Is he wrong?

Is he wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14015schlabach.pdf
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805203/Taking-black-flag-ISIS-extraordinary-moment-airstrike-completely-obliterates-hill-controlled-jihadis-stunning-display-firepower.html
amazon.com/Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global-Trade/dp/1556524838
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0nmTNSyCs
youtu.be/9VE8Qg7Z0G0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You could also just use a bullet

I thought the army paid that much? Police starting salary is like 60 thousand but within a year you're up to 80 so I thought the army was like 100 thousand a year since it was so dangerous.

Oh hell no.
Soldiers aren't paid shit.

Should have left out that last part. Would have sounded a lot better, honestly.
Terrorists actually probably make bank since they're all government funded

No. Because Javelins aren't used on infantry or soft targets generally, they're designed to be used to eliminate tanks which cost much more than $80,000.

You mean it's not like Halo where you just fire the rocket at the other guy who's running towards you?

t. person who thinks Obama droning is A-OK

Could be. I mean if you really wanted to use HEAT against some dude, who's going to stop you? Certainly not some insurgent that's about to get Swiss cheesed.

hmm lets see.

>80,000 missile to kill someone who can cause billions in damage

yeah idk

you geek senpai

You realize they don't fire those at people or soft targets right?

>firing a javelin at a lone soldier

yes, yes he is wrong

lel, got me you fucking leaf.

Police don't get paid nearly that much.

There are plenty of videos from the most recent conflicts in MENA of wired-guided missles being used against groups of combatants. There's even one video of a ten thousand+ lb bomb dropped from a coalition plane onto like five or six guys.

Yeah, TOW missile != Javelin missile. TOW are guided by wires (it's what the name stands for) and Javelins are given a target, launched and then seek the target and destroy it from top-down. Also that is a barrel bomb, probably, they are extremely cheap.

Thank you for your input.

30,000 canuckbucks is the starting salary. We arent paid well.

You don't actually expect liberals to have any basic understanding of strategy and warfare?

They probably couldn't even tell you what an allen wrench is.

Fuck you.

>Javelin costs $80,000
>Guy who fired it fucked up his education, but still found a warm and loving place in the world, using lowest bidder gear, protecting his country, getting paid accomodation/food/blah blah for not having to think, being told exactly what to do and how to do it, woohoo, great for them, this is the future (and salary) they chose, plus, props to them, respect them, they're who lets you keep being a Nu Male faggot tearing down the walls your country was built on freely.
>Javelin missile designed to be used to destroy tanks worth $5,000,000+
>That's one hell of an efficient cost vs result ratio, to me. The guy firing it, as stated, chose their fucking path, no one gets to point out the fact they're using gear that costs more than they're worth.
>Everyone knows how to make another fucking human. Life is cheap and shitty, unless you come from superior eugenics, a bullet costs more than a person. I'd say that $80,000 destroying $5,000,000 is the better deal by far.

OP was thinking Hellfire

>be you Muslim terrorist
>see missile coming, 1 second till impact
>last thought: haha those idiots! no big deal i will not make 80k in my entire life!

>I thought the army paid that much? Police starting salary is like 60 thousand
>ywn be a cop getting sick pay to right speeding tickets in canuckistan
oh wait thats in monopoly dollars right?

10,000 lb bomb > Javelin

To the rest of you autistic retards, the quote wasn't about the fucking cost in USD of the given components.

Really?
No wonder every soldier I've ever met is fucking retarded

...

even if the javelin were used to kill a single enemy target than at least that enemy didn't kill the firing soldier so, saved the nation another plot at arlington and $200k life insurance. cost effective

>really makes you wanna choke a libtard to death with piano wire

This

Militaryfags chose their path. All they have to do is stay fit and fire a gun.

Javelin is widely used against soft targets in current operations.
dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14015schlabach.pdf
As result it receives upgrade of warhead that increases its fragmentation effects.

It's an entertaining way to kill mudshits.

I'm not a liberal, you're just militaristic and stupid.

Point of the image/quote/movie it's taken from is that you can't bomb or shoot or regime change shitskins from their degenerate ways.

... Kid

Only in technicalities about the Javelin weapon-system itself.

Come on guys, it's *totally* different if we're dropping 500lb bombs out of a multi-million dollar strategic bomber onto mud people in a Hilux. He's wrong about the Javelin, so ignore the generalized point.

