Our current military readiness

You guessed wrong. I saw it in the theaters when it first came out. What I was questioning was the meaning of your last sentence. I was stationed at NAS Whiting Field in 1980.

Obviously in the WWII scenario, even a nuclear powered aircraft carrier is vulnerable to Japanese submarines, but launching a missile or depth bomb attack on each Japanese carrier would have thwarted the attack. Even a single 500 pounder through the forward flight deck would haved put one of those carriers out of action.

Why you mention this is the part that is confusing.

 

Vulnerable to the snorters of the 1930's? Give me a break. Against the capabilities of even a 1980's era P-3 Orion? Would not stand a chance. And if you want to know how a more modern carrier would have withstood a submarine attack by Japan, consider the USS Saratoga. She was our 3rd carrier, a Lexington class conversion from a Battlecruiser.

The Saratoga was hit by Japanese submarine torpedoes not once, but twice. The first was in January 1942 when she was struck right midship by a torpedo from the I-6. She took on a list and lost 3 boilers, but was able to return to Pearl harbor under her own power for repairs.

Battle of the Eastern Solomons in August 1942, when the I-26 hit her just behind the island on the right side. Power was knocked out for a few hours and she took on a 4 degree list. But this was correct by lunch time, and she was again under her own power by nightfall. Less than 2 weeks later the damage had been repaired and she was back in service.

So if you think they would do more damage to a much newer ship, I think you are sadly mistaken.

 

Dude, P-3s are landbased. Diesel subs are still a viable threat in 2018, so, yes, even a 1941 Japanese sub could ruin the Nimitz's day. The Japanese type 95 torpedo was superior to the US torpedoes carrying a 893lb warhead, a speed of up to 50kts and a range of almost 10,000 yards....although the closer to the target, the less likely of countermeasures and evasion working and, therefore, the more likely of a hit.

As you pointed out, it depends on where the torpedoes hit. Let's not forget the Yorktown was severely damaged by much smaller airdropped torpedoes then given mortal wounds by a Japanese sub and the Wasp was sunk with only two sub torpedo hits. Sure, a bigger ship would be tougher to sink as both the Bismark and Yamamoto proved to be, but both were sunk with a combination of torpedoes and bombs. Finally, let's not forget all the Japanese ships, including aircraft carriers, sunk by US Navy subs (with torpedoes inferior to those of the Japanese) and torpedo planes (with shorter range, lighter warhead torpedoes).

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.php

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/history-up-close/abandoning-uss-wasp/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#Operation_Ten-Go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers

 

I was not aware of WWP's shadiness, but really now, figures. Only in america would some capitalists decide, hey, let's prey upon the fact the many citizens know we as a society **** on vets who are of no use to us once their fighting days are over. Amazing, and then again, not so. That's all this "support our troops" shtick is for, more emotional manipulation of the masses. This society will forever be in multiple endless wars now until it goes down. Watch. And all for nothing but the benefit of the Wall Street/donor/”job creator” class.

For all your caterwauling about govt my friend, I think it paramount to recognize the differential ouctomes between a govt of/by/for the people - all the people - versus a govt of/by/for societally extracted and concentrated corporate wealth and power. Of course the latter will never work for the people, and mindphucking the people is a critical component of the endeavor. I'm saddened to see you have succumbed.

But really now, your healthcare system sets the bar amongst advanced post-industrial nations? In a manner of speaking, yes, on the low end. America has THE most inefficient, most wasteful, most expensive healthcare system on the planet amongst advanced post-industrial nations with worse outcomes. Perhaps this is why attempted defenses of it must rely upon emotional diarrhea.

Please allow me to point you to some substance:

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,50 on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/

 

If you cared you would have your own, if you would rather not know, ya do this. No posted link will ever resolve everyting, they merely provide a doorway. I understand many do not want to do their own due dilligence, I count you among them. cheers.

And really now, we cannot have anyone challenging war, that would disrupt the entire house of cards.

 

War is terrible but not always the worst thing

 

Especially when we're all at the mall uninvolved. Seven still ain't enough. This is what empires in decline do ya know.

 

We have a surplus and a deficit, interesting isnt it. We turn our college students into debt peons and "enjoy" the shittiest healthcare system on the planet amongst advance post-industial nations all so we can do this:

This chart from April 2013, which is making the rounds again, shows that America's 2012 defense budget surpassed that of the next 10 countries combined.


Defense spending accounts for about 20 percent of all U.S. federal spending. Peter G. Peterson Foundation

While other nations invest in their own societies, we invest in the corporate state's ability to militarily occupy and extract the wealth and resources of other nations just as they do with our own population at home.

Eventually unsustainable and everyone knows that, even if only on some primordial hindbrain level. Watch.

 

All ya got? No concepts, just labels so you don't have to make sense? Typical. If what america does now is "capitalism" in your mind, the system is going to have increasing difficulty over time defending this anywhere outside the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class.

 

They also deploy, do humanitarian missions, go to various army schools and trainings, get activated...etc

 

The last unit I was in was a Field hospital. And they almost always had a group of 4-8 in Guatemala running clinics in the rural areas.

Just last month I had to go to Florida for a week to attend a school.

 

If the next war is with North Korea, that is entirely possible.

On the other hand, if it is against Russia, China, or Iran--or even a country that does not immediately leap to mind--then that may not be the case.

 

We spend more on health care per patient than most other industrialized nations. Whatever health care problems the U.S. has it isn't due to lack of funding. And we spend staggering amounts on education as well.

Why are you so against spending 20% of the federal budget on the military?

 

"We spend more on health care per patient than most other industrialized nations."

Classic, I suppose that is one way of looking at it. Yeah, we do, for ******* outcomes, but hey, middleman profiteering is of more import than a healthy globally competitive population.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,50 on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/

 

http://www.mining.com/web/the-10-trillion-mineral-resources-north-korea-cant-tap/

The Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class will not just allow that wealth to be extracted and redistributed elsewhere, there will be war.

 

U.S. "health care outcomes" is related to a number of other issues totally independent of health insurance or spending levels. For starters.

1) The U.S. has roughly one million immigrants come in every year from poorer nations who tend to have large numbers of untreated health problems.

2) Americans have a plethora of very unhealthy lifestyle habits.

3) Slightly related to that above, Americans are more likely to be injured by violence. Particularly firearms violence.

4) Slightly related to #2 & #3, a higher percentage of Americans are in prison than in most other industrialized countries. penal institutions tend not to be overly healthy environments.

And that's only for starters. It has nothing to do with insurance, healthcare spending much less defense spending.

 

California's Governor "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown has a solution, closing down every prison and jails in America.

Empty the prisons of it's inmates and you end up with empty prisons. Then you close down the empty prisons.

I **** you not, Jerry Brown has a vision of a choo choo train to no where and no more prisons.

"Prisons don't rehabilitate, they don't punish, they don't protect, so what the hell do they do ?"

 

proof, please

 

This sounds like the observation of a hard leftist: Why, the US is run by "The Wall Street/donor/'job creator' class"--rather than by hundreds of millions of hardworking Americans.

Of course, your observations elsewhere--in this thread alone--indicate your place on the political spectrum...

 

I think I furnished that in the OP...

 

Pretty obvious that this power structure pays no attention to the people. We just redistributed even more wealth to the The Wall Street/donor/'job creator' class.

 

Bingo.



The OP is repeating pro war, pro corporate welfare propaganda that we saw in the 1960s when the right wing kept harping about the so called (and non existent) "missile gap". This in order to give trillions in corporate welfare to the military industrial complex.

 

Actually it was Eisenhower but mostly JFK who ran against Richard Nixon back in 1960 on a platform that there was a missile gap.

Nixon saw it differently and was right, there was no missile gap.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/what-was-missile-gap

 

Exactly. All propaganda and all lies. Just like the lies that the military is "hallowed out". Total nonsense with not one word of truth in it.