The US will lose WW3

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »

FirstnameLastname: Jul 10, 2022

nope theyll win did you not see the plan

# ? Feb 29, 2024 07:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 23:13

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

SMEGMA_MAIL posted:

To my knowledge there is an inherent physical limitation to how much you can encrypt drone communications with the current communication networks and infrastructure the military uses because it's really goddamn limited on bandwith. That how Iran developed the ability to be like "no it's my drone now."

That was just gps spoofing if I'm not mistaken

# ? Feb 29, 2024 07:57

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Best Friends posted:

It�s weird because Americans LOVE tenders

# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:06

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

but, they�re going to get a lot of submariners killed without accomplishing anything, which is not great for the eternal rule of the US empire.

Their best case scenario would be something akin to Force Z.

They won't get a lot of submariners killed. That would imply there were a lot.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:10

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

So ugh to those new to the subject, the Strait of Taiwan was known as the grave of US Fleet Boats in WW2 because shallow water makes it easier to detect submarines, and they have nowhere to escape to, so� this will be great.

So this is the RAND analysis being quoted:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA1700/PEA1743-1/RAND_PEA1743-1.pdf

and if you peep the references, there's no reference for Cote, 2011 lol good job RAND.

Luckily, Cote is a pretty unique name, so I found the referenced paper: https://www.usni.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Undersea%20Balance%20WP11-1.pdf

quote:

In setting up an assessment of these opposing undersea objectives and capabilities it is possible to make some summary judgments at the outset. First, there is little reason to discuss U.S. SSBNs because there is no reason to assume that China will ever be able to develop a strategic ASW capability against them. Second, for reasons that will be discussed more below, current Chinese abilities to deny access to U.S. SSNs and SSGNs are very limited and U.S. submarines can currently operate freely in Chinese coastal waters. Third, current Chinese diesel submarines rarely deploy outside the first island chain and essentially never deploy beyond the second, nor would these submarines be well-suited for extended deployments into the Pacific or Indian Oceans because of range and crew habitability constraints. Fourth, current American ASW capabilities are substantially less in Chinese coastal waters than elsewhere for two relatively intractable reasons: the Chinese can deny or greatly limit the access of opposing surface and air ASW platforms near its coast; and very shallow water greatly limits acoustic propagation and therefore detection ranges for both active and passive sonars, the primary ASW sensors. Fifth, if for no other reason than that neither side will have a robust ASW capability in Chinese coastal waters, those waters will constitute a zone of �contested command� in which neither side can assure its use of the sea surface for either commercial or military purposes
...
The enemy of all sonar propagation, passive or active, is shallow water. And the enemy of passive, low frequency, narrowband signal processing are quieting techniques that insulate a submarine‟s rotating machinery from its hull, preventing the coupling of machinery vibrations to the hull and into the surrounding water, and thereby reducing the acoustic source level of the submarine‟s tonals below the background noise at those frequencies.

For the purposes of this discussion, shallow waters are the littoral seas like the northern part of the South China Sea and the East China Sea where the continental shelf extends outward from China‟s coast all the way to the First Island Chain, and where depths rarely exceed 100 fathoms (roughly 600 feet). Beyond the continental shelf, most ocean basins, including the Pacific, rapidly fall away to depths measured in tens of thousands of feet, which is the case both for the Philippine Sea and the southern part of the South China Sea.

In shallow water, all acoustic energy tends to reflect repeatedly off the bottom and the surface, whereas in deep water, acoustic energy can find its way into deep sound channels where it is refracted between warmer water near the surface and denser water near the bottom.7 Reflected acoustic energy loses much more of its pressure than when it is

refracted. In the Cold War a Soviet submarine tonal that might propagate for many hundreds of miles in the Mid-Atlantic would propagate for only 10 miles in the Barents Sea. At the same time, powerful active sonars encounter a different problem in shallow water, which is that well before their signal attenuates into the background noise it experiences reverberation, or the generation of multiple echoes from the bottom and the surface which can not be distinguished from a target echo.

