Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[atomheartbevo 89682]

7 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Ukraine rations to fire off about 120,000 shells per month, but even that is only sustainable because the US and EU draw down on their reserves, which has its own issues both in terms of military readiness for the countries drawing down,

It's a difficult thing, because on the one hand the border countries (Baltics, Finalnd) Poland, etc.) are willing to dampen or sacrifice their military readiness to help Ukraine, knowing that Russia won't/can't go at a NATO member (had NATO not backed Ukraine, that's another story).  And we (and Russia) know that NATO is not going to invade Russia (unless Russia fucks around with WMDs in Ukraine).

These stocks were meant to fight Russia, and at this point, Russia is in no condition to invade any NATO countries because they've been so degraded in Ukraine, so I feel like we should open the floodgates.  Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, we didn't burn through artillery fast enough to cause problems like the Ukrainians are doing, and the US is not going to face another threat on the same level as say Russia.

And before anybody mentions China/Taiwan, we are not going to be hauling towed artillery or SPGs around on ships in the Pacific, hoping to fire them at the Chinese from those ships - the Taiwanese have enough artillery and tanks and stocks to defend their beaches, and that arena is more about anti-shipping, air-to-air/surface-to-air, etc., and making sure that Chinese troops don't even get to the beaches (although the beaches will be killing fields).  Taiwan is not full of Normandy-style beaches that require massive amounts of artillery to defend, and a lot/most of those beaches have chokepoints when moving inland.  If Taiwan had made the case for the stuff we are giving Ukraine, particularly everything we've had in storage, they probably would have gotten it long before now.  The Chinese also don't have the infrastructure for moving heavy stuff onto Taiwanese beaches and then inland anyways.  Again, it's not like Normandy where the Allies could mass the kinds of firepower to push the Germans back and get vehicles landing onto the beaches - the Taiwanese have missiles to make short work of any larger landing craft.

[Superhero 8830]

34 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I believe they are primarily meant to stop Russian citizens trying to flee in order to avoid conscription and destruction of their economy/country.

Build that wall!

[Armybrat 40850]

19 minutes ago, Superhero said:

Build that wall!

And make Putin pay for it! Lol

[BamaATL 16593]

If it's bait, some of it has to be true, and I have no idea if it is or isn't.  For example, the part about the Ukrainians running out of s300's shouldn't surprise anyone, they've been defending their skies for over a year.  However, it only tells part of the story, as more and more western air defense is in country.  To Atom's point, any tech geek guy should be able to put that together.  The bigger thing about this particular part might be that they only need to convince an audience of one (Putin).  If he is convinced that the Ukrainian air defense is weak, perhaps he will order sorties that leads to more shoot downs of higher end aircraft.  

The other thing is, while there are oddly specific details about Russian locations, troop compliments, etc, there isn't much in the way about the Ukrainians.  It does in some cases paint an unflattering of Ukrainian strength, but that may well also be an attempt to play to an audience of one.  Putin has a history of ignoring his advisors, so if he gets something he thinks tells him what he wants to hear, he may well believe it.  

 

[Armybrat 40850]

35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's a difficult thing, because on the one hand the border countries (Baltics, Finalnd) Poland, etc.) are willing to dampen or sacrifice their military readiness to help Ukraine, knowing that Russia won't/can't go at a NATO member (had NATO not backed Ukraine, that's another story).  And we (and Russia) know that NATO is not going to invade Russia (unless Russia fucks around with WMDs in Ukraine).

These stocks were meant to fight Russia, and at this point, Russia is in no condition to invade any NATO countries because they've been so degraded in Ukraine, so I feel like we should open the floodgates.  Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, we didn't burn through artillery fast enough to cause problems like the Ukrainians are doing, and the US is not going to face another threat on the same level as say Russia.

