• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia Suspends Agreement Preventing Direct Conflict with American Forces

Jredbaron96 said:
Only by people who assume perfection and don't prepare for the realities of military operations. Smart leaders prepare for the unexpected and leave time to respond and are flexible.

Idiots create rigid time tables and are always disappointed, because surprise surprise, **** happens.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I've pointed out: the unknowns; the human factor. Mission, Enemy, Time, Terrain, Weather.

Idiots create rigid time tables and are always disappointed, because surprise surprise, **** happens.
Click to expand...

No plan survives first contact with the enemy
 
apdst said:
Exactly what I've pointed out: the unknowns; the human factor. Mission, Enemy, Time, Terrain, Weather.
Click to expand...

the Mission, time, terrain shouldn't be unknowns if you're conducting a smart operation. Weather is admittedly unpredictable, but can still be guessed.

The human factor is a factor, but to assume all warfare comes down to it is a stretch. You can fight your hardest and still lose. That is not failure; that is life.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
the Mission, time, terrain shouldn't be unknowns if you're conducting a smart operation. Weather is admittedly unpredictable, but can still be guessed.

The human factor is a factor, but to assume all warfare comes down to it is a stretch. You can fight your hardest and still lose. That is not failure; that is life.
Click to expand...

Morale, motivation, training, situational awareness and leadership are all major and human factors in any military operation. It's hardly a stretch to say that they are.
 
apdst said:
Morale, motivation, training, situational awareness and leadership are all major and human factors in any military operation. It's hardly a stretch to say that they are.
Click to expand...

You're spreading the definition of the human factor so it encompasses literally every facet of warfare and is just a general statement rather than a specific input that needs to be taken into account.
 
I don't think this new Russian policy will go well for them. It's the wrong reaction. They are clear culpable in this whole gas attack.
 
Lutherf said:
It's really important that every time Trump does something that works the media, in some way, shape or form, finds a fault. This morning I watched CNN and all the anchors were interviewing folks who said "I think the strike was a good idea". The anchor (every one I saw) would then ask if Trump should have consulted with congress first. The obvious implication was that he overstepped his authority.
Click to expand...

I was listening to NPR yesterday morning, and I was appalled at the behavior I was hearing. I expect NPR to have a slight-to-moderate liberal bent, but they were using this headline to tag in another story they just decided to run that day, and then engaged in the most blatant leading-question hackery I've ever heard. The host took a good 30 seconds to reiterate how "America" believes Putin helped elect Trump, oh, and did Putin blow up an apartment block in his own city to have an excuse to slaughter Chechnyans? Do you know that story? Stay tuned.
 
This is all just political theater, right? I mean, Trump is colluding with the Russians, right? :roll:
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You're spreading the definition of the human factor so it encompasses literally every facet of warfare and is just a general statement rather than a specific input that needs to be taken into account.
Click to expand...

Because it does. Humans fire the weapons, make up the formations, fill the ranks, drive the vehicles, maintain the vehicles. Every facet of warfare is indeed effected by a human factor.

It's like I explained to my kids when discussing the military: no matter what your job is in the military, there are soldiers depending on you to do your job to stay alive. Every single job in the service is performed by a human being. If any one of those people doesn't do his job can cost lives on the battlefield.
 
apdst said:
Because it does. Humans fire the weapons, make up the formations, fill the ranks, drive the vehicles, maintain the vehicles. Every facet of warfare is indeed effected by a human factor.
Click to expand...

By applying it to everything it in affect means nothing. If all there is is the human element, then weapons, technology, doctrine and economics of war would mean nothing. But those do matter, because in war, the decisions and actions of a thousand humans can be boiled down to simplicity because of training, leadership and doctrine. If you simply label everything as the human element, then there's no point in identifying anything else.

Assuming troops are properly trained, led and motivated, as any military force should do, you can assume certain levels of performance. Just like if you maintain, study, and train your troops with them, you can use technology to give you an advantage.

This entire argument stems from the idea that since the human factor can result in theoretically countless outcomes. That's not incorrect, but at that point you're talking about hypotheticals that are virtually impossible short of reality-alternating scenarios.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
By applying it to everything it in affect means nothing. If all there is is the human element, then weapons, technology, doctrine and economics of war would mean nothing. But those do matter, because in war, the decisions and actions of a thousand humans can be boiled down to simplicity because of training, leadership and doctrine. If you simply label everything as the human element, then there's no point in identifying anything else.

Assuming troops are properly trained, led and motivated, as any military force should do, you can assume certain levels of performance. Just like if you maintain, study, and train your troops with them, you can use technology to give you an advantage.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they mean nothing. I said, they only make up for half the equation. None of that technology operates by itself. 100% of it is operated and maintained by humans. People are absolutely gears in the machine.

People can and will fumble the ball at thr worst possible moment. That fumble has in the past and will in the future cause numerically and technilogically superior force to be defeated by an inferior force. A battalion, or company commander can lose his nerve, or suffer indecision in a batlle and give the whole show away. It's happened thousands of times throughout history.
 
apdst said:
I didn't say they mean nothing. I said, they only make up for half the equation. None of that technology operates by itself. 100% of it is operated and maintained by humans. People are absolutely gears in the machine.

People can and will fumble the ball at thr worst possible moment. That fumble has in the past and will in the future cause numerically and technilogically superior force to be defeated by an inferior force. A battalion, or company commander can lose his nerve, or suffer indecision in a batlle and give the whole show away. It's happened thousands of times throughout history.
Click to expand...

It has happened, and it will continue to happen. That doesn't prevent accurate guesses or estimations from turning out to be true or valid. Just like gears in the machine, they can be expected to do just what they're meant to do, or if improperly maintained, they can crack. There are signs of that though, not always the most visible, but always there are signs. The problem comes from people not noticing them.
 
apdst said:
You're drawing a conclusion on paper. You aren't, nor can you at this time, factoring in the human angle: leadership, training, motivation, or resolve.

Were the two missile boats within range of land based ordnance, last night?
Click to expand...


Being attacked from land must not have been a concern, because the destroyers could have been stationed much farther out to sea. They delivered the cruise missiles from a range of about 150 miles, but the missiles have a range of about 1,000 miles. Because they are not ballistic, they would have been just as accurate if fired from a point 800 miles farther west.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom