There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.
Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.
I don't think it's paranoia at all. Look at the fall of the Roman empire. I don't want that to happen, do you? When you have two big superpowers, it's pretty obvious that they're gonna start to butt heads. That old "there isn't enough room here for the both of us." Now... better ways to prepare than the F-22 project? Sure, I don't think I ever said that we should go and build a fleet of a thousand F-22s. Did I? Lemme go back and check this thread... uh, no. Never said that.
And hell yes, we should be preparing for an alien invasion. Do you want humanity wiped out? To lose this war means more then defeat, to surrender is to never go home. All of us must rise to the call, above and beyond.
So...you're just making a joke thread? Is that what this is?
I'm still trying to figure out the Roman Empire part, as Rome fell to the various neighbors it had spent a century or two constantly pissing off while spending much more money on pirate hunting and random conquests than on its own citizens. If anything, it's a good example of the current state of the US.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
You really think we'd just let them invade Taiwan and conquer it without a struggle?
Do you honestly believe they are going to invade Taiwan while its under our nuclear umbrella?
I think it's possible. They'd probably bet on the lack of political will to actually nuke them. And you know what, they'd probably be right. Could you actually see a US President launching nuclear missiles at China's civilian population to protect Taiwan? I couldn't.
That's why the issue has always devolved into a wargame about carrier battle groups. Because that's rationally the only response we can made.
Possible does not mean probable, and we live in a universe with limited resources. What does this tell you? And never mind that there are also innumerable reasons that they won't invade Taiwan beyond just the military ones.
I'd rather focus on realistic problems facing the nation, personally. And also, let me ask this: how many aircraft carriers or attack fighters are enough to dissuade Osama bin Laden or similar from making us burn $3trillion dollars over a decade?
Well, Osama Bin Laden is a different sort of enemy, an assymetrical problem. And it's true that aircraft carriers and air superiority fighters aren't the best tool for fighting terrorists like him. But just because we're focused on him right now doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for more conventional foes. Enemies change in a geopolitical landscape. It's that problem where you're always preparing to fight the last war. You concentrate on one foe and that leads to a strategic blindspot. If you're confident that we're only going to be opposing terrorists like Bin Laden for the rest of our lives, then I suppose we can just get rid of our carriers and planes and just invest in a lot of really expensive airport security scanners. That'd be great. But I'm not certain of that at all. Where hides evil in the kingdom? Always... where you never expect it. Always.
"Surprise is the best weapon to have in any arsenal. With it, all things become possible."
-Excerpt from the testimony of General Patrick Scoffins, Commander-in-Chief of the Republican forces in the Terran Hegemony, August 2780
GUYS, WHO KNOWS WHEN THE NEXT HITLER WILL APPEAR!?
The United States' military spending reminds me of when my neighbor went out and purchased a $200,000 underground bunker and started filling it with food in preparation for the "race riots."
The WWII analogy is especially brilliant because of how far behind the US was at the start of the conflict, with an air fleet composed of planes that shot their own propellers off.
You really think we'd just let them invade Taiwan and conquer it without a struggle?
Do you honestly believe they are going to invade Taiwan while its under our nuclear umbrella?
I think it's possible. They'd probably bet on the lack of political will to actually nuke them. And you know what, they'd probably be right. Could you actually see a US President launching nuclear missiles at China's civilian population to protect Taiwan? I couldn't.
That's why the issue has always devolved into a wargame about carrier battle groups. Because that's rationally the only response we can made.
Possible does not mean probable, and we live in a universe with limited resources. What does this tell you? And never mind that there are also innumerable reasons that they won't invade Taiwan beyond just the military ones.
I'd rather focus on realistic problems facing the nation, personally. And also, let me ask this: how many aircraft carriers or attack fighters are enough to dissuade Osama bin Laden or similar from making us burn $3trillion dollars over a decade?
Well, Osama Bin Laden is a different sort of enemy, an assymetrical problem. And it's true that aircraft carriers and air superiority fighters aren't the best tool for fighting terrorists like him. But just because we're focused on him right now doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for more conventional foes. Enemies change in a geopolitical landscape. It's that problem where you're always preparing to fight the last war. You concentrate on one foe and that leads to a strategic blindspot. If you're confident that we're only going to be opposing terrorists like Bin Laden for the rest of our lives, then I suppose we can just get rid of our carriers and planes and just invest in a lot of really expensive airport security scanners. That'd be great. But I'm not certain of that at all. Where hides evil in the kingdom? Always... where you never expect it. Always.
"Surprise is the best weapon to have in any arsenal. With it, all things become possible."
-Excerpt from the testimony of General Patrick Scoffins, Commander-in-Chief of the Republican forces in the Terran Hegemony, August 2780
Dude, since Nagasaki there hasn't been a large-scale symmetrical conflict. It's not just that we're now fighting asymmetrical conflicts since 9/11. Everything before that was asymmetrical too. Kosovo, Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea. And all that time we've been continuing to build our military like we're about to start a tank battle in East Germany. We've got a strategic blindspot already and it sure as shit isn't symmetrical conflict.
In all seriousness, I do not doubt there is a dusty top secret file somewhere labelled 'in case of extraterrestrial invasion'. US national security types have a plan for literally everything.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
You have proved that again and again in this thread.
We are not going to go to war with a nuclear superpower. Full stop.
We are not going to go to war with an economic codependent. Full stop.
The best defense for our continued safety and prosperity is improved infrastructure and research/development combined with improved education and better immigration policies. Not continuing to spend more money on military hardware than the rest of the world combined.
And hell yes, we should be preparing for an alien invasion. Do you want humanity wiped out? To lose this war means more then defeat, to surrender is to never go home. All of us must rise to the call, above and beyond.
Really? Really? If you're serious then I may as well try to convince you to support NASA and other spacefaring agencies in sending a crew one-way to Mars in preparation for colonization! The sooner we get there, the sooner we discover those buried Prothean ruins that will give us an edge over the Klingon invaders!
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
Should we then also prepare for war against India? How about the EU? Should we put bunkers all along the Canadian border in case they get uppity? Does Brazil's rise threaten our domination of South America so maybe we should get ready to take them out as well? Since you evidently like quotes here are two of my favorites.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?" -President Eisenhower.
"I was taught in the sixth grade that we had a standing army of just over a hundred thousand men and that the generals had nothing to say about what was done in Washington. I was taught to be proud of that and to pity Europe for having more than a million men under arms and spending all their money on airplanes and tanks. I simply never unlearned junior civics. I still believe in it. I got a very good grade. "-Kurt Vonnegut
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
You have proved that again and again in this thread.
We are not going to go to war with a nuclear superpower. Full stop.
We are not going to go to war with an economic codependent. Full stop.
The best defense for our continued safety and prosperity is improved infrastructure and research/development combined with improved education and better immigration policies. Not continuing to spend more money on military hardware than the rest of the world combined.
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
You really think we'd just let them invade Taiwan and conquer it without a struggle?
Do you honestly believe they are going to invade Taiwan while its under our nuclear umbrella?
I think it's possible. They'd probably bet on the lack of political will to actually nuke them. And you know what, they'd probably be right. Could you actually see a US President launching nuclear missiles at China's civilian population to protect Taiwan? I couldn't.
That's why the issue has always devolved into a wargame about carrier battle groups. Because that's rationally the only response we can made.
Possible does not mean probable, and we live in a universe with limited resources. What does this tell you? And never mind that there are also innumerable reasons that they won't invade Taiwan beyond just the military ones.
I'd rather focus on realistic problems facing the nation, personally. And also, let me ask this: how many aircraft carriers or attack fighters are enough to dissuade Osama bin Laden or similar from making us burn $3trillion dollars over a decade?
Well, Osama Bin Laden is a different sort of enemy, an assymetrical problem. And it's true that aircraft carriers and air superiority fighters aren't the best tool for fighting terrorists like him. But just because we're focused on him right now doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for more conventional foes. Enemies change in a geopolitical landscape. It's that problem where you're always preparing to fight the last war. You concentrate on one foe and that leads to a strategic blindspot. If you're confident that we're only going to be opposing terrorists like Bin Laden for the rest of our lives, then I suppose we can just get rid of our carriers and planes and just invest in a lot of really expensive airport security scanners. That'd be great. But I'm not certain of that at all. Where hides evil in the kingdom? Always... where you never expect it. Always.
"Surprise is the best weapon to have in any arsenal. With it, all things become possible."
-Excerpt from the testimony of General Patrick Scoffins, Commander-in-Chief of the Republican forces in the Terran Hegemony, August 2780
Dude, since Nagasaki there hasn't been a large-scale symmetrical conflict. It's not just that we're now fighting asymmetrical conflicts since 9/11. Everything before that was asymmetrical too. Kosovo, Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea. And all that time we've been continuing to build our military like we're about to start a tank battle in East Germany. We've got a strategic blindspot already and it sure as shit isn't symmetrical conflict.
The best part is that people have known about how silly it is to use a military based on air superiority since 1908. That was pretty much the entire premise of The War in the Air.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
Should we then also prepare for war against India? How about the EU? Should we put bunkers all along the Canadian border in case they get uppity? Does Brazil's rise threaten our domination of South America so maybe we should get ready to take them out as well? Since you evidently like quotes here are two of my favorites.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?" -President Eisenhower.
"I was taught in the sixth grade that we had a standing army of just over a hundred thousand men and that the generals had nothing to say about what was done in Washington. I was taught to be proud of that and to pity Europe for having more than a million men under arms and spending all their money on airplanes and tanks. I simply never unlearned junior civics. I still believe in it. I got a very good grade. "-Kurt Vonnegut
The sad part is we have a plan drafted in the event that canada decides to invade us.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited January 2011
Nobody knows if zombies will rise so we better start building our houses on stilts just in case!
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
Should we then also prepare for war against India? How about the EU? Should we put bunkers all along the Canadian border in case they get uppity? Does Brazil's rise threaten our domination of South America so maybe we should get ready to take them out as well? Since you evidently like quotes here are two of my favorites.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?" -President Eisenhower.
"I was taught in the sixth grade that we had a standing army of just over a hundred thousand men and that the generals had nothing to say about what was done in Washington. I was taught to be proud of that and to pity Europe for having more than a million men under arms and spending all their money on airplanes and tanks. I simply never unlearned junior civics. I still believe in it. I got a very good grade. "-Kurt Vonnegut
The sad part is we have a plan drafted in the event that canada decides to invade us.
To be fair they have done it before so maybe they'll do it again.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
You have proved that again and again in this thread.
We are not going to go to war with a nuclear superpower. Full stop.
We are not going to go to war with an economic codependent. Full stop.
The best defense for our continued safety and prosperity is improved infrastructure and research/development combined with improved education and better immigration policies. Not continuing to spend more money on military hardware than the rest of the world combined.
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
The sun will never rise in the West. But oh shit, we need to launch a giant space mirror just in case that were to change at some point in the indeterminate future. Dear NASA, about my grant proposal...
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
You have proved that again and again in this thread.
We are not going to go to war with a nuclear superpower. Full stop.
We are not going to go to war with an economic codependent. Full stop.
The best defense for our continued safety and prosperity is improved infrastructure and research/development combined with improved education and better immigration policies. Not continuing to spend more money on military hardware than the rest of the world combined.
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
The sun will never rise in the West. But oh shit, we need to launch a giant space mirror just in case that were to change at some point in the indeterminate future. Dear NASA, about my grant proposal...
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
You have proved that again and again in this thread.
We are not going to go to war with a nuclear superpower. Full stop.
We are not going to go to war with an economic codependent. Full stop.
The best defense for our continued safety and prosperity is improved infrastructure and research/development combined with improved education and better immigration policies. Not continuing to spend more money on military hardware than the rest of the world combined.
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
agentk13 on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited January 2011
I'm not saying it's a sure thing the planet Vulcan is coming towards us from it's crazy orbit I'm just saying we should build a planet destroying cannon just in case!
