DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Strategery » The PooBahs Speak

The PooBahs Speak

language-learning.jpg

Four of the nations top mil­i­tary strate­gists told Congress this week what mod­ern­iza­tion plans theyd scrap and how theyd change mil­i­tary priorities.

These arent the dried up for­m­ers who pop­u­late the news talk shows with pun­ditry based on a lim­ited rolodex of gray­ing col­leagues, but men who have been there and done that. The panel of experts included for­mer mil­i­tary brass and Pentagon offi­cials who are involved in policy-​​making today — giv­ing their opin­ions greater weight than those from the cable channels.

The list included for­mer 24th Infantry Division com­man­der and Clinton-​​era Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey; for­mer com­man­dant of the Army War College and a man who knows mil­i­tary his­tory bet­ter than the back of his hand, Maj. Gen. Robert Scales; for­mer Reagan-​​era Pentagon offi­cial and oft-​​consulted GWOT critic Lawrence Korb and head of the Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Andy Krepinevich.

Scales is heav­ily involved in cur­rent Army war plan­ning and in the devel­op­ment of new coun­terin­sur­gency doc­trine. Korb is some­one the DoD often talks to for his coun­ter­points of the Iraq war. McCaffrey has a key to the Oval Office — often pro­vid­ing his insight to admin­is­tra­tion plan­ners and the pres­i­dent. And Krepinevich had been involved in writ­ing the Quadrennial Defense Review and works on a range of strate­gic plan­ning for the Army and other services.

In a wide-​​ranging and fas­ci­nat­ing hear­ing this week, the four told law­mak­ers what theyd do to change the cur­rent DoD mod­ern­iza­tion plans, realign­ing resources to areas they say will bet­ter posi­tion America for the con­flicts of the future. Their views were some­times in con­flict, but over­all, they were remark­ably con­cur­rent and at times, quite radical.

Heres a syn­op­sis of their views:

Krepinevich:

(Written Testimony)

Take a siz­able num­ber of the cur­rent Army brigade struc­ture and cre­ate irreg­u­lar war­fare units capa­ble of coun­terin­sur­gency and human­i­tar­ian operations.

Create an advi­sor corps.

Create a Multi-​​National Security Transition Corps-​​Iraq (MNSTCI) in a box to quickly train indige­nous forces to take over secu­rity in a counterinsurgency/​guerrilla environment.

Build a Joint Urban Warfare Training Center that takes the cur­rent National Training Center adap­ta­tions to the next level.

Need to re-​​evaluate the Armys nearly $200 bil­lion Future Combat System pro­gram. Thats an awfully expen­sive way to deal with irreg­u­lar forces.

McCaffrey:

(Written Testimony)

Disagreed with Krepinevich on cre­at­ing coun­terin­sur­gency forces and going light. The U.S. may have to con­front China at some point, he explained.

Didnt think bring­ing U.S. forces back from bases in Europe and Okinawa was a good idea, but said since thats a done deal, America needs to invest heav­ily in re-​​constituting its strate­gic air­lift capa­bil­ity. He called the C-​​17 Globemaster III a national asset.

I love the C-​​17 as much as the M-​​1 [Abrams] tank, he said.

Thinks the future of FCS needs to be fig­ured out by the begin­ning of 2009 or it should be turned into a semi-​​permanent R&D program.

Believes for­eign lan­guage train­ing is so impor­tant that the mil­i­tary should pick out ser­vice mem­bers by threes and say youre going to 90 days of lan­guage training.

Said the U.S. needs to prop­erly equip the Afghan and Iraqi army with mod­ern gear. Quit pawn­ing off junk Soviet armor and sell them equip­ment that can help them win, includ­ing a fleet of mod­ern heli­copters. The Iraqis are get­ting 70 helos which arent enough for them to con­trol the coun­try, he said. We need a new lend-​​lease for our allies.