And before anybody mentions China/Taiwan, we are not going to be hauling towed artillery or SPGs around on ships in the Pacific, hoping to fire them at the Chinese from those ships - the Taiwanese have enough artillery and tanks and stocks to defend their beaches, and that arena is more about anti-shipping, air-to-air/surface-to-air, etc., and making sure that Chinese troops don't even get to the beaches (although the beaches will be killing fields).  Taiwan is not full of Normandy-style beaches that require massive amounts of artillery to defend, and a lot/most of those beaches have chokepoints when moving inland.  If Taiwan had made the case for the stuff we are giving Ukraine, particularly everything we've had in storage, they probably would have gotten it long before now.  The Chinese also don't have the infrastructure for moving heavy stuff onto Taiwanese beaches and then inland anyways.  Again, it's not like Normandy where the Allies could mass the kinds of firepower to push the Germans back and get vehicles landing onto the beaches - the Taiwanese have missiles to make short work of any larger landing craft.

While living in a suburb of Taipei (1957-59) we could hear distant shore batteries firing during the occasional war game maneuvers. 
There was a real threat during the 1958 crisis. My dad was visiting one of the little Nationalist held islands just offshore from the mainland when the Chicoms let loose a massive bombardment that violently shook the entire mountain tunnel fortifications where he was hunkered down. He said a big rat ran across his face.

[MissingInAction 25098]

The "leak" is intelligence diarrhea. 

There are a thousand different leads in it meant to redirect attention towards another thousand leads.

[statsman 5471]

About that air defense-

Ukraine may run out of air defenses by May, leaked Pentagon documents warn
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-may-run-out-of-air-defenses-by-may-leaked-pentagon-documents-warn-b96b0655?st=tps2ggf6ebqrrey&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

[Bevo 13577]

On 4/9/2023 at 11:13 AM, MillerEP said:

 

How many SAMP-Ts have been delivered? Not all anti-aircraft stuff has to be MANDPADS . Although, MANDPADS are cheap and plentiful.

[Mullet Free 40]

It’s a psyop. Anything that embarrassing and true, they would’ve rushed to discredit it by now. Would not let it be known that they’re “panicking”.

[MillerEP 30468]

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

Obvious photoshop if you look at it for more than 5 seconds. Laughable.

[MillerEP 30468]

 

[MillerEP 30468]

 

[MillerEP 30468]

 

[MillerEP 30468]

 

[MillerEP 30468]

 

[KYHorn 17074]

6 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

It seems like "Yes" is the best answer to that question regardless of if the leak did affect the plans or not. It just sows more confusion and uncertainty for the Russians

[MillerEP 30468]

 

[MillerEP 30468]

^Very interesting

[Schulz2.0 28957]

3 hours ago, statsman said:

About that air defense-

Ukraine may run out of air defenses by May, leaked Pentagon documents warn
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-may-run-out-of-air-defenses-by-may-leaked-pentagon-documents-warn-b96b0655?st=tps2ggf6ebqrrey&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

 

[Mullet Free 40]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

 

Now CNN is saying it was all legit and Ukraine is scrambling? They’re laying it on pretty thick.  Why would you broadcast that? Still calling this all a headfake. If it’s not, that is a bad sign. 

[statsman 5471]

Well, either it’s a psyops release, or a gamer with a TS clearance got in an online argument on a gaming message board and decided to share all that info to win the argument. Which is more plausible?

I’m about 60:40 leaning to the latter. 

[Schulz2.0 28957]

 

[Hook1997 5362]

I was talking to a guy yesterday that’s a contractor for the navy that said we are having problems finding pilots.  They don’t have enough instructors and a lot more pilots are leaving early for the airlines recently.  

[atomheartbevo 89682]

[atomheartbevo 89682]

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89682]

 

[BamaATL 16593]

Probably goes in the water is wet category, but nonetheless

 

[Bevo 13577]

14 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Probably goes in the water is wet category, but nonetheless

 

That;s weird:

 

U.S. interest and involvement in Ukraine has long been a subset of its relations with Russia. That reality became even more apparent in 2014, when Russia seized Crimea and established control over breakaway regions of southeastern Ukraine in the chaos that followed the resignation and flight to Moscow of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych.

Ukrainian forces fought a series of battles against Russian-backed separatist rebels in an effort to regain seized territory. But while the West had sanctioned Russia and refused to recognize the Crimean annexation, then-President Petro Poroshenko’s request for U.S. military assistance, ranging from F-16 jets and Javelins to helmets and blankets, gave then-President Barack Obama pause.

At the time, there was a high sensitivity in the White House to avoiding a conflict that could lead to direct confrontation with Russia. Some senior Obama aides initially advocated taking a breather before deciding to arm the Ukrainian military, which only weeks before had been fighting pro-democracy protesters in the streets and was believed to be highly corrupt.

Obama became more convinced that providing high-end armaments to a far-off conflict was folly when, barely a month after Poroshenko’s June 7 inauguration, a Malaysian airliner was shot down by a surface-to-air missile over separatist territory in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 people aboard. Western intelligence believed the weapon had been provided to the separatists by Russia.

If the same thing had happened with U.S.-provided weapons to Ukraine government forces, Obama said at the time, according to aides, the United States would have gotten the blame.

After a year of internal debate, Obama declined to provide lethal aid, overruling most of his national security team. Still, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine between 2014 and 2016, including body armor, night-vision goggles, vehicles and training.

But Obama’s refusal to provide lethal weaponry had by that point become a Republican talking point, leading then-Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to charge in 2015 that the “Ukrainians are being slaughtered and we’re sending blankets and meals.”

Four years later, Trump would echo that charge, claiming that while his administration had sent “antitank busters” to Ukraine, Obama had provided only “pillows and sheets.”

But Trump had his own problems with Ukraine, very little of which had to do with protecting it from Russia. Trump first approved the sale of $47 million worth of 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launchers to Ukraine in December 2017. Delivered in April the following year, they were not deployed to the front lines of the still-simmering separatist war. Under the terms of the sale, they were kept boxed in a military storage facility far from the front lines, where they were to serve symbolically as a “strategic deterrent” to Russia.

In the summer of 2019, Trump froze an additional $400 million in congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine, an action that later became a centerpiece in his first impeachment. Based in large part on a July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that year, in which Zelensky expressed interest in buying more Javelins, Trump deflected the request and instead asked Zelensky for the “favor” of digging up dirt against then Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, and the Ukrainian business dealings of Biden’s son, Hunter.

Trump released the frozen aid when his action, along with a transcript of the call with Zelensky, became public.

Recent days have brought increasing unity on all sides of the political spectrum to help Ukraine. But that has not prevented a partisan rehash of the past eight years.

“I don’t think we left Ukraine defenseless,” said Evelyn Farkas, who served as deputy assistance secretary of defense for Russia and Ukraine from 2012 to 2015. “Could we have done more? Yes. Could everybody have done more? Yes.”

“But nobody foresaw what we see today.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/27/ukraine-us-arms-supply/

[SL Xpress 7516]

2 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

I was talking to a guy yesterday that’s a contractor for the navy that said we are having problems finding pilots.  They don’t have enough instructors and a lot more pilots are leaving early for the airlines recently.  

Define recent?

That's been going on for years. The airlines are short on pilots, so they're paying more. That's always going to take a big chunk out of the military when the airlines are hiring like they are right now.

There are some systemic issues in both the air force and navy. They're not paid a market rate. They don't get to fly as often as they'd like. Or anywhere close, really. For fighter pilots it's a good ol' boys club dealing with a me too environment. It's not a group that's exactly friendly with political correctness.

Frankly, it's always been difficult. It's just more difficult. 

Unless they suddenly raise the pay scale by a bunch and increase the amount of hours they're training, it will continue to be an issue. In other words, it's going to continue to be an issue. 

I could still see pilots willing to head to Ukraine not only to support the mission, but also simply to fly the plane they were trained to fly. 

[atomheartbevo 89682]

59 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I could still see pilots willing to head to Ukraine not only to support the mission, but also simply to fly the plane they were trained to fly. 

Yep, there are some that feel like they were born to do this stuff.