I'm not saying it's a sure thing the planet Vulcan is coming towards us from it's crazy orbit I'm just saying we should build a planet destroying cannon just in case!
Ok, dude, your smarmy sarcasm isn't really that persuasive or grounded even in basic reasoning.
Also, my view is that the biggest detriment to a potential future war is not an unprepared military, because honestly, when has there been a war that we've fought that we've been prepared for? First gulf war? What is the biggest detriment is a stagnant or collapsed economy.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I don't. There's no reason to believe that we'd need to prepare for such an event.
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
You didn't think the Korean War was a symmetrical conflict? Gulf War? Maybe they were mismatches but they seemed symmetrical to me.
"Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
You didn't think the Korean War was a symmetrical conflict? Gulf War? Maybe they were mismatches but they seemed symmetrical to me.
"Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
And our current military history and doctrine does not view the Korean war as an asymmetric war. So no, your attempt to parse the definition has failed.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I don't. There's no reason to believe that we'd need to prepare for such an event.
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
No, I never said that. Spontaneous military combustion might someday happen. But there's no need to prepare for it.
You didn't think the Korean War was a symmetrical conflict? Gulf War? Maybe they were mismatches but they seemed symmetrical to me.
"Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
Well... we fought to a standstill right at the 38th parallel, so the relative military power seemed to be pretty equal. And the first gulf war was referring to the second part of that definition, "whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
Conventional Warfare died on August 9th, 1945. Nuclear weapons killed conventional warfare and gave rise to Asymmetric warfare, low-intensity conflicts with an increased reliance on psychological and unconventional warfare. Even if for whatever stupid reason we went to war with China, it'd be a war using unconventional methods based around low-intensity conflicts, psy-ops, cyber attacks and more importantly: economics, because neither of us wants to use the bomb (a typical result of conventional warfare is the eventual reliance on unconventional methods).
Taiwan is a non-issue. China knows we won't fully commit just as we know China won't fully go to war with them. It's just big talk, keeping up the image, and unless someone develops a case of the crazies nothing will happen for generations.
You didn't think the Korean War was a symmetrical conflict? Gulf War? Maybe they were mismatches but they seemed symmetrical to me.
"Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
Well... we fought to a standstill right at the 38th parallel, so the relative military power seemed to be pretty equal. And the first gulf war was referring to the second part of that definition, "whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
Only after China entered the conflict.
Which brings me to another question, what does victory look like in this presupposed war with China?
You didn't think the Korean War was a symmetrical conflict? Gulf War? Maybe they were mismatches but they seemed symmetrical to me.
"Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
Well... we fought to a standstill right at the 38th parallel, so the relative military power seemed to be pretty equal.
We had plenty more power, we were just unwilling to use it. For what it's worth, Wikipedia lists Korea as an asymmetric war.
And the first gulf war was referring to the second part of that definition, "whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
But since the definition says or, not and, it doesn't need to fulfill both requirements.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I don't. There's no reason to believe that we'd need to prepare for such an event.
And what reason is there for the US to prepare for a war with China?
Because they're the most likely opposition in a future conflict? There's been a military buildup in recent years. They've instigated crises in the Taiwan Strait before. They seem like they want to get Taiwan back. They're a rapidly emerging superpower and have a desire to diminish the US's influence in their South Asian sphere.
Conventional Warfare died on August 9th, 1945. Nuclear weapons killed conventional warfare and gave rise to Asymmetric warfare, low-intensity conflicts with an increased reliance on psychological and unconventional warfare. Even if for whatever stupid reason we went to war with China, it'd be a war using unconventional methods based around low-intensity conflicts, psy-ops, cyber attacks and more importantly: economics.
I agree with this to an extent, but a part of unconventional warfare is to push where your enemy is weakest at in conventional capability, if you are capable of doing so. It was the Soviets that were supplying and training (and sometimes even fighting with) the NK air force in the Korean War. If we are to get into a proxy war with another superpower's belligerents, we will find that this superpower is focusing on supplying their proxies with only the equipment and training that they think will either blunt our advantage in very specific areas or even make it obsolete.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
I don't. There's no reason to believe that we'd need to prepare for such an event.
And what reason is there for the US to prepare for a war with China?
Because they're the most likely opposition in a future conflict? There's been a military buildup in recent years. They've instigated crises in the Taiwan Strait before. They seem like they want to get Taiwan back. They're a rapidly emerging superpower and have a desire to diminish the US's influence in their South Asian sphere.
All of those point to it being the least likely to be involved in a future conflict. And for the same reasons we never went to war with Russia. All while ignoring the fact that we're actually open to China in ways that we and the rest of the world were not to the USSR.
Conventional Warfare died on August 9th, 1945. Nuclear weapons killed conventional warfare and gave rise to Asymmetric warfare, low-intensity conflicts with an increased reliance on psychological and unconventional warfare. Even if for whatever stupid reason we went to war with China, it'd be a war using unconventional methods based around low-intensity conflicts, psy-ops, cyber attacks and more importantly: economics.
I agree with this to an extent, but a part of unconventional warfare is to push where your enemy is weakest at in conventional capability, if you are capable of doing so. It was the Russians that were supplying and training (and sometimes even fighting) the NK air force in the Korean War. If we are to get into a proxy war with another superpower's belligerents, we will find that this superpower is focusing on supplying their proxies with only the equipment and training that they think will either blunt our advantage in very specific areas or even make them obsolete.
...so how does this point to getting better at "eating soup with a knife" or making our conventional weapons systems even more overpowering rather than point toward not getting involved in wars with our enemy's proxies?
Wasn't Korea tied up in that "police action" fuckery?
While I agree the premise that China have anything close to an F-22 (or probably a modern avionics/missiles update of an F-16 or F-14), I don't much care for the people laughing that the necessity of having any type of military power to confront China with is absurd.
A war with China will never happen, but you can't base your entire military deterrence policy around "we'll totally nuke you" because there's a shitload of leeway under that umbrella where you have to decide which of your foreign interests ending the world is worth it for.
You do need to be able to say "we won't tolerate you going into here, and will shoot down anything which tries to" - and have that threat be credibly received (i.e. they can't just provoke the reaction, then expect to win the resulting skirmish and bet that political will to follow up on that isn't there).
...so how does this point to getting better at "eating soup with a knife" or making our conventional weapons systems even more overpowering rather than point toward not getting involved in wars with our enemy's proxies?
I'm glad you're optimistic about our chances of avoiding any future war, but I'm not. I'd love to think we'll only get in to only the very necessary wars in the future, but even if we only go into the necessary ones, we'll still need a capable or adaptable military. And "eating soup with a knife" is a reference to counter-insurgency which doesn't cover all facets of even asymmetric warfare.
Posts
I'm still trying to figure out the Roman Empire part, as Rome fell to the various neighbors it had spent a century or two constantly pissing off while spending much more money on pirate hunting and random conquests than on its own citizens. If anything, it's a good example of the current state of the US.
Now, how do you propose preparing for spontaneous military combustion other than dumping all military hardware and personnel into the Atlantic?
Well, Osama Bin Laden is a different sort of enemy, an assymetrical problem. And it's true that aircraft carriers and air superiority fighters aren't the best tool for fighting terrorists like him. But just because we're focused on him right now doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for more conventional foes. Enemies change in a geopolitical landscape. It's that problem where you're always preparing to fight the last war. You concentrate on one foe and that leads to a strategic blindspot. If you're confident that we're only going to be opposing terrorists like Bin Laden for the rest of our lives, then I suppose we can just get rid of our carriers and planes and just invest in a lot of really expensive airport security scanners. That'd be great. But I'm not certain of that at all. Where hides evil in the kingdom? Always... where you never expect it. Always.
"Surprise is the best weapon to have in any arsenal. With it, all things become possible."
-Excerpt from the testimony of General Patrick Scoffins, Commander-in-Chief of the Republican forces in the Terran Hegemony, August 2780
I think a conflict with a new emerging superpower is much more probable then spontaneous military combustion. But I guess I'm just silly like that.
