ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

"Three things the US Army Chief of Staff Wants You to Know"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jim30, May 23, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. What a load of crap.
    Modern Army?
    Piss off!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. There was me thinking that all of that was a 'given'. Times have changed, and then changed back.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Fact is when required they will kick ass. They may not dress the same but they don’t mind piling in when required.

    They did so when 77 men faced 700 at Lexington. When Thomas Jefferson decided that unlike the rest of Europe he was not about to meekly pay tribute to the Barbary pirates, and, at various other times.

    They carry a big stick and are not afraid to use it. May not have the history, but certainly have the muscle at this stage in time.

    But as we all know Empires and superpowers rise and fall, Not sure I like the idea of the Chinese taking over.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Basra....
     
    • Like Like x 5
  5. I reckon he would still use the showers.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. I very much liked the reference to "air conditioned accommodation". When I stated at Airport Camp in Belize we lived in Nissen huts with wobbly fans through which bats as big as dinner plates flew after dark. The ablutions were primitive, cold water only and were often visited by crabs the size of hub caps which would test your toes for edibility.

    By contrast the MPBW (dept of environment as it later became) building close by had hot and cold water and was fully air conditioned. There were only two expats there and about 20 local staff - it seemed like 20 staff - who would spend all day in air conditioned splendour and then go home to their non air conditioned banana leaf roofed huts on stilts.

    Not that I wanted air con, we soon got acclimatised to the heat and we had to operate in the steamy jungle from time to time. Air con would have been detrimental to our ability to cope with the climate on ops.

    I have aircon in my bedroom here but rarely use it as I find a good fan is enough except when the humidity is around 90% when it's time to break out the gin and tonic.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
  7. Pity that because it's going to happen.
     
  8. Hopefully I won’t be around, but yes it does look that way.

    Not only due to population numbers and economic potential, but also as Prof Rushton has controversially pointed out, as a race, they are genetically a few points ahead in IQ.

    Unpalatable but possibly inevitable.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. The thing that becomes very apparent in the US forces, especially the Army is the amount of Reserves that deploy. The one thing myself and other ex-UK mil working out here with me is the knowledge/capability gulf of a Reserve and Regular in the US is a lot less than UK. The average seasoned Brit mil can pick out the Reserve augmentee quite quickly and whilst so called PDT can decrease that gulf there is still a limitation as 2 drill nights a week cannot make up for 5-6 days a week Regular experience, that's a given. But the US Reserve guys are pretty professional in how they conduct themselves. I think this goes back to how serving in the Mil in the US is a valued right rather than how we are and attracts the right person to join the Reserves.
    But going back to their sheer numbers, especially equipment. I had a recent issue which without going into detail required movement by air. With security issues with the "natives" I asked if there was anything the US mil could do to help out. No problem they said and deployed assets which to be fair in the UK mil I would have been surprised to have turned up for a major mil op never mind what I was doing here.
     
  10. I'm not convinced by the genetic IQ argument. If there is a genuine difference, and measuring, even defining, IQ is not as simple as height or weight; then I suspect it's more likely due to teaching methods, or just the amount of effort put in. If China has a real advantage I'd suggest its the number of engineers involved at senior levels, people who have been trained to make things work as opposed to make things sound like they'll work. It also helps that they can do so without having to worry unduly about getting elected, although I'll bet the internal politics of promotion within the party hierarchy makes Westminster and Washington look like playschool. Nor do they have to be particularly nice to the common people who stand in their way.
     
  11. Caecilius

    Caecilius LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    What do you find unconvincing about the genetic IQ argument? I appreciate that IQ is a pretty rough measurement, but those of Chinese descent tend to score better on IQ tests in other countries as well so that at least controls for teaching methods. I think you would expect, a priori, to observe racial differences in IQ so I'm not convinced that you can put all of the difference down to other factors.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Don't the US Regs & Reserves complete the same courses?
     
  13. Firstly to show a genetic difference you need to show what actual genes differ between the populations you're studying and show that this is a statistically significant change from one population to the other. No such reliable study has ever been undertaken. To do so would be a massive undertaking, not just in taking the samples but in analysing the data.
    So if you could/had shown that two populations were genuinely significantly genetically different you would need to show which gene, among those that are different, was causing the effect. So if UGT1A13 is the cause of Chinese improved IQ then British children of non Chinese decent with UGT1A13 would also be statistically significantly more intelligent. {UGT1A13 is a real gene but it's unlikely to be anything to do with intelligence]. The picture is muddied by the fact that if it is genetic it's unlikely to be one gene, it's more likely to be several probably working in conjunction. Unraveling this sort of thing is orders of magnitude harder than looking for a single defective gene causing an illness.
    Then there's the issue of IQ tests themselves, the links below will give you some idea of current perceptions in the academic community.
    What Do IQ Tests Test?: Interview with Psychologist W. Joel Schneider
    The Disadvantages of IQ Tests
    https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/npb/people/amc/articles-pdfs/aspeinte.pdf
    Lets say it's not a sound argument that IQ test results really tell you anything.

    Finally we don't make a priori assumptions in good science that's the prerogative of racial supremacists/apologists, creation scientists and others of similar dubious credentials. The scientific method is to assess the data and draw the most likely conclusion. I'd suggest that the consensus on the most likely conclusion at present is, "We don't have the data to make a scientifically meaningful statement".
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. And in Coventry near the canal basin Which coincidentally looks like the Turkish fleet after the RN had finished with it.