Quiet submarines without pronounced tonals cause problems for passive sonars regardless of water depth, because detection range can drop dramatically with small reductions in tonal strength if those reductions are sufficient to close of ideal deep water propagation paths. The U.S. experienced this problem toward the end of the Cold War, when Soviet SSNs without pronounced tonals were finally deployed. One solution developed by the U.S. in response, the Fixed Distributed System (FDS), demonstrates the key role that maritime chokepoints play in ASW, and the degree to which a chokepoint is determined by sensor performance.

and its analysis of submarine warfare in the straights is less "usa will rule" than the RAND paper makes it seem:

quote:

s discussed above, China has very limited ASW capabilities and U.S. submarines are the most difficult ASW target in the world. Thus, China would have difficulty preventing
U.S. submarines from operating in its shallow coastal waters. At the same time, those waters also significantly reduce the ASW capabilities of U.S. submarines, the only U.S.
ASW asset that could safely operate in them under many circumstances. In such cases, the approaches to Chinese submarine bases and to Taiwanese ports would become the
focal points where American submarines would maximize their detection opportunities against Chinese submarines, should they be assigned that task.

Most likely, American submarines would be deployed to the approaches to Chinese submarine bases for two reasons. First, if any warning of a conflict was available, they could be pre-deployed with an eye both toward warning of initial Chinese submarine deployments, and once conflict started, interdicting exiting submarines as well as those returning from initial missions. This is a better operating environment for American submarines than the approaches to Taiwanese ports, where Taiwanese and possibly American surface and air ASW and/or anti-mine operations would present significant potential for fratricide.

At the same time, American SSNs would face the danger of counter-detection by the best Chinese diesel submarines if they use traditional approach and attack tactics that use organic sensors and torpedoes. This is already driving the American submarine force to some combination of deployable, autonomous, distributed, sensor (DADS) arrays using both acoustic and non-acoustic detection methods for initial detection, and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) for trailing and perhaps attacking very quiet diesels once they are located. In addition, smart mines deployed near opposing bases may play a larger role than in the past. These efforts are a sign that the American submarine force is acting to maintain its traditional tactical dominance over opposing submarines in submarine versus submarine ASW operations. If successful, the exchange rate in such operations will favor the U.S.

dont worry dads are going to save us

# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:21

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

�First, there is little reason to discuss U.S. SSBNs because there is no reason to assume that China will ever be able to develop a strategic ASW capability against them. �

I never want to hear another American say a goddamn word about battlecruisers or Jackie Fisher�s arrogance ever again lmao.

Remember friend as you walk by
As you are now so once was I
As I am now you will surely be
Prepare thyself to follow me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zise8H2_rpA&pp=ygUVd2FnbmVyIHJ1bGUgYnJpdGFubmlh

# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:26

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

�First, there is little reason to discuss U.S. SSBNs because there is no reason to assume that China will ever be able to develop a strategic ASW capability against them. �

I never want to hear another American say a goddamn word about battlecruisers or Jackie Fisher�s arrogance ever again lmao.

Remember friend as you walk by
As you are now so once was I
As I am now you will surely be
Prepare thyself to follow me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zise8H2_rpA&pp=ygUVd2FnbmVyIHJ1bGUgYnJpdGFubmlh

Reminder that antique and quite poo poo Australian collins-class diesel subs can reliably kill a US carrier in exercises.

Not wanting to even talk about the primary threat to any surface fleet. gently caress me. loving... ah. I can't express myself properly in text.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 08:31

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Getting this as an ad on Twitter

https://twitter.com/mindefsg/status/1762806177208082710?t=hMbh1ivzwU4wI18DI2tz8A&s=19 q

# ? Feb 29, 2024 10:19

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

gradenko_2000 posted:

Getting this as an ad on Twitter

https://twitter.com/mindefsg/status/1762806177208082710?t=hMbh1ivzwU4wI18DI2tz8A&s=19 q

really gonna help in a war where the enemies can just fire a shell at my general direction and kill like at least 100 people here

# ? Feb 29, 2024 10:28

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

gradenko_2000 posted:

we're still doing this huh

https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom/status/1763051544742592962

Whose law, bald bitch?

BULBASAUR posted:

"theories of victory"

the jokes make themselves

Capitalist victory only works in theory.

Edit: has anybody ever gamed out what if China just blockades Taiwan until they surrender or starve? Like what is even the plan then?

Orange Devil has issued a correction as of 10:36 on Feb 29, 2024

# ? Feb 29, 2024 10:30

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Why would China blockade Taiwan from trading with China?