[pops 6986]

4 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

I’m not following the mental gymnastics y’all are attempting in regards to this intelligence leak…why the attempt to reframe it as possibly something other than what it is?

[Schulz2.0 28957]

3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

There are some systemic issues in both the air force and navy. They're not paid a market rate.

The Navy has had issues keeping nuclear rates to stay. A good chunk of it centers on pay and working conditions.

[KYHorn 17074]

1 hour ago, pops said:

More like

[SL Xpress 7516]

2 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The Navy has had issues keeping nuclear rates to stay. A good chunk of it centers on pay and working conditions.

And they're very choosy about who gets in the nuke rating, so these are people with plenty of options. 

Shoot, I bet a high chunk of our nuclear workforce comes from the Navy. 

Yeah, it's a demanding rate where you're underwater all the time. They're treated well at base, but it's not like they get a ton of shore leave. 

I wonder what the re-up percentage is for nukes versus non nukes? The problem is how much more costly it is to train the nukes, and how much more choosy they are for that rating in the first place. 

Honestly, the armed forces overall are hurting badly in recruitment right now. It's just a different environment to be recruiting to the military at the moment. You'd think fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have made it more difficult, but it didn't. 

[atomheartbevo 89682]

11 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Honestly, the armed forces overall are hurting badly in recruitment right now. It's just a different environment to be recruiting to the military at the moment. You'd think fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have made it more difficult, but it didn't. 

Friends who are still in have mentioned it, but it's always been hard to recruit against a decent economy when military personnel are heavily recruited for decent jobs, even those who have not finished college (or even attempted it).

Edit: They also mentioned that with Afghanistan having wound down, that represented a lot of money to soldiers who were getting combat pay, family separation pay, etc. (and apparently some of it was tax exempt, including resigning bonuses, etc., but I didn't ask).

Edited April 11, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[FartingMonk 3608]

7 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

And they're very choosy about who gets in the nuke rating, so these are people with plenty of options. 

Shoot, I bet a high chunk of our nuclear workforce comes from the Navy. 

Yeah, it's a demanding rate where you're underwater all the time. They're treated well at base, but it's not like they get a ton of shore leave. 

I wonder what the re-up percentage is for nukes versus non nukes? The problem is how much more costly it is to train the nukes, and how much more choosy they are for that rating in the first place. 

Honestly, the armed forces overall are hurting badly in recruitment right now. It's just a different environment to be recruiting to the military at the moment. You'd think fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have made it more difficult, but it didn't. 

Nuke rates are not treated well ever.  At shore they are actually treated worse.  At sea they actually get time to sleep.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

 

[atomheartbevo 89682]

Somebody is going to get to visit an open window.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Friends who are still in have mentioned it, but it's always been hard to recruit against a decent economy when military personnel are heavily recruited for decent jobs, even those who have not finished college (or even attempted it).

Edit: They also mentioned that with Afghanistan having wound down, that represented a lot of money to soldiers who were getting combat pay, family separation pay, etc. (and apparently some of it was tax exempt, including resigning bonuses, etc., but I didn't ask).

About 12 years ago I talked to an Army two-star who was at the time overseeing recruitment, and he was raising the alarm about this. His main concern was a rising combo of “chronic unfitness,” extensive drug use, seriously concerning criminal history, and crazy low ASVAB. Really hurt things at the enlisted ranks.

Even the super staid FBI is getting beyond a freak out over pot-smoking and of course the military is, too.  But if you’ve made drug use into a big part of your lifestyle it’s a problem. 
 

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

27 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Somebody is going to get to visit an open window.

My take on this, not based on specific knowledge— just general watching now the Kremlin works in the info space at home and abroad.  This is planned “pre-bunking,” Russian style. 
 

Non-shopped documents are out there; a certain portion, not-insignificant of the Russian population is even consuming Western news and getting their take via VPN. And this is a big story, they’ve seen it. This isn’t the USSR, you have the internet and an educated English speaking urban class. 
 

