• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

Gatordev said:
I'm pretty sure they already are. When I have a pay problem, the nice benefits lady just replies by forwarding my email to the Pay office. Then nothing is done. Then I ping them 2 more times and I finally get a completely unhelpful email reply stating what I already know, but no explanation why.

Thankfully I haven't been underpaid, but I'm pretty sure when I get daily shift over-time for working late, they overpay me by a couple of dollars each time. I've stopped worrying about it because it's not like anyone is paying attention and they certainly aren't interested in addressing the issue when I've brought it up.
Click to expand...

See, those are the kinds of jobs that I don't think will be replaceable soon. Customer service, public/customer facing roles. I know they largely already have been, but that just goes into the bin of "pay a more expensive contract/price for less services" each year. So I don't like that one bit!
 
MIDNJAC said:
See, those are the kinds of jobs that I don't think will be replaceable soon. Customer service, public/customer facing roles. I know they largely already have been, but that just goes into the bin of "pay a more expensive contract/price for less services" each year. So I don't like that one bit!
Click to expand...
MyNavyHR…we’re headed there
 
MIDNJAC said:
See, those are the kinds of jobs that I don't think will be replaceable soon. Customer service, public/customer facing roles.
Click to expand...

My point was that the non-AI, human people aren't actually helpful, nor do they provide customer service, so they might as well be an AI given their usefulness.
 
What does a Navy do? It would appear our Navy sends the following assets to SOUTHCOM:
  • USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70), a guided-missile cruiser, USS Jason Dunham (DDG-109), a guided-missile destroyer, USS Gravely (DDG-107), a guided-missile destroyer, USS Sampson (DDG-102), a guided-missile destroyer, USS Newport News, a nuclear-powered submarine, USS San Antonio, a landing dock ship, USS Fort Lauderdale, a landing dock ship

"Currently, the administration is operating under an interim NDS that is “focused on defending the homeland,” with China and the Indo-Pacific a lower priority, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Senate Appropriations Committee in June." emphasis added.
 
Recently looked at a resume of a retiring officer who worked at NGIA who is job hunting, and his big top resume bullet was how he helped lead the charge to redirect the focus of national imaging intelligence to POTUS’ number one priority of the southern border. That caught my eye.
 
Faded Float Coat said:
What does a Navy do? It would appear our Navy sends the following assets to SOUTHCOM:
  • USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70), a guided-missile cruiser, USS Jason Dunham (DDG-109), a guided-missile destroyer, USS Gravely (DDG-107), a guided-missile destroyer, USS Sampson (DDG-102), a guided-missile destroyer, USS Newport News, a nuclear-powered submarine, USS San Antonio, a landing dock ship, USS Fort Lauderdale, a landing dock ship

"Currently, the administration is operating under an interim NDS that is “focused on defending the homeland,” with China and the Indo-Pacific a lower priority, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Senate Appropriations Committee in June." emphasis added.
Click to expand...
Edited to add: 5th Gen fighters.

What else does a Navy do? "Borrowing language from the post-9/11 “Global War on Terror,” the Trump administration is attempting to turn counternarcotics missions into counterterrorism operations. But applying a new label to an old problem does not transform the problem itself – nor does it grant the U.S. president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians."
 
Faded Float Coat said:
Edited to add: 5th Gen fighters.

What else does a Navy do? "Borrowing language from the post-9/11 “Global War on Terror,” the Trump administration is attempting to turn counternarcotics missions into counterterrorism operations. But applying a new label to an old problem does not transform the problem itself – nor does it grant the U.S. president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians."
Click to expand...
Designating them as terrorists allows Trump to use military force under the 2001 Congressional use of force authorization. Very easy to show how drug money helped Al Qaeda.

Remember when all the crazy liberals were upset at the incredibly vague language in the bill with no end date? Here we are.
 
Spekkio said:
Designating them as terrorists allows Trump to use military force under the 2001 Congressional use of force authorization. Very easy to show how drug money helped Al Qaeda.

Remember when all the crazy liberals were upset at the incredibly vague language in the bill with no end date? Here we are.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure that the terrorist designation alone is sufficient to legally justify the use of lethal force.
 
Faded Float Coat said:
Edited to add: 5th Gen fighters.

What else does a Navy do? "Borrowing language from the post-9/11 “Global War on Terror,” the Trump administration is attempting to turn counternarcotics missions into counterterrorism operations. But applying a new label to an old problem does not transform the problem itself – nor does it grant the U.S. president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians."
Click to expand...

Seems like that article is asking some of the questions I was in the other thread. For perspective, the "Drug War" has also been labeled "Counter-Narco-Terrorism" since just after 9/11, so lumping it in with the overall GWOT has been a thing for a long time. However in the past, utilizing LE actions was all that was needed to execute the maritime mission, while also having the legal strength to convict (versus kill) targets.

Again, the article asks good questions, but if "we" assume from the start that this was a AUMF action and not an LE action (and assuming it has legal standing), then I disagree escalating Use-of-Force was necessary since it wasn't following LE protocols. Obviously part of the confusion is the conflation of both actions together, which certainly isn't a good thing (and has been covered in the other thread).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top