Air Force trying to stay relevant - Part 1

While reading Newsweek yesterday, I came across a rather interesting photo with the question “How do you discourage a rogue leader who wants to flex his muscles?” At first I thought it was a lead into a bad-ass story. As such, you can imagine how disappointed I was when I spotted the word ‘advertisement’ on top. Then on the bottom left, “Paid for by the US Air Force.” WTF?

OK Air Force, I’ll play along. So what do you do in this situation? Something tells me their answer involves bombs…(flip page)

*Sigh* This is completely ridiculous on several levels.

Sending just one $2.1 billion B-2 bomber to splatter a group of guys carrying $100 Kalishnakovs — leaving aside the cost of the fuel plus bombs — isn’t economical. It’s also a completely reckless act.

Dropping bombs on people does one of two things: (1) Kills them or (2) pisses them off. Both options are justifiable if everyone you’re dropping bombs on is your enemy. Unfortunately, that’s not the case in any geopolitical situation today. While the US may have animus with a leader, we’re not at war with any populations. No matter how ’smart’ bombs are, they invariably kill innocent civilians. This is especially true if these Kalishnakov wielding nuts are mixing in with non-combatants.

Killing civilians exacerbates our initial problem. A rogue leader is one thing; a rogue leader backed by his people who are pissed off at the US for dropping bombs on them is quite another.

As you can see, the Air Force has no place in this type of situation. So why is the Air Force running this ad? That’s a valid question. I’ll explore it in Part 2 later today.

[...] I concluded in Part 1, the Air Force doesn’t have a role in dealing with a rogue leader “who wants to flex [...]

The thing is that we WOULDnt use a B-2 bomber in that situation. The airforce is smarter than that. Its an Ad thats just trying to show off the air force’s *invulernability* which appeals to anyone who wants to maybe join the military but not want to get killed. Thats basically the point of the ad. Plus, from how it’s worded, we’re not bombing them. we’re “discouraging” by showing off, like if i knew that if i were to create an insurrection, i would get plastered quickly…i would think twice.

Greg, your claims aren’t only spurious, they’re duplicitous.

The thing is that we WOULDn[']t use a B-2 bomber in that situation. The airforce is smarter than that.

Yet they show an ad with them responding to that situation with a B-2. So we’re somewhat in agreement that this ad is completely ridiculous.

And it’s not the decision of the Air Force, it’s the decision of the president — which is exactly why we haven’t seem this type of reaction, it’s crazy.

It[']s an Ad thats just trying to show off the air force’s *invulernability* [invulnerability] which appeals to anyone who wants to maybe join the military but not want to get killed.

It’s not a recruiting ad. Read Part 2 for more information.

Plus, from how it’s worded, we’re not bombing them…we’re “discouraging” by showing off, like if i knew that if i were to create an insurrection, i would get plastered quickly…i would think twice.

There’s a disconnect with your argument. You say on one hand we’re not bombing them. Yet on the other, it’s a deterrent. This makes it a pretty weak deterrent if there’s no punishment. And what are we showing off, perhaps the B-2 you said they wouldn’t use?

Also, we’ve seen countless ‘insurrections’ in recent history, all of which have intrinsically lacked the ‘thinking twice’ you say the Air Force’s deterrent projects.

All this goes to show that this ad is a canard not based on reality which, to some degree, you seem to agree with.