If you meant "count China blockade a US invasion force seeking to take Taiwan" the answer is ocean floor. It's a moot point. China already wins Taiwan by default, the US already missed its window and the gap grows ever wider as time passes.

DancingShade has issued a correction as of 11:06 on Feb 29, 2024

# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:03

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

DancingShade posted:

Why would China blockade Taiwan from trading with China?

If you meant "count China blockade a US invasion force seeking to take Taiwan" the answer is ocean floor.

Hey if we're asking that question we can also ask "why would China invade Taiwan?". We're in RAND lala-land here, I'm just wondering what scenario's these idiots are actually gaming out. They always seem to suppose a Chinese invasion when that's not at all necessary?

# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:06

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Orange Devil posted:

Hey if we're asking that question we can also ask "why would China invade Taiwan?". We're in RAND lala-land here, I'm just wondering what scenario's these idiots are actually gaming out. They always seem to suppose a Chinese invasion when that's not at all necessary?

Sorry. Let me put on my Tom Clancy hat with my Matthew Reilly t-shirt. An elite commando team of US special forces who are all 6 foot 6 inches (and then there's their height haw haw haw) will orbital deploy using secret NASA CIA stealth spaceplanes with VTOL, armed with fusion laser railguns synced to the pentagon. Most will die on landing because those PUSSY LIBERALS in DC refused to give Boeing enough money for the D-Luxe version with the safety features. Remember to support are troops! However ARE HERO, Captain Major Butch McGee will pelvic thrust and power squat his way to victory by giving Xi a swirlie and taking his HOT SEXY NUBILE TEENAGE DAUGHTER home with him as she swoons in his arms, overpowered by both his musk and thoughts of his enormous American penis.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:11

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

Orange Devil posted:

Hey if we're asking that question we can also ask "why would China invade Taiwan?". We're in RAND lala-land here, I'm just wondering what scenario's these idiots are actually gaming out. They always seem to suppose a Chinese invasion when that's not at all necessary?

im also sure russia will also be stabbing china at the back in this

# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:11

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Also, more recently while the DPP retained the presidency, they got 40% of the vote and lost the legislative Yuan. If anything, it looks like there is just going to be gridlock in Taipei i.e the status quo which suits China. If anything the independence movement seems to be weakening (not even all DPP voters want a hard vote on independence.)

# ? Feb 29, 2024 11:36

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

Ardennes posted:

Also, more recently while the DPP retained the presidency, they got 40% of the vote and lost the legislative Yuan. If anything, it looks like there is just going to be gridlock in Taipei i.e the status quo which suits China. If anything the independence movement seems to be weakening (not even all DPP voters want a hard vote on independence.)

Residual Marxist auras from the mainland makes some separatists think "c'mon guys we would be wiped out" to the horror of the rest

# ? Feb 29, 2024 16:34

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Trabisnikof posted:

So this is the RAND analysis being quoted:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA1700/PEA1743-1/RAND_PEA1743-1.pdf

and if you peep the references, there's no reference for Cote, 2011 lol good job RAND.

Luckily, Cote is a pretty unique name, so I found the referenced paper: https://www.usni.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Undersea%20Balance%20WP11-1.pdf

and its analysis of submarine warfare in the straights is less "usa will rule" than the RAND paper makes it seem:

dont worry dads are going to save us

everything here is extremely funny, but this one line really stood out to me

quote:

These efforts are a sign that the American submarine force is acting to maintain its traditional tactical dominance over opposing submarines in submarine versus submarine ASW operations.

"traditional tactical dominance" in something that i'm p sure hasn't happened since world war 2 lmao

# ? Feb 29, 2024 16:42

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

Came across this, which seems to explain why our good friends the Swedes went all in on NATO,

The social construction of Swedish neutrality

Since the end of the Cold War and the 'War on Terror', neutrality is considered to be obsolete. This book traces the conceptualisation of neutrality, with a specific focus on Swedish neutrality, examining the link between identity and neutrality.