So you inoculate the portion of the population that’s too lazy/illiterate/etc. to scrounge the internet or get BBC on a VPN. Some mope on a talk show brings up the unaltered documents and estimates.  The others shout him down and bluster and huff. And now it’s been addressed, and anything to do with these numbers and documents are suspect and untrustworthy. 
 

So when your dipshit programmer nephew Vanya says at the table that he’s seen unaltered docs that show how bad things are going for Russia, boomer aunt and uncle are primed to dismiss it like Solovyev told them to. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by 956 Worldwide

[Schulz2.0 28957]

Thread about how Prigozhin has now started shit with Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

 

[SL Xpress 7516]

4 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Nuke rates are not treated well ever.  At shore they are actually treated worse.  At sea they actually get time to sleep.

It’s all perspective. I was in engineering on a 30 year old steam engine cruiser based on 32nd street. When I would head up to the sub base north of Seattle it was night and day how those guys lived and how we did. 

The nuke ratings are one of the stars of the Navy in many ways. I’m sure it doesn’t always feel like that when you’re in it, but that’s because you’re not in the surface fleet. 

In any case, it’s for sure a sacrifice. All military service is. I didn’t retire, so far be it from me to say why someone else should or shouldn’t re-enlist. If I made it sound like nukes are on easy street, that was not my intent. 

[SL Xpress 7516]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

About 12 years ago I talked to an Army two-star who was at the time overseeing recruitment, and he was raising the alarm about this. His main concern was a rising combo of “chronic unfitness,” extensive drug use, seriously concerning criminal history, and crazy low ASVAB. Really hurt things at the enlisted ranks.

Even the super staid FBI is getting beyond a freak out over pot-smoking and of course the military is, too.  But if you’ve made drug use into a big part of your lifestyle it’s a problem. 
 

 

There’s also a rise in anti war feelings among the younger generation. Not necessarily anti military the way it was post Vietnam, but a general feeling of the US military aren’t necessarily the good guys. 

Something similar is happening with law enforcement, too. Different topic, but the population dynamic and shift in attitude is similar. 

The falling ASVAB scores have been an issue for some time. Maybe it’s reaching a critical mass? Don’t know. But DoD has put out papers before citing it as a concern. 

And then there are the usual issues with a volunteer force that have been cited for decades. That basically a smaller and smaller percentage of our population has any real contact with military personnel. The presidential elections used to be filled with candidates who served, but now it’s become something of a rarity. Not saying we should go back to full mobilization a la WWII just so more of our population has served, but it’s an unintended consequence for sure. 

[SL Xpress 7516]

35 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Thread about how Prigozhin has now started shit with Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

 

People like Prigozhin and Girkin amaze me. How do they stay alive constantly tweaking the establishment the way they do when there are so many windows for others? 

I can’t even imagine navigating the labyrinth the corridors of power in Russia represents. I mean, it’s complicated everywhere throughout history, but for me Russia takes it up a notch by combining politics with an MBA from Organized Crime University. 

[statsman 5471]

9 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I’m not following the mental gymnastics y’all are attempting in regards to this intelligence leak…why the attempt to reframe it as possibly something other than what it is?

I guess it’s not as much fun discussing how Ukraine’s air defense can run out of munitions in May, with far too few Patriots in replacement, setting up a scenario where Russia can have air superiority, and deliver more accurate bombardments of Ukrainian positions. 
 

It’s also not fun to think that there could be accurate privileged Russian info in the docs, setting up our assets in Russia for arrests and executions. 
 
It’s more fun to imagine that it’s all a feint, and that we have in actuality given Ukraine what they need to overwhelm the Russians and have this all finished by early summer. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by statsman

[Captainant 27678]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So when your dipshit programmer nephew Vanya says at the table that he’s seen unaltered docs that show how bad things are going for Russia, boomer aunt and uncle are primed to dismiss it like Solovyev told them to. 

Very familiar disinformation tactics to what we've been seeing and combatting for quite some time. Surly or otherwise. 

[atomheartbevo 89682]

8 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Honestly, the armed forces overall are hurting badly in recruitment right now. It's just a different environment to be recruiting to the military at the moment. You'd think fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have made it more difficult, but it didn't. 

So one of the parents of my kids classmates is in the Texas National Guard (full-time though), and I mentioned the recruiting thing this morning, and his response was "it's that fucking health portal and screening system the military adapted, go Google it, you won't believe it".  Holy shit, story after story of how it's fucking over recruits before they even start MEPS and get sworn in, or it's forcing them to get additional screening leading to longer delays (allowing them to change their minds or benefit from other opportunities), and it's pulling in things that a lot of recruits might not have disclosed to their recruiters, which then disqualifies.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-military-genesis-medical-screening-recruiting/

Quote

This year, the Pentagon officially launched Military Health System (MHS) Genesis, a new electronic health record system for the military that is the result of years of pilot programs, testing, and congressional mandates. Col. Megan Stallings, commander of U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM), called it a “leap in medical modernization” that is “revolutionizing our medical processing.” It was introduced not only at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), but across the military health system to streamline care for service members, dependents, and veterans. 

Quote

The idea was that with MHS Genesis, MEPS would be able to see all of a new recruit’s health records in one place — every broken bone and prescribed medication — to help quicken the process. It was meant to make things easier. But as is sometimes the case with processes and systems in the military meant to help, it didn’t.

Three recruiters in different states who spoke to Task & Purpose on condition of anonymity as they are still serving and were not authorized to speak to the media, said that while they don’t blame Genesis for all of their recruiting woes, the program certainly hasn’t helped. 

Quote

They described an unpredictable process for recruits that last weeks — sometimes months — longer than it did before Genesis came online. The system has resulted in furious parents who are often the ones setting up doctor’s appointments for additional tests and paperwork, they said, and it has discouraged recruits who change their minds in the time it takes the Army to work through their records. 

Quote

Meanwhile, recruiters are still receiving pressure to meet goals that at times seem unrealistic, given the delay Genesis poses. Recruiters who spoke to Task & Purpose also said the military isn’t up-to-date on the very generation they’re trying to put in uniform. They understand why screening is important and certain histories or conditions should be disqualifying for service, but they said things like anti-depressants and medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are increasingly common among young people while posing huge hurdles for joining the military.

There's tons of other articles about it out there, but yeah it's causing a lot of problem with recruits and increasing the amount of time it takes to get in, etc. (and some recruits in the past would not disclose certain things, but now it's disclosing it whether they want to or not).

[YGIFS 19450]

3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

There’s also a rise in anti war feelings among the younger generation. Not necessarily anti military the way it was post Vietnam, but a general feeling of the US military aren’t necessarily the good guys. 

Something similar is happening with law enforcement, too. Different topic, but the population dynamic and shift in attitude is similar. 

The falling ASVAB scores have been an issue for some time. Maybe it’s reaching a critical mass? Don’t know. But DoD has put out papers before citing it as a concern. 

And then there are the usual issues with a volunteer force that have been cited for decades. That basically a smaller and smaller percentage of our population has any real contact with military personnel. The presidential elections used to be filled with candidates who served, but now it’s become something of a rarity. Not saying we should go back to full mobilization a la WWII just so more of our population has served, but it’s an unintended consequence for sure. 

Good points.  Still surprises me after all this time that almost nobody in my peer group comes from a family of veterans.  Fond memories of my father and his Navy buddies grilling and drinking in our backyard growing up telling tales of Cuba Blockade and Vietnam.  Most of the men on both sides of my family served, save for my lazy ass.  I remember on Veteran's Day a couple years ago, I put out the flag with my daughter.  And my neighbor's dad happen to be visiting (U.S. Army), and they snapped a picture of us and he was really touched by it as we hung the flag and she saluted it.  And we got to talking about how on the entire street, only three of us had/have fathers who served and one day the street will have no relatives who served.  Just the way it goes I guess, price of peace.  

In other ironic news, a bunch of Russian men just got bone spurs and can't head off to fight.