Korb:

(Written Testimony)

Extend the pur­chase of Los Angeles class subs, push­ing them off into the future.

Cut down on nuclear weapons stock­pile and mod­ern­iza­tion which will save the Pentagon money for other, more press­ing needs. We need to lead by exam­ple, he said.

Stop spend­ing so much money on bal­lis­tic mis­sile defense. The pro­gram is the least likely threat we spend more on mis­sile defense than on the entire Coast Guard, Korb pointed out, adding that the Coast Guard deals with a much more real­is­tic threat.

I cant under­stand FCS, he said. The Army has done a poor job explain­ing what it will do and what its for. The Pentagon should slow down its development.

Marines do not need a new amphibi­ous vehi­cle, he said, ref­er­enc­ing the Corps trou­bled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program.

Stop V-​​22 pro­duc­tion and buy more helicopters.

Set a spe­cific with­drawal date to get out of Iraq to help motive the Iraqi army to shape up for its own defense.

Need to con­tinue sup­ple­men­tal spend­ing bills to bring equip­ment lev­els back up to meet cur­rent needs.

Scales:

(Written Testimony)

Scrapping the FCS pro­gram is dead wrong (Scales has been a long­time booster of FCS for the Army), though it needs some tweaking.

Need to con­tinue to field heavy forces 81 per­cent of mil­i­tary deaths are with dis­mounted infantry, mounted infantry face a 10 per­cent greater chance of sur­vival when mounted.

The U.S. needs a full spec­trum force, he added, say­ing if aban­don FCS then youre con­fin­ing the mil­i­tary to pur­chase old Cold War gear.

Does not agree with Krepinevichs spe­cial­iza­tion the­ory, say­ing troops trained in a vari­ety of mis­sions can do full spec­trum oper­a­tions. Whats impor­tant are skills not struc­ture. Brigades dont do that, peo­ple do that.

Need to focus on offi­cer and NCO edu­ca­tion by cre­at­ing a sol­dier sab­bat­i­cal pro­gram that allows them to take time off from the ser­vice to go to grad­u­ate schools and study alien cul­tures and the art of warfare.

I hope this pro­vides a lit­tle food for thought as Congress and the admin­is­tra­tion con­sider the 2007 sup­ple­men­tal and 2008 base budgets.

– Christian

Share |

April 20th, 2007 | Strategery | 246749 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/04/20/the-poobahs-speak/The+PooBahs+Speak2007-04-20+14%3A51%3A43Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Ad ‘em Up! | Sad End to a Sad Week » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Sven Ortmann says:
    April 20, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    They all have good points although they dis­agree some­what (as experts almost always do…).
    But I won­der why none of them has men­tioned that the whole pro­cure­ment sys­tem needs to be rev­o­lu­tion­ized (I mean like French rev­o­lu­tion — exter­mi­nat­ing all pre­vi­ously pow­er­ful guys and try some­thing very dif­fer­ent!).
    The US forces are so inef­fec­tive in their money spend­ing that they hurt their nation more than a dou­bled oil price would do.
    The army could eas­ily fol­low the FCS idea if the bureau­cracy was able to do its job effi­ciently — quick and at rea­son­able costs.

    Reply
  2. Grandjester says:
    April 20, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Other than Scales obvi­ous hard-​​on for FCS, looks like some really good ideas here. I like the idea of kick­ing up the NTC con­cept in particular.

    Reply
  3. EMas says:
    April 20, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    “mounted infantry face a 10 per­cent greater chance of sur­vival when mounted.“
    I’m sure their sur­vival rates are sky high when they go on leave too– the ques­tion is do they accom­plish their mis­sion? How do you check a house for insur­gents from the tur­ret of a tank?
    Los Angeles class sub­marines? Does he mean Virginia? If you put it too far out in the future Electric Boat will go bust– the engi­neers will end up work­ing on XBOX 3.

    Reply
  4. Grandjester says:
    April 20, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Contractor con­sol­i­da­tion is the cul­prit, some­thing like 85 dif­fer­ent con­trac­tors in the 80’s, a good dozen of them majors. Now we have, what? Three? Lots of empty hall­ways in So Cal, the ghosts of TRW, Rockwell, MacDac and Hughes to name a few I did busi­ness with. No real com­pe­ti­tion going on.

    Reply
  5. BT says:
    April 20, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    If these four men are the best America has we are F’ed. No one under age 40 should be allowed for strate­gic plan­ning. Still too much Vietnam and Cold War era think­ing in the US Government.
    The prob­lem is not the US not being to eas­ily kill enough of our ene­mies (reg­u­lar or irreg­u­lar). What is the objec­tive of our mil­i­tary action? If it doesn’t accom­plish any­thing pos­i­tive, it is a waste of time, money and lives.
    We eas­ily removed the Saddam, Taliban, and if we want to, remove Iran, Syria, and DPRK. So what, that is only the beginning?

    Reply
  6. Nanonymous says:
    April 20, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    The FCS/“Cold War gear” false dilemma is par­tic­u­larly embar­rass­ing. So our choice is between old stuff and a pro­gram whose PMs still can’t tell us when, if ever, it’s going to deliver? Right, got it. When you read advice like that, you really real­ize why Rumsfeld tuned Shinseki out.

    Reply
  7. Nanonymous says:
    April 20, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    I should add that the bad­ness of some of these ideas isn’t really obvi­ous to peo­ple who aren’t very famil­iar with the Defense Department and its cul­ture. Take the “advi­sor corps” idea. Sounds great, doesn’t it? We’ll take a bunch of super guys, and make them advi­sors! That’ll fix the prob­lem.
    Except it won’t. The Army tried this with AC/​RC in the Nineties, and guys treated it as a death sen­tence when it was a tem­po­rary assign­ment — make it a per­ma­nent assign­ment, and it won’t take peo­ple long to twig to the real­ity that it’s tak­ing ambi­tious guys away from the expe­ri­ence and con­tacts they need to be con­sid­ered for com­mand slots — and you’ll be left with a for­eign legion of throwouts, some­thing that looks about as effec­tive as any other por­tion of the mil­i­tary that’s staffed by the B-​​Team — like Public Affairs, or Psyops, or Civil Affairs — any of THOSE strike you as notable suc­cess sto­ries?
    But it briefs well.

    Reply
  8. sglover says:
    April 20, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    “Los Angeles class sub­marines? Does he mean Virginia? If you put it too far out in the future Electric Boat will go bust– the engi­neers will end up work­ing on XBOX 3.“
    Yeah, and it’s a shame that we let all the trireme car­pen­ters go, too. I think the Republic will sur­vive if we cut off the expen­sive life sup­port that the sub­ma­rine “indus­try” “requires”.….

    Reply
  9. JH says:
    April 20, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    “Extend the pur­chase of Los Angeles class subs, push­ing them off into the future.” Oh my god oh my god! They said Los Angeles class, when they should have said Virginia class. You think being mil­i­tary men that they would have noticed that…
    So how did every­one like my impres­sion of DefenseTech over the Boeing spon­sored poster?

    Reply
  10. RJB1012 says:
    April 20, 2007 at 11:14 pm

    ‘Cut down on nuclear weapons stock­pile and mod­ern­iza­tion which will save the Pentagon money for other, more press­ing needs.

    Reply
  11. James says:
    April 21, 2007 at 3:55 am

    FCS is a pow­er­point wet dream, but beyond that its con­cept that lost touch with real­ity. The one good thing that Iraq did is force the army to begin to real­ize that sit­u­a­tional aware­ness is not armor.
    FCS should be turned into a R&D pro­gram and spi­ral out any good ideas. Incremental advances in the cur­rent sys­tems (they work vs vapor­ware) And buy more sealift and air­lift to cover the gaps.

