U.S. Capabilities Are Showing Signs of Rot

[Anonymous]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/military-failures-trump-iran/686244/

I read this article earlier in the week, and after the crash of the refueling plane in Kuwait ( https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/world/middleeast/us-refueling-plane-crash-iraq.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TFA.agRp.MzBNqMMyornU&smid=url-share ) I think this is right.

Our military is the most expensive and allegedly the best, but the examples in this article, as well as things like our navy mishaps over the last decade, indicate that maybe we have some real problems.

Oh, I forgot that we've had to ask for Ukraine's help with drone defeats - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-ukraine-is-helping-the-u-s-defend-against-irans-drone-attacks

[Anonymous]

Definitely agree we need to learn from Ukraine and pivot away from bloated and unsustainable defense contracting models

[Anonymous]

This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.

[Anonymous]

It always seemed odd that USAF could not buy sufficient semi-modern tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135s from the 1950s and maybe early 1960s. They bought a few KC-10s, based on the DC-10, but are retiring the newer planes and keeping the old ones. Very odd.

Same with the B-52. There ought to be an affordable non-exquisite bomber to replace the B-52.

We also need a non-exquisite affordable fighter to replace the F-16s and their non-stealth missions. Not every fighter/attack airplane needs stealth.

[Anonymous]

It’s the whole defense contracting system. They over promise, underperform, exceed budgets and can’t manufacture what they make.

The US was known for logistics. Not anymore.

Look at the THAAD and Patriot systems. The defense contractors tested it and said 100% effective. Real life is like 25% and 0% against anything moving at March 4. They promised 600 a year for THAAD and delivered 96.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.

So then DEI is actually bad, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.

So then DEI is actually bad, right?

I think she/he is saying the MAGA he replaced the capable people with is bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the whole defense contracting system. They over promise, underperform, exceed budgets and can’t manufacture what they make.

The US was known for logistics. Not anymore.

Look at the THAAD and Patriot systems. The defense contractors tested it and said 100% effective. Real life is like 25% and 0% against anything moving at March 4. They promised 600 a year for THAAD and delivered 96.

But a lot of it seems simply to be USAF always asking for exquisite, rather than replacing decrepit stuff with modern stuff that does the same non-exquisite mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It always seemed odd that USAF could not buy sufficient semi-modern tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135s from the 1950s and maybe early 1960s. They bought a few KC-10s, based on the DC-10, but are retiring the newer planes and keeping the old ones. Very odd.

Same with the B-52. There ought to be an affordable non-exquisite bomber to replace the B-52.

We also need a non-exquisite affordable fighter to replace the F-16s and their non-stealth missions. Not every fighter/attack airplane needs stealth.

If you've bought an appliance recently you'd have realized that the stuff built in the 60's was better made and built to last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It always seemed odd that USAF could not buy sufficient semi-modern tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135s from the 1950s and maybe early 1960s. They bought a few KC-10s, based on the DC-10, but are retiring the newer planes and keeping the old ones. Very odd.

Same with the B-52. There ought to be an affordable non-exquisite bomber to replace the B-52.

We also need a non-exquisite affordable fighter to replace the F-16s and their non-stealth missions. Not every fighter/attack airplane needs stealth.

If you've bought an appliance recently you'd have realized that the stuff built in the 60's was better made and built to last.

People only like newer and shinier. There is hardly anything that was built recently that was made to last. Hence all the toxic waste filling up the landfills.

[Anonymous]

A piece of advice, OP. Don't read The Atlantic. If you want to talk about rot - that's rot.
They occasionally get things right.... but it is rare.
Try other sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.

So then DEI is actually bad, right?

It depends, but remaining maga just doesn’t understand it, which is fine, they don’t understand a lot of things. In real life it’s a tool, in the Trump administration it’s about not only replacing competent people with less competent white people, they have to dig further to bottom of the barrel to find the ones that are also loyal to Trump. Actually reverse that, it’s always white and loyal fisrt, competence is a “nice to have.”

Please choose literally anyone he’s appointed for evidence.

Anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It always seemed odd that USAF could not buy sufficient semi-modern tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135s from the 1950s and maybe early 1960s. They bought a few KC-10s, based on the DC-10, but are retiring the newer planes and keeping the old ones. Very odd.

Same with the B-52. There ought to be an affordable non-exquisite bomber to replace the B-52.

We also need a non-exquisite affordable fighter to replace the F-16s and their non-stealth missions. Not every fighter/attack airplane needs stealth.

If you've bought an appliance recently you'd have realized that the stuff built in the 60's was better made and built to last.

Things that last don’t make everyone in the supply chain rich, including congresspeople and lobbyists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.

So then DEI is actually bad, right?

Yes, because in the end, DEI only benefits white people directly or indirectly.