Well, the chapter titles really tell the story,

Neutrality as a Social Democratic project: tracing the origins of Swedish neutrality,1814�1945
Sweden�s post-war neutrality doctrine: active internationalism and �credible neutrality�
The crisis in Swedish Social Democracy: paving the path for a new identity
A new Swedish identity? Bildt, Europe and neutrality in the post-Cold War era
Into Europe with the SAP: Sweden as an EU member state
The �war on terror� and globalisation: implications for neutrality and sovereignty

Swedish ruling class wanted all-in on globalization posted:

In a little over a decade, there have been three serious exogenous chal-lenges to neutrality. The end of the Cold War presents the first challenge toneutrality in the 1990s. With nothing to be neutral between, neutral stateswere simply urged to abandon this outdated security posture in exchange forgreater cooperation in security matters. The end of bipolarity opened up new avenues for theorising security1but it was assumed that neutrality would become invalid because the nature of the international system had changed.But with no discernable enemy to fight, neutral states adopted a cautious atti-tude and resisted change to their policy.

Second, European integration became another source of pressure, asFinland, Austria and Sweden became member states of the European Union(EU) in 1995. These three neutrals joined the EU at a time when the Unionbegan to accelerate its plans to establish a European Security and DefencePolicy (ESDP) which many regarded as incompatible with neutrality. It is at this juncture that a shift occurs in the policies of neutral states as they attempt to fit in with the norms and values of the EU.

Finally, the events of September 11, 2001 have ushered in a new era in international relations. The terrorist attacks, and the subsequent �war on ter-rorism� have been presented as a challenge that extinguishes any claims towards a neutral stance. For the Bush administration, international terror-ism provides the twenty-first century with �an enemy of ruthless ambition,unconstrained by law or morality . . . The terror that targeted New York andWashington could next strike any center of civilization. Against such anenemy, there is no immunity, and there can be no neutrality.� (Bush, 2002)This appears to be a compelling argument for edging out neutrality becausethe enemy is not a state, the traditional referent for neutrality. Furthermore,the �war on terrorism� is located on a moral and �civilising� plane where �nocountry has the luxury of remaining on the sidelines�. (Powell, 2002) Securitycooperation is divided between those who are �with us or against us�. (CNN,06/11/01) For Europe�s �military non-aligned� states,2the viability of main-taining a non-aligned stance has resulted in the loosening or revision ofneutrality. Within this debate, little attention is paid to how neutrality may beadapted to deal with new security concerns. The focus is how neutrality isproblematic in relation to new circles of cooperation and new threats. But this still does not answer the question of why neutrality cannot be accommodated in today�s security architecture.

...

Neutrality differs in definition and practice between states, butthis research draws upon a common normative thread that is consistent, butoften overlooked: that neutrality has played an important role in the internaland external identity of the nation-state.Foreign and security policy is anexpression of a particular set of norms or values that says something about thenation-state, both internally and externally. Therefore, the broad aim of thisresearch is to locate neutrality as a component of what constitutes nation-state identity and actions.

I examine the link between neutrality and identity, and neutrality and theuses of sovereignty, through a constructivist account of Swedish neutrality.Swedish neutrality is adopted as the case study because its neutrality is uniquefor a number of reasons. First, in the current climate of debate about neutral-ity, the main argument against neutrality is that it is a product of the ColdWar era, which is now over. Yet Sweden has been a neutral state for almosttwo hundred years. Its neutrality did not originate in the context of bipolarity.Thus, it has a deeper lineage than neutral states such as Finland and Austria,whose neutrality has essentially been a product of the post-war era. Ratherthan a realpolitikchoice after military defeat, the origins of Swedish neutralitycontain some deeply normative foundations, which are related to domesticpolitics and state-building.

Second, Swedish neutrality, I argue, is closely tied to the hegemonic roleof the Social Democratic Party (SAP) in Swedish politics and society. TheSocial Democratic vision of society permeated not only social and political lifein Sweden, but also provided a particular ideology that underlined the corepolicies of the welfare state, active internationalism and the Swedish Model.Social Democratic norms and values have become entrenched over a numberof decades, and as such, even conservative elements within Swedish politicsgenerally accepted these core Social Democratic �institutions�, such as con-sensus and policy reform. The Social Democratic idea of society remainsbound up in concepts of solidarity, consensus and universalism, which con-tained a deeper resonance or spoke of something universal to all Swedes.Neutrality was part of this understanding of collective self, and thus notwholly derived from external understandings of the anarchic internationalsystem.