The WWII analogy is especially brilliant because of how far behind the US was at the start of the conflict, with an air fleet composed of planes that shot their own propellers off.
Dude, since Nagasaki there hasn't been a large-scale symmetrical conflict. It's not just that we're now fighting asymmetrical conflicts since 9/11. Everything before that was asymmetrical too. Kosovo, Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea. And all that time we've been continuing to build our military like we're about to start a tank battle in East Germany. We've got a strategic blindspot already and it sure as shit isn't symmetrical conflict.
You have proved that again and again in this thread.
We are not going to go to war with a nuclear superpower. Full stop.
We are not going to go to war with an economic codependent. Full stop.
The best defense for our continued safety and prosperity is improved infrastructure and research/development combined with improved education and better immigration policies. Not continuing to spend more money on military hardware than the rest of the world combined.
Or, to put it in terms you seem to appreciate:
God DAMNIT.
I was about to make this post.
God damn, get the fuck over it.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?" -President Eisenhower.
"I was taught in the sixth grade that we had a standing army of just over a hundred thousand men and that the generals had nothing to say about what was done in Washington. I was taught to be proud of that and to pity Europe for having more than a million men under arms and spending all their money on airplanes and tanks. I simply never unlearned junior civics. I still believe in it. I got a very good grade. "-Kurt Vonnegut
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
The best part is that people have known about how silly it is to use a military based on air superiority since 1908. That was pretty much the entire premise of The War in the Air.
The sad part is we have a plan drafted in the event that canada decides to invade us.
To be fair they have done it before so maybe they'll do it again.
The sun will never rise in the West. But oh shit, we need to launch a giant space mirror just in case that were to change at some point in the indeterminate future. Dear NASA, about my grant proposal...
Thank God we have people like you on this earth.
Now we will be prepared.
Which brings us back to
I don't. There's no reason to believe that we'd need to prepare for such an event.
No, see... you're trying to say that something in the future will never happen. And that's retarded. You don't know that. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Full stop.
Which also means ICBMs.
So the Airforce is pretty much screwed in every case. The entire idea of manned air craft is probably a thing of the past.
No, I never said that. Spontaneous military combustion might someday happen. But there's no need to prepare for it.
Well... we fought to a standstill right at the 38th parallel, so the relative military power seemed to be pretty equal. And the first gulf war was referring to the second part of that definition, "whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
And what reason is there for the US to prepare for a war with China?
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Taiwan is a non-issue. China knows we won't fully commit just as we know China won't fully go to war with them. It's just big talk, keeping up the image, and unless someone develops a case of the crazies nothing will happen for generations.
Only after China entered the conflict.
Which brings me to another question, what does victory look like in this presupposed war with China?
Because they're the most likely opposition in a future conflict? There's been a military buildup in recent years. They've instigated crises in the Taiwan Strait before. They seem like they want to get Taiwan back. They're a rapidly emerging superpower and have a desire to diminish the US's influence in their South Asian sphere.
All of those point to it being the least likely to be involved in a future conflict. And for the same reasons we never went to war with Russia. All while ignoring the fact that we're actually open to China in ways that we and the rest of the world were not to the USSR.
...so how does this point to getting better at "eating soup with a knife" or making our conventional weapons systems even more overpowering rather than point toward not getting involved in wars with our enemy's proxies?
While I agree the premise that China have anything close to an F-22 (or probably a modern avionics/missiles update of an F-16 or F-14), I don't much care for the people laughing that the necessity of having any type of military power to confront China with is absurd.
A war with China will never happen, but you can't base your entire military deterrence policy around "we'll totally nuke you" because there's a shitload of leeway under that umbrella where you have to decide which of your foreign interests ending the world is worth it for.
You do need to be able to say "we won't tolerate you going into here, and will shoot down anything which tries to" - and have that threat be credibly received (i.e. they can't just provoke the reaction, then expect to win the resulting skirmish and bet that political will to follow up on that isn't there).