Where is the US fighting any enemy fielding any quantity of Armour again?

>Basic understanding of strategy and warfare
Like your brass who are losing losing to goat fucking sand people with uncorrected vision and vintage mismatched ammo?

I readf somewhere that it cost USD$140,000 to kill each VC in Vietnam.

You guys are lucky you have such a massive economy to parasitise with these boondoggles becasue otherwise you would be boned. Well actually even more boned I mean.

>US in charge of strategy
>US in charge of understanding warfare
Kek.

you're a moron who knows nothing jon snow
we haven't had any use of 10,000 lbs. bombs in the mudslime wars. last we used them was in vietnam to clear landing zones. now go back to the drawing board and try to come up with some kind of logical argument against soldiers using cost effective weapondry to destroy the enemy and stay alive.

buddy is a sheriff, he was making about 50k a year starting salary

So would the army kid rather have the superior weaponry or would he rather have a bowie knife and a pair of sandals but get paid 100k /yr?

>10,000 lb bomb > Javelin
For killing infantry? No shit. About your question, maybe next time you could be specific, but regardless of your vagueness, the guy is fucking wrong and it shows in the fact that he doesn't even know what the missile he's talking about is used for. One of the most fundamental facts of his statement he doesn't even understand, so yes, he's wrong.

>Where is the US fighting any enemy fielding any quantity of Armour again?
Nowhere, they're fielded for cases where we might have to fight armor and left in armories when we don't, like in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have them essentially to fight a conventional army that we fortunately have not had to fight because of the U.S. military's hegemony.

>I readf somewhere that it cost USD$140,000 to kill each VC in Vietnam.
Now calculate how much it costed to kill each Hun in WWII.

>not an argument
if you kill a terrorist than the terrorist wins? are you on vacation out of hiney hole canuckistan?

You're right, 10k was not correct.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805203/Taking-black-flag-ISIS-extraordinary-moment-airstrike-completely-obliterates-hill-controlled-jihadis-stunning-display-firepower.html

How much do you think this cost though?

You guys are missing the point completely.

>Police don't get paid nearly that much.

over here (Long Island, NY) they certainly do.

Nassau county sheriffs are obscenely well-paid - over 100,000 a year.

I didn't think missiles are shot directly at enemy soldiers. This isn't fucking tf2

Give me a break... javelins save fucking lives, I guess that is not work 80k to liberals.

>US in charge of strategy
>>US in charge of understanding warfare
Considering the primary reason to go into dragged out "wars" against places that have zero capacity to threaten us is to deliberately drag them out for MIC profiteering.

It is a very bad assumption to think that we're actually waging war for anything other than securing poppy feilds and military Keynesianism both in Vietnam and in Afghanistan

>You guys are missing the point completely.
Maybe it's because you completely forgot to make a point? Am I supposed to just magically understand what you're trying to communicate without your saying it?

Do you really think I'm arguing we shouldn't use Javelins?

Are you missing the point that fucking hard?

It's that their shouldn't be lives at risk in a desert many miles from American clay shooting at shitskins who are going to go back to their shitskin ways when we eventually leave. No matter how much military technology you have you can't win a war without hearts and minds. Ask anyone in Iraq & Afghanistan from the past decade.

Javelins are rarely used, they're designed to kill modern tanks. AT4s are much cheaper (like $1,500) and more commonly used.

US military spending is horrendously inflated, and it's primary purpose is to line pockets.

A good example is the new airborne-capable jeep, which had essentially no armor and barely anything technological. Such a thing would probably cost around 20-30k in the civillian market, but the military spends 1 FUCKING MILLION dollars per unit.

A corporal just told us TODAY that if they have a V shape position, the guys would get burned from the propulsion that's why they line up like in the photo.

Cheap missiles don't hit their mark and blow as much shit up, OP, so why use them?

>if you kill a terrorist than the terrorist wins
No you dumb fuck if you have a drone strike it kills 1 terrorist and creates 5 more.
You don't beat the Hydra by cutting its heads off and even multiple government reports openly state that the drone program only serves to foster more sympathy to these radical groups.

The only reason we still have such bombing campaigns is because fostering there radical groups to then use as proxy armies is a very large part of ((((our)))) foreign policy

Each call center building costs over a million dollars, and the idea that it's filled with people who don't make that in a year who create a service for people who don't make that in a year is somehow so outrageous it almost makes life seem winnable.

wtf is he trying to say

Call centers solve problems sometimes.

You've been brainwashed if you think the American wars in Afghanistan/Iraq have produced positive results. I don't think anyone besides George and Barbra Bush think that.

that is a 105mm strike from a C130
each shell costs $400
the US DoD is the largest corporation in the world they don't waste shit for no reason. In fact that entire video looks like a propaganda stunt. They have a budget of over $500B they don't give a shit about some 400 dollar shells.

I only kind of half disagree with you.

The US does want to win decisively, though there are clearly perverse incentives at play.

Also, they would like to eradicate every last poppy from Afghanistan, but when the Taliban actually did that for one year it eroded thier control over the country and led to untold death from starvation and execution required for enforcement.

Most years opium production outweighs the only other source of funds which is of course reconstruction aid and eradicating it would further destabilize the country by undermining the only profitable productive sector of the economy.

I have done a heap of research on this and can provide heaps of article links if you want though most may be behind paywalls...

>haha, you're all stuck in my sick twisted mind and are just play things to my europhoric super intellect

go fuck yourself you fucking faggot OP

Depends. You would have to factor in ones killed in the east due to the huge amount of aid you guys got...

So they literally killed millions, or at least paid enough to take most of the credit for it.

What are you even trying to say?

Also, I doubt OP is actually Sebastian Junger.

Each switch gear I work on is 100k+

Many motors I work on are over 4 million dollars.

Each platform I design for cost a few hundred million sometimes a few billion

I against the military industrial complex but I fucking hate this line of liberal reasoning.

huh, really gets my cerebellum stirring

The idea that war is an economic profession shows you how little Sebastian Junger thinks of human beings.

>javelins are fired at guys

Haha, if only he knew...
They're fired at a general area in hope to scar off the muzz and prevent them to attack the useless bait infantrerymen until air support comes to kill them

I remember when war on terror first started. The armed forces were completely unprepared for anti-insurgency combat (both in afghanistan and later in iraq) because they'd always been preparing to go to war against a conventional army, so they were using anti-armor rounds and heatseeking rockets etc. on soft targets. It was a massive waste of money, wasting tens of thousands of dollars to blow up a single goatfucker... Still doing that, come to think of it.

UK enlisted get £18.6k at training and £23k once training is complete and you've been sent to your regiment. I was a Sergeant in the SRR and got paid a little over £36k with a hazard pay of £70 extra per day when on operations.

It's shite pay for the risks. Budget cuts,draconic restrictions and shite pay made me officially leave the army earlier this year and go private joining my ameribro's who I became friends with in Afghan and Somalia aswell as lads from my regiment. Now making a very comfortable living splitting my time between Britain, West Virginia and Dubai.

Serious question, why don't marines just steal those missles and sell them to the black market and say they fired it?

>implying they would waste that kind of firepower on one filthy shitskin
They save them for tanks and fortified positions, bullets are more than enough to wipe a shitstain mudslime off of the earth

In Canada they do

Because they're murifat and therefore they like firin big guns more than they love money

...

>A javelin can lock onto the heat signature of a machine gun.

doubt.jpg

This thread is full of retards.

Warfare, for the most part, is entirely economic in nature. The goal is to make your enemy pay more than you do. As far as the Javelin missle goes, the price is recirculated in the economy (its 100% American made). The price is then considered moot, so long as profits aren't then sent overseas. Reasons like this are why protectionist strategies for military contracts are in place.

But even ignoring the fact that the cost is externalized, we can see that a javelin isn't sent at a fucking soft target. More likely, its used to take out armor or convoys, or HVTs. (Yes, ISIS has tanks, deal with it)

tl;dr make your enemy pay a higher price than you do to achieve victory.

>go private joining my ameribro's
You joined a private mercenary army for security or something you mean?

How do you comfortably split your time between Britain, West Virginia and Dubai?

Occasionally some retard comes up with a brilliant scheme like that. And he gets caught and spends the next decade or so at Leavenworth because:

1. He's a retard
2. The army has been dealing with people stealing equipment since before the US existed

Also there's not exactly an ebay for high-tech military equipment.

about what? he just compares some numbers for whatever reason

Really makes you blink.

>The price is then considered moot, so long as profits aren't then sent overseas. Reasons like this are why protectionist strategies for military contracts are in place.

Ah yes, the "if we set everything on fire, we'll be rich due to the reconstruction costs!" idea.

>The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . .

The US is an odd 20 or so trillion in the red and has nothing to show for it but dilapidated infrastructure and growing social unrest.

>Also, they would like to eradicate every last poppy from Afghanistan,
No we don't
Management of the global drug trade is a massive part of off the record funds used by the CIA abd Various other intelligence agencies.
The Federal government has been smuggling drugs into America to fund off the books bullshit for nearly 100 years user and gaining direct control over the golden crescent was a major reason to go into Afghanistan.
One of many a book on this subject

amazon.com/Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global-Trade/dp/1556524838

Ted?!

>as long as that money doesnt leave the country

Big lol

>Yes, ISIS has tanks, deal with it

Thanks to Obama and Hillary they do

Podcast related if you have time to kill in a way reading isn't compatible with

m.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0nmTNSyCs

>The US is an odd 20 or so trillion in the red and has nothing to show for it but dilapidated infrastructure and growing social unrest.

>If we just give poor people money and housing, we will eliminate poverty!

Sorry, no. But more so, the US government spends 600 billion on military. It spends an additional 2 trillion on welfare programs.

By the way, those javelin missiles the OP is talking about? They're leased, not owned.

>Modern conflicts
>wars

son, i don't think you've seen the effect of a nation that's fully industrialized for war and hell bent on making the enemy die.

it was last seen during ww2 and will probably be the last time we see industrialized warmongering in a looong time. you can thank the pussies in gubberment who's worried about humanitarian issues when those civilians harbor the enemy either directly or indirectly.

>If we just give poor people money and housing, we will eliminate poverty!
His point was that both are useless welfarism that leaves us all poorer.

>amazon.com/Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global-Trade/dp/1556524838
Brah, I have read that book.

I understand that the CIA used heroin income as a tool to

But I don't think the CIA is writing strategic policy and most of those decisions are made by olly north type renegades, or at least assets that can be hung out to dry.

Also, it doesn't say they were directly involved in anything apart from training and maybe supporting air america.

If they actually were using the heroin trade tot their advantage Afghanistan wouldn't be such a shit show.

And setting up a licensing program, like they did with Turkey in the 70s, would let them have almost complete control over the entire country.

Sure there are competing interests held by competing and cooperating agencies and actors, but saying the US is in Afghanistan to control the poppy fields is a bit facile to my mind. They would really rather the whole thing just went away.

Brah, I am working on a piece on this that someone has asked me to submit to a journal right now.

This is a really good study into how Afghanis see the trade. It is a normal part of their economy and is not seen to contribute to violence, insecurity, underdevelopment or conflict.

Jan Koehler & Christoph Zuercher (2007) Statebuilding, Conflict and Narcotics in Afghanistan: The View from Below, International Peacekeeping,

Except one drives scientific progress in weapons delivery, while the other drives progress in how fast you can make new development smell like piss and shit.

Where I'm at you start at 40k and cap at 90k for anything under captain.

Humanitarian issues are a pretty legitimate reason to avoid world war.

World was 2 was on a scale never before seen, and with a world population at the time of about 2.5 billion, it was the largest scale humanitarian crisis ever seen.
The clusterfuck that is people without homes and jobs can take generations to sort out leading to social unrest and more conflict.

Go figure.

>It is a normal part of their economy and is not seen to contribute to violence, insecurity, underdevelopment or conflict.
I was referring to the US government not the local population.>Except one drives scientific progress in weapons delivery
While also massively draining advancement in fields where these funds and human capital would otherwise go if not for this broken window Keynesianism.
Something like 1/3rd of our genius level population is stuck in military research when they could and should be working in more economically lucrative areas

youtu.be/9VE8Qg7Z0G0

>Tanks
>cost $5mil

The only tanks that cost that are western designs. You can buy T-72s for $200,000 if you don't give a shit about the optics and stuff. Hell, the rockets they put in the T-55 gun cost MORE per unit than the vehicle.

Tanks only get expensive when you start looking at Leopards, Leclercs and Challengers.