    Reply
  12. Aussie ArmChairGeneral says:
    April 21, 2007 at 10:01 am

    >mounted infantry face a 10 per­cent greater chance of >sur­vival when mounted.
    When you read the com­plete text of Scales’ com­ments you find that what he actu­ally claims is:
    “when sol­diers and Marines fight mounted in vehi­cles their chance of sur­vival in bat­tle increases an order of mag­ni­tude.” That’s a hell of a lot more than a mere 10%!!

    Reply
  13. Matthew says:
    April 21, 2007 at 10:25 am

    Great stuff all around. Part of me is so thank­ful that the debate is ongo­ing, with well thought out points from all sides. I will say, I do not make a con­crete link between well thought out ideas and the cor­rect path.
    The two pieces of this arti­cle that I agree with most are the reduc­tion in spend­ing for nukes. We have enough to destroy the planet three times over, yes, we still only have one planet, not three, and the point about the officer/​nco sab­bat­i­cal. I am a grad­u­ate of the Naval Postgraduate School, and it was an amaz­ing expe­ri­ence. The abil­ity to fur­ther my tech­ni­cal skill while also being briefed reg­u­larly by Flag offi­cers and civil­ian lead­ers of equiv­a­lent stand­ing (or higher) was absolutely won­der­ful and enlightening.

    Reply
  14. pedestrian says:
    April 22, 2007 at 12:36 am

    >Krepinevich:
    >irreg­u­lar war­fare units
    Bad. There is no front­line in assy­met­ric war­fare. Anyone can be a tar­get, and every­one in the oper­a­tion should be pre­pared for irreg­u­lar war­fare.
    >Korb:
    >Stop spend­ing so much money on bal­lis­tic mis­sile defense.
    What an idiot! It’s not an immidi­ate threat, but China could some­day be a real threat. Russia is mod­ern­iz­ing its force. Several bar­baric coun­tries have desires to build nuclear weapons on its own. It’s too late by the time the enemy is in the final stage devel­op­ing sgnif­i­cant num­bers of nuclear weapons.
    >Stop V-​​22 pro­duc­tion and buy more heli­copters.
    Not until the off­springs of Sikorsky X2 are in ser­vice. How much money and time did we spend devel­op­ing tiltro­tors? 50, more than 50 years, and this man wants all the money wasted for nothing!?

    Reply
  15. Andrew F says:
    April 22, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    To pedes­trian
    >irreg­u­lar war­fare units
    >Bad. There is no front­line in assy­met­ric war­fare. Anyone can be a tar­get, and every­one in the oper­a­tion should be pre­pared for irreg­u­lar war­fare.
    Yes, but there are def­i­nitely times and places with higher risks of asym­met­ric attacks. Post-​​invasion Baghdad requires a dif­fer­ent force mix than, say, an assault on Pyongyang.
    ————–
    To Nanonymous
    That’s absolutely true, but civil­ian action can shape mil­i­tary cul­ture. All you need is a strong pres­i­dent and SecDef to make it happen.

    Reply
  16. The other other other Max says:
    April 23, 2007 at 3:30 am

    I may well be doing him an injus­tice, but it reads a lot like McCaffrey’s joined at the hip with the big con­trac­tors. “Tech! Gear! EVEN MORE TECH AND GEAR! For the Iraqis, too! And the Afghans!… oh, uh…and I guess lan­guage train­ing as well. That might help.“
    Don’t know a damn thing about the man, I’ll admit; I’m just say­ing that’s how it came across to me.

    Reply
  17. Nanonymous says:
    April 23, 2007 at 8:43 am

    “That’s absolutely true, but civil­ian action can shape mil­i­tary cul­ture. All you need is a strong pres­i­dent and SecDef to make it hap­pen.“
    Um — names “Donald Rumsfeld” and “George W. Bush mean any­thing to you? ‘Cause from where I sit, the for­mer got all the sup­port he asked for from the lat­ter to make a full-​​frontal effort to change the Army’s cul­ture. I can’t think of another sec­re­tary who went to the lengths he did to effect a change. Bringing in a retired SOCOM 4 star to head the Army is a good exam­ple; SOCOM is to some extent an unof­fi­cially rec­og­nized fifth ser­vice, and Schoomaker had spent most of his life there, return­ing to ordi­nary Army ser­vice only to get his ticket punched for pro­mo­tion pur­poses. It was like bring­ing in a new CEO to change a com­pany. The ques­tion of whether the phys­i­cal and orga­ni­za­tional changes he made will, over time, result in a cul­tural change remains to be seen, but I sub­mit that it’s just plain impos­si­ble to set out to sim­ply “shape” the cul­ture of an insti­tu­tion like the Army. It’s too big, too com­plex, and too much a prod­uct of a mil­lion indi­vid­ual out­looks and deci­sions to change through blunt, social-​​engineering-​​type pol­icy decisions.

    Reply
  18. TWF says:
    April 23, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    It would seem (admit­tedly, based on your sum­mary), that “new con­cepts” seem more and more like repack­aged exist­ing con­cepts.
    Also, Krepinevich’s “Joint Urban Warfare Training Center” sounds like the MUTC that’s being setup by the Army and ANG in Indiana (MUTC​.org).

    Reply
  19. cheap SOF gold says:
    August 1, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    He touched me most is that I give up a 93 lev­els, as he went to moun­tain play. We brush mon­sters, chat and earn cheap SOF gold together. Time passed quickly, I gen­tly told him. I am depressed when I not see him; I click on his name send my happy, only he can refresh my loneliness.

    Reply
  20. Archlord money says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:10 am

    In the Beach City is such fear­ful­ness, I am own­ing many Archlord money in my pocket.

    Reply
  21. eve isk says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:12 am

    In order to make a lit­tle bit of hun­dreds of thou­sands of eve isk, I com­manded all of the staff hung up the num­ber on the com­puter, and help me mine the mining.

    Reply
  22. Requiem money says:
    August 8, 2008 at 2:55 am

    Angels as we know them soft, cheru­bic her­alds of Valentine’s Day do not exist in Requiem money: Avenging Angel.

    Reply
  23. cheap mabinogi says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    I was excited, orig­i­nally it was such sim­ple, and it also needs a lit­tle cheap mabinogi.

    Reply
  24. lastchaos money says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    You said that who dares to annoy me and you will look for him to PK, and make him lose his all lastchaos money.

    Reply
  25. buy LOTRO Gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Your real­ity hus­band can buy LOTRO Gold for you, but I also can be.

    Reply
  26. Habbo gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    I know that you are not a sloppy per­son, you have your aspi­ra­tion, have your ideal. You will not care the game Habbo gold. Therefore you are doomed to leave Habbo, leave friends who these share some hard­ships, and leave me who am lonely apprentice.

    Reply
  27. buy isk says:
    August 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    I used these money to buy isk, I think I can play EVE again at that moment I am very excited. EVE I am com­ing! Please wait for me!

    Reply
  28. flyff gold says:
    August 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    Because I busy with the upgrade, noth­ing let me take atten­tion, since in the large account I already had more than 1 mil­lion flyff gold, this sim­ple idea has attracted her, I already for­get is she add me become friends or I add her become friend.

    Reply
  29. buy cronous gold says:
    August 15, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    I remem­ber that in the Cronous, I had a good friend, because he did not have enough money to buy cro­nous gold, so his level was lower.

    Reply
  30. buy NosTale Gold says:
    August 18, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    To buy NosTale Gold win you must not only use your strength as a team, with the new fea­tures they plan to add cheap NosTale gold late. So no player will have to worry about ever los­ing their NosTale money account.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • New Army PEO on the way
      To get our AAA quality shoes at reasonable price, Your...
      nike air force ones
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage