#global-militarism

#global-militarism

The economics are hard to ignore. Shooting down a drone with AeroVironment's LOCUST laser system costs less than $10, using just two to five seconds of laser energy. Compare that to the interceptor missiles currently used against Iranian drone swarms, which cost orders of magnitude more and are in short supply across allied arsenals.

Retired Army Special Forces officer Mike Nelson criticized Hegseth's rhetoric, stating, 'That's a necessary end to achieve goals through military force - you have to kill people to achieve them. That's not the end. It's a weird obsession with death for the sake of it.'

The conversation reveals that the ongoing conflict raises critical questions about the motivations behind US foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel's role in shaping military strategies.

The U.S. has discovered that air superiority and missile defense systems designed to counter tens/hundreds of aircraft and missiles is insufficient against asymmetric attacks of thousands of drones.

When I brought up the drones that Ukraine has used so effectively against Russian tanks, the company's chairman and CEO, Armin Papperger, was withering in his dismissal. 'This is how to play with Legos,' he told me.

Hegseth's actions reflect a broader agenda to reshape the military's leadership, prioritizing loyalty to his political beliefs over military experience and competence.

Our war fighters are leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools. These systems help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react. Humans will always make final decisions on what to shoot and what not to shoot and when to shoot, but advanced AI tools can turn processes that used to take hours and sometimes even days into seconds.

Four days into this situation in the skies over Tehran, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said, 'We're not at war right now.' This was, rather, a 'very specific, clear mission-an operation.' Operation does seem to be the preferred word in government talking points, even as it encompasses assassinating an ayatollah, torpedoing an Iranian naval ship, blowing up fuel depots and a desalination plant, and losing the lives of (so far) eight American service members along the way.

The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better. He added that the US has a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons, insisting, Wars can be fought forever,' and very successfully, using just these supplies.

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, emphasized that vesting war powers in Congress rather than the President represented a crucial safeguard against concentrated executive authority and the potential for individual flaws in judgment affecting national security decisions.

Anthony Glees, Emeritus Professor at the University of Buckingham, called the US and Israeli decision to attack Iran a 'war of choice' and the first red flag which previously led to the last two world wars. He claimed that the conflict in the Middle East did not start out of necessity or self-defense, but as a deliberate decision by two leaders focused on gaining power and keeping it.

The Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, inspired a wave of enthusiastic nodding among the cosmopolitan crowd gathered in Davos last month when he took to the podium and proclaimed that the world order underwritten by the United States, which prevailed in the west throughout the postwar era, was over. The organizing principle that emerged from the ashes of the second world war, that interdependence would promote world peace by knitting nations' interests together in a drive for common security and prosperity, no longer works.

The strategic importance of the Arctic territory - under the flight paths that nuclear-armed missiles from China and Russia could take on their way to incinerating targets in the United States, and vice versa - is one of the reasons U.S. President Donald Trump has cited in his disruptive campaign to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark, alarming Greenlanders and longtime allies in Europe alike.