This is called information operations and the military has an entire career field dedicated towards it. They develop themes and messages to have a desired effect on the enemy. Lying is part of it and its deliberate. Bluffing is probably a more accurate description. Every administration has participated in it to one…

I’d say the difference between below average in mechanical and power train quality for the Durango and above average for the Tahoe is more than significant.

Perhaps it’s FCAs well below average (and GMs above average) reliability ratings by outlets like JD Power and Consumer Reports.

Don’t forget Mitch Haniger!

Fair points.

Odd. My 08 Silverado is still in like new condition with 109k. Not a single mechanical, electrical, interior or exterior issue. It’s been the most reliable vehicle I’ve ever owned including my wife’s Camry.

The SS was never made to be sold in quantity in the US. It was a great platform and concept. I’d like to find one used in 4 years.

I mentioned direct attack earlier. Still requires a lock.

It’s not used as frequently as you think. The CLU is incapable of bracketing a single human being or even a group. It’s just not designed for that application. Now, a guy in a truck is certainly within its ability. But 10 people in the hills is not.

Dude, I’ve been through the Javelin Gunners course. Yes, they can be used for direct attack (opposed to top attack). No, the FLIR lock system is not good enough to lock on a single human being. You need to bracket something at least three meters in width.

Japan? The nation’s that’s not allowed to have an offensive army?Not expeditionary. South Korea, same. Both of these nations have significant defense forces because they are the beneficiary of US training and equipment.

Those states do no to attempt to field expeditionary militaries. There isn’t a huge difference in concept between the US Military and the British, Australian, Canadian ornate Chinese.

A javelin is an anti armor weapon. What tank is crewed by a single person?

It doesn’t matter if it’s discretionary or not. It’s all taxpayer dollars and our biggest use of them is social programs. The military is 3rd.

It’s not really the US that needs to be concerned—however, many US allies are particularly vulnerable. It all depends if we consider Un a rational actor. If so, then he’d be a fool to attack. If not, then the situation is bad. There’s also the chance that as the regime decays towards collapse, he would launch as a…

They sunk a S. Korean navy destroyer in 2010 killing 109 sailors.

Which is only 75% effective and incapable of covering an area the size of S. Korea. Also consider the prospect of submarine based delivery.

It’s already in thier economic interest. The US is China’s largest economic partner. This is a de-facto alliance that is quickly moving towards formal alliance. China also bears the brunt of millions of N. Korean refugees—a problem they would love to solve long term. Also consider the expansion of Chinese industry to…

The have a significant submarine fleet. At least 3 of which are missile capable.

Devistating economic impacts? Unifying Korea with Chinese and US support would only have long term economic benefits.