Third, Sweden practised an active brand of neutrality. Far from isolation-ist, Swedish neutrality was the platform from which to export core SocialDemocratic norms and values to the international level. This is evidenced inan active neutrality policy that embraced solidarity with the Third World,development cooperation, mediation, peacekeeping, initiatives such as disar-mament and non-proliferation, active UN involvement and criticism of thesuperpowers during the Cold War. Sweden�s attachment to ideas of progres-sivism in its social, economic and political history has formed the basis forSweden�s unique use of its neutrality. Neutrality complemented Sweden�sstrong internationalist profile.

...

The ideas of the folkhem (�the Peoples� Home�), solidarity and universalism were potent metaphors which were tied to Swedish neutral-ity as much as they were to Swedish society, economics and politics. The explanation of neutrality as the policy of weak and small states is not the only account of neutrality. The story is far more complex, reflecting endogenous factors that reveal a different story of how the nation-state imagines itself and responds to the outside environment. Neutrality is part of the package of Swedish political life and its particular worldview. The embedded nature of Swedish neutrality is tied up with collective meanings and values that have constructed the Swedish nation-state, and efforts to abandon neutrality remain a difficult and sensitive subject. Neutrality still enjoys widespread support within Sweden, primarily because it has a strong connection to Swedish identity.

Interests and identities are, however, susceptible to change, and this book also investigates how Swedish neutrality is being reconstituted, particularly since the 1990s. Now an EU member state, Sweden has reconsidered the uses of neutrality in the context of interdependence and new security threats. Although resisting the lure of military alliances, Sweden now participates in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and cooperates with NATO in the context of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), the Western European Armaments Group (WEAG), and Partnership for Peace (PFP). In February 2002, the Swedish government produced a new formulation of Swedish security policy, which is the sharpest signal yet of a new interpreta-tion of Swedish neutrality and opens up the possibility for its eventual abandonment in the future. A little over a decade ago, such a scenario wouldhave been unimaginable. Clearly, neutrality has turned �into a different polit-ical animal� (Andr�n, 1991: 67); one, which many would claim, may soon become extinct.

tl;dr neoliberalism

# ? Feb 29, 2024 16:44

stephenthinkpad: Jan 2, 2020

Sweden was the most "open covid" country in Europe, it tracks.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 17:24

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

Cerebral Bore posted:

everything here is extremely funny, but this one line really stood out to me

"traditional tactical dominance" in something that i'm p sure hasn't happened since world war 2 lmao

There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine

# ? Feb 29, 2024 19:59

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

StashAugustine posted:

There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine

Pretty sure quite a lot of US subs managed to sink a sub courtesy of their special torpedoes.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:04

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

StashAugustine posted:

There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine

and the U Boat was surfaced, right? British T Class sank it off Norway?

# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:05

SixteenShells: Sep 30, 2021

maybe China's missiles will ALSO fail to launch and fall in the sea harmlessly next to the sub

it could happen

# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:05

stephenthinkpad: Jan 2, 2020

StashAugustine posted:

There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine

Are you telling me the climax of Hunt for Red October was not real?!

# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:15

GlassEye-Boy: Jul 12, 2001

Cerebral Bore posted:

everything here is extremely funny, but this one line really stood out to me

"traditional tactical dominance" in something that i'm p sure hasn't happened since world war 2 lmao

China has Geo-synchronus imaging and surveillance satellites all around the SCS and Taiwan. I would imagine some of those have interesting capabilities for identifying subs in shallow waters.

GlassEye-Boy has issued a correction as of 20:47 on Feb 29, 2024

# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:38

Zeppelin Insanity: Oct 28, 2009; Wahnsinn
Einfach
Wahnsinn

BearsBearsBears posted:

Are submarines easier or harder to find in shallow waters?

Edit: The US has two (2) total submarine tenders, both from the 1970s.

Large parts of the Taiwan Straight are about 50m deep.

A US Ohio-class is a bit over 10m tall.

