there are any, more efficient yet colder strategies we could use?
Like a nuke/large explosive that we could sort of use as a shock collar?

Let's say we just killed all the terrorist group leaders in a small country. Then we plant a nuke under a large civilian office building. Showing them, "ok, keep your shit together or youre done"

Why not both?

Attached: 1551462301616.jpg (667x891, 138K)

They're right dumbass. Wars print money. The military industrial complex gets nothing from seeing them end. The Pentagon is always developing expensive tools of death to play with, Lockheed Martin and other companies makes billions from outsourcing every year and PMCs will continue to protect corporate interests in conflict zones after US military forces properly leave those areas. (Afghan poppies and Dynacorp's mining rights and afghanistan are some examples)

Dude I'm mostly just mad that thousands of Americans have been dying for the past 30 years or so because of sandpeople throwing backpacks at trucks and shit.
I thought the party with the most/best/biggest guns is supposed to win.

*in afghanistan

I'm not interested in you.
I know people in the military. You're telling me their lives mean nothing? Go fuck yourself.

The ending is the sad part. the doing is the happy part, the beginning is the fun part. We just want to have fun and be happy. That's why.

f35 is a turkey.

Because our economy is propped up by the military-industrial complex, and our military itself is a joke and relies solely on pummeling the shit out of technologically inferior forces with long-range weaponry, and we can't even do that right. Almost two decades in Afghanistan and the Taliban is still the de facto government outside of the cities. The moment an actual rival power like Russia or China steps up, we're done.

Attached: 1552461648007.jpg (542x738, 81K)

I don't know dude, I'm pretty proud of how we ended WW2.
Fuckin gooks didn't know what hit em.

A tomahawk missile costs about $1.5 million each plus maintenance, transport, facilities, and other costs. Training and equipping an infantryman costs about $100k. Loss of life has a cost but the cost is lower than you think.

I already told the other you to fuck off, I get where you're coming from, but you're on the edge of talking about conspiracy shit.

Have you forgotten that people don't work in the military for free? You get paid, you get scholarships, you get benefits. It's not like it's generating 1000x input/output profit because it's not. It stimulates the economy, sure, but I'm not talking economics either.

Let me break down the TOPIC further for you, why fight with sticks and rocks when you have guns? It's that simple.

>Do you think there are any, more efficient yet colder strategies we could use?

Committing to fighting an actual war instead of a counter insurgency operation is all that really needs to be done, but the body count on both sides would be much higher and even that might not even work considering that Afghanistan is barely a country. Most of its citizens don't recognize the government as a legit form of authority. It's just a bunch of tribes that hate each other and the only form of leadership and law they recognize are their village elders.

Your idea of holding the country hostage with threats of violence would only work if the country in question was wholly unified politically, which no nation is.

Attached: IMG_1561.jpg (629x731, 344K)

sand niggers aren’t capable of technology

>You're telling me their lives mean nothing?
No. Their lives enabled some corporate fucks to pad out their checkbooks, while also advancing Israel's national interests.

>I thought the party with the most/best/biggest guns is supposed to win.
Read Sun Tzu, dumbass.

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day. What makes you think an entire nation of barely-literate barbarians is going to sit down for that? We've gutted Afghanistan. At least two generations of men have been culled from their gene pool so far, and they haven't given up yet. They believe that death in struggle against an enemy brings them to paradise. The best we can do is keep them out of our countries and massacre them by the tens of thousands when they try to get in.

Holy shit is it really that expensive?
Alright, interesting. Are they working toward, well saving up for a more effective solution that isn't so costly?
Or is that just like the cost of all our ammo? (Every shot counts etc)
Because if that's the case I'd really hope we are working toward waiting for that perfect moment snipe shot to save bullets.

>you're on the edge of talking about conspiracy shit
Not an argument. AIPAC literally dictates our foreign policy.

Attached: 1552344257779.jpg (677x453, 61K)

Hence why they should why the entire country should be held at gunpoint.
Sounds complicated.

That’s doesn’t actually end wars, it makes more enemies when your village/town/city mates die out of nowhere. A better method is a show of force so frightening they have no choice but to surrender. That doesn’t happen if they think there is no chance of survival. You can’t surrender to a tomahawk or an Apache. You can surrender to man in a suit of impenetrable armour that just slowly walked through a hail of bullets and mortar fire; That would end wars. Not a drone strike, or an unmanned multi-role aircraft. Lindybeige actually did a phenomenal job explaining this in his latest video about the crocodile flamethrower tank. You’d think a flamethrower tank would have an astonishing K/D, but it’s rate of causing surrenders is even higher. Surprisingly people don’t want to burn alive slowly.

Half of a weapons job isn’t to fight its to say “Hey, look what I could kill you with. Do you want to fight this? No? Then fuck off out of here or I’ll melt your skin fag.”

There are definitely military workers that make over 80k a year. Hell I even make around 80k a year and I'm basically a fucking taxi driver.

>Why is America not using it's technology to end wars?
we are you fucking retard. You think 12 aircraft carriers and an endless need to use them is something to mess with?

We don't want to admit that we want war, because then the Eurofags will bitch at us even more than they already do, but we also don't want to stand around doing nothing while our international interests (with varying numbers of parenthesis around them) evaporate into thin air under the strain of their own incompetence.

> You’d think a flamethrower tank would have an astonishing K/D, but it’s rate of causing surrenders is even higher. Surprisingly people don’t want to burn alive slowly
That actually completely supports my argument. Something like that sounds effective, definitely more effective than humans on foot.

When laser weapons become common, winning a war will become cheap because the cost to burn one goatfucker would be just a few dollars instead of thousands.

Based. By the time they reverse engineer it we'll probably have teleportation.

>Read Sun Tzu, dumbass
Basically be sneaky, intimidating, and cheat.. kind of what I'm suggesting.

There’s people inside the tank, and infantry supporting it. You can’t actually surrender to a tank. And no one would surrender to a drone, gauranteed. If your position was being overrun by autonomous drones would you trust them not to shoot if you dropped your guns? Probably not, you would lie in ambush and try to take out as many with you as you could, hunker down like a bitch, or run away to fight another day.

The idea is to have terrifying weapons in the hands of real men, so they can destroy the enemies will to fight without engaging in much real combat.

If we were smart at least.

You'd be surprised, but a lot of missiles end up getting shot at empty mountainside because they have a shelf life. Every couple years you'll see a news story about the military firing off ~100 or so missiles at a mountain. The typical excuse is they're "trying to bomb terrorist hideouts" or something but they're just firing off soon-to-expire missiles.

No there isn't any serious effort put toward reducing costs within the military. Different branches are awarded a budget each year and its their job to spend it. If they don't spend the amount of money they're allotted, then it gets transferred over to another branch that is willing to spend it. There is no situation where excess funds would be sent back to the treasury, and there's no situation where excess spending would put the military in 'debt.'

>Why does ZOG trick the goyim into dying for Israel
HMMMMMM IDK OP

It's still LESS people / lower risk

No there isn't any serious effort put toward reducing costs within the military. Different branches are awarded a budget each year and its their job to spend it. If they don't spend the amount of money they're allotted, then it gets transferred over to another branch that is willing to spend it. There is no situation where excess funds would be sent back to the treasury, and there's no situation where excess spending would put the military in 'debt.'

That's fucking bogus if any of that is true.

No you fucking idiot they don't want help they want blood spilled in the deserts they dont care if its muslim blood or christian blood they just want us all dead.

>Dixie flag
>Anti War
Pick one you hickfag

The future is bright
youtu.be/Yn-_oWl_x90
When these get miniaturized to a small car, war will change

Sun Tzu is basic bitch military strategy. It’s like asking someone how to pick up chicks and they say just b urself bro. Come back when you have some specific knowledge on real life situations. Does Sun Tzu have anything on how to establish security after a mechanized dismount? Or proper procedure for medvac/casevac in a hostile AO? It’s sll useless shit about know thy enemy, don’t spread yourself too thin. Useless platitudes.

>Generals and commanders need to have 1000s of planes in the hangars and 10000s of men with rusty rifles and not enough batteries/magazines/optics on the battlefield cuz muh strategy

Murica.

Damn. That should definitely at least have the GOOD countries set for defense for a while.

Because fuck you, that’s why.

Attached: 2DDF498F-5F59-45CA-A08B-CCED1BC22E62.jpg (669x378, 279K)

Thank you.

Eisenhower just rolled over in his grave you retard.

Easiest way to win a war is not to fight it. If the enemy thinks they can’t beat you that’s better for everyone. Best way to do that is to have more men, more stuff, and having better stuff helps too. Also scary and intimidating stuff is nice.

Israel is 50% Russian Jew

Based Kiowa poster

I'm pro-war I'm just telling you the reason we use infantry and not airforce at a ratio worth practicing is because
>A)chicken hawks are fucking bums
>B)infantry is fucking nuts and basically wants to die anyways (pro tip the airforce doesnt wanna die)
>C)the generals give more of a fuck about a plane crash than a dead McMutt and the lost rucksack he leaves behind in Jihadistan for the insurgents
>D)bullets are 'cheap' and bombs are 'expensive' if you believe in that money crap

So Eisenhower wasn't cool with the nukes?
Because it was the fucking 40s, pretty sure that was the best we had technologically speaking.

For what?

The pentagon can’t account for 21 trillion dollars because of this. It’s a black hole.

I agree, I'm mostly focused on the having better stuff and being scary part.
Hate to be a broken record, but they're sandpeople. I saw a video of one of them legit throwing a fucking exploding backpack at a US truck. That's fucking pathetic. We can do better than that and should be.

The (((pentagon))) also got caught with 5200 employees watching childporn on federal computers in 2005.

Nigger Licking is against the law in this territory.

Attached: iseeurshekels.png (479x127, 72K)

Because like with pharmaceutical companies there is no money to be made with cures, only the fighting of the disease.
War is profitable.

Hahahaha really??

The tank still needs a crew, then it needs its logistical supply chain of mechanics, fuelers, armorers, etc to follow it around to provide everything it needs to function on the battlefield. On top of that it needs infantry to secure and clear landscape around it that it cannot maneuver in but it can be attacked from, and those infantry dudes need their supply chain following them around. Then they all end up needing air assets for long range reconnaissance and close air support, which comes with its own supply chain.

It's not really less people.

Attached: IMG_1267.jpg (400x517, 51K)

Bringing Humvees and Bradleys into Iraq was a huge mistake. They work a bit better in Afghanistan with the terrain but barely.
Even using Abrams caused tons of people to die.
You're right they should have just done what they did in Desert Storm 1 and dropped bombs on em from the sky but instead we had to do a ground invasion to everyone could feel like a bad ass.
You have to understand all this shit happened right after 9/11 so if you are a child who wasnt there when the towers fell down you'll never understand how angry people were.
Some people really wanted to die for America (in a good way)

it's hard to steal drugs, cash, gold for Israel when its been destroyed by a missile.

Unironically trips of truth.

Eisenhower wasn’t okay with hundreds of billions of dollars flowing between the defense industry, congress and the pentagon, subverting our republic and creating a self-perpetuating national-security state, especially while Americans are homeless and starving. It creates a repeating cycle of continuous wars, increasing budgets, further political corruption, and treasonous plots like Operation Northwoods and Iran-contra, and probably 9/11.

Attached: 14CE5DB2-A8B4-47AF-9CAB-6E1112D38D8E.jpg (300x300, 32K)

This is what winning looks like.

Yes... Anderson Cooper (huge faggot) actually reported it on CNN.

In 2005 5200 pentagon employees were arrested for child pornography. Anderson Cooper literally reported it on CNN.
youtube.com/watch?v=o_CEaSWoDao
Want to know something else?
If you google or youtube '5200 pentagon' tons of stories come up about how they 'sent 5200 pentagon employees to the border' to hide the fact that 5200 pentagon employees were caught with CHILD PORN because they need it gone

delet this post right mcmotherfucking now

>Nice green text

*eyeroll*
That's a drug addict argument. There's a reason the FDA doesn't recommend weed for cancer (because it's shit compared to everything else it's supposed to work for) and the reason the country is outraged about anti-vaxers. And there's a reason the opiod crisis is a publicly known issue and not being covered up.

Yes, treatment is more profitable than cures, but if they wanted you dead you'd be dead. It's not all about profit, there actually is some integrity in the RX industry. Doctors don't just hand out addictive drugs, I would know, I've attempted to cop them before, it's not fucking easy if you don't actually need them at some point.

>Sun Tzu is basic bitch military strategy.
I didn't say it wasn't. But someone who thinks "lol we have the bigger dicks, why aren't we winning?" clearly lacks even that amount of understanding. Which is why I brought it up in the first place.

>Come back when you have some specific knowledge on real life situations. Does Sun Tzu have anything on how to establish security after a mechanized dismount? Or proper procedure for medvac/casevac in a hostile AO?

Do you even know the difference between strategy and tactics, user?

Attached: 1378449027659.jpg (409x437, 23K)

The US wages war for profit for the MIC. Short wars and peace are not profitable for Lockheed/Ratheon/Boeing etc.

And the guy who did that probably had to scrape brain matter off the road from a hellfire missile no one saw or heard coming. It has the opposite effect, kill 3 guys and make 5 new terrorists. I’m not sure what the modern equivalent of a flamethrower tank would be in the Middle East. I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of an ISIS fighter and imagine what would have me surrender.

I think a subterranean insertion device for infantry could really wreak havoc but I’m fsirly certain that’s actually impossible lmao. You could run into groundwater and drown, get stuck, asphyxiate, collapse the earth above etc. But imagine you’re a towel head in a random desert base and a fucking APC pops out of the ground guns a blazing and 12 god damn White Americans bust out ready to put more holes in you than a reverse osmosis water filter. I’d probably drop my gun.

Realistically though I’m not sure what a good investment would be for a real good fear weapon. All I can think of is retarded Sci-fi shit. Maybe we just make flamethrower tanks again...?

9/11 was only 18 years ago you fucking moron yes I remember it. Holy shit go back to fucking your cousin to cuck porn you're just annoying now.

t. the goodest shabbos goy

Relax man you dont need to las out at everyone I wasnt insulting you.

>technology to end wars
Where's the money in that?

Attached: monopoly-man-broke-clipart-free-clipart-830x944.jpg (500x569, 25K)

So he agrees that shit should be more efficient both tactically and financially?
What's the problem?

First point is valid. Second isn’t.

Obviously strategy and tactics are different, but your strategy is pointless if you don’t have the tactics to implement it. Or even get to where you need to be.

Tactics always comes first. An infantry company separated from command with no communications can still drastically hinder the enemy, even destroy portions of them. An infantry company that knows they need to capture Kabul but can’t get out of their Bradley in order is going to die.