Presuming you don't want to drag your hull along the very bottom, and presuming Chinese ships, you know, exist below the waterline, it really does not leave a lot of room. The Taiwan Strait is also, well, not very large. It is only 180km wide.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 20:38

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

StashAugustine posted:

There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine

there have been a lot more submarines sunk by a submarine however :v:

# ? Feb 29, 2024 21:23

cock hero flux: Apr 17, 2011

StashAugustine posted:

There has been exactly one submarine in history sunk by another submarine

it wasn't even an american sub that did it

# ? Feb 29, 2024 21:30

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

cock hero flux posted:

it wasn't even an american sub that did it

# ? Feb 29, 2024 21:35

GoLambo: Apr 11, 2006

The west has regressed into the minds of 14 year old boys arguing over wargaming factions for a long time now. It's just so darkly comical and awesome that this entire class of professionals have been largely reduced to magical thinking because their work is essentially just thumbs-up rubber stamping everything a defense contractor brochure is trying to sell.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:29

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

GoLambo posted:

The west has regressed into the minds of 14 year old boys arguing over wargaming factions for a long time now. It's just so darkly comical and awesome that this entire class of professionals have been largely reduced to magical thinking because their work is essentially just thumbs-up rubber stamping everything a defense contractor brochure is trying to sell.

and getting scammed in the process too

# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:41

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

The 14 year olds are funnier and more insightful, but you knew that.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:42

Stairmaster: Jun 8, 2012

it would be funny to see people discussing geopolitical conflicts like teens shitposting about various anime characters power levels. the united states of FRAUD

# ? Feb 29, 2024 22:53

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019; Can't post for 4 hours!

lol
U.S. Department of State Concludes $51 Million Settlement Resolving Export Violations by The Boeing Company - United States Department of State

www.state.gov - February 29, 2024 posted:

The U.S. Department of State has concluded an administrative settlement with The Boeing Company (Boeing) to resolve 199 violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. � 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR parts 120-130. The Department of State and Boeing reached this settlement following an extensive compliance review by the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance in the Department�s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.

The administrative settlement between the Department of State and Boeing, concluded pursuant to ITAR � 128.11, addresses Boeing�s unauthorized exports and retransfers of technical data to foreign-person employees and contractors; unauthorized exports of defense articles, including unauthorized exports of technical data to the People�s Republic of China, a proscribed destination under ITAR � 126.1; and violations of license terms, conditions, and provisos of Directorate of Defense Trade Controls authorizations.

All of the alleged violations were voluntarily disclosed, and a considerable majority predate 2020. Boeing cooperated with the Department�s review of this matter and has incorporated numerous improvements to its compliance program since the conduct at issue.

Under the terms of the 36-month Consent Agreement, Boeing will pay a civil penalty of $51 million. The Department has agreed to suspend $24 million of this amount on the condition that the funds will be used for the Department-approved Consent Agreement remedial compliance measures to strengthen Boeing�s compliance program. In addition, for an initial period of at least 24 months, Boeing will engage an external Special Compliance Officer to oversee the Consent Agreement, which will also require two external audits of its ITAR compliance program and implement additional compliance measures.
�

# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:07

poisonpill: Nov 8, 2009; The only way to get huge fast is to insult a passing witch and hope she curses you with Beast-strength.

I can�t even

# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:09

GoLambo: Apr 11, 2006

mawarannahr posted:

lol
U.S. Department of State Concludes $51 Million Settlement Resolving Export Violations by The Boeing Company - United States Department of State

Both sides lawyers are just Chinese spies quietly sweeping this under the rug so they can continue their technology theft operation right under the noses of their oblivious superiors forever out of the office on long lunches.

# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:24

SixteenShells: Sep 30, 2021

more people should give china their technical secrets, i think. it's the cool thing to do

# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:33

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

profit motive is a bitch

# ? Feb 29, 2024 23:58

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Z the IVth posted:

Pretty sure quite a lot of US subs managed to sink a sub courtesy of their special torpedoes.

sorry I�m dumb as poo poo, but I�m assuming this is a double entendre I�m not getting (?)

edit: thanks, that�s funnier than a dick joke

cat botherer has issued a correction as of 00:30 on Mar 1, 2024

# ? Mar 1, 2024 00:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 23:13

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

cat botherer posted:

sorry I’m dumb as poo poo, but I’m assuming this is a double entendre I’m not getting (?)

No, early war US torpedoes were so bad they were almost better at sinking their own subs than enemy ships. It's actually a pretty good fit for this thread (they were basically only tested in what amounted to swimming pools and had multiple layers of failures so fixing one just exposed another), though eventually the problem became so obvious that the navy was forced to actually fix them

# ? Mar 1, 2024 00:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »