Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Chinese F-22 equivalents. Air Force says "I TOLD U SO"
Posts
What part of a capable or adaptable military obligates F-22's and/or a majority of discretionary revenues? And it isn't a question of optimism it's a question of what lessons have we learned from the past half century plus. Delta seems to be suggesting that it's to continue our military-industrial complex. To me that seems like the exact opposite of what the lessons of history are trying to teach us.
Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island
When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.
Seriously. They love planning for everything.
oh please, who doesn't have a plan for zombies?
Lycanthropes?
I cannot entirely disagree with your statement. We seem to be prepping for the cold war. Conventional Warfare is not done, it never will be. But Low-Intensity is going to be the majority of what we see from now on. Best to prep for that.
My response has been to the tact of argument people are using in this thread, that conventional warfare is over so improving our conventional warfare capability is unnecessary, and people here seem to view this in absolute terms. As soon as it becomes obvious that our conventional military isn't capable of winning a conventional war, nations will be a lot more willing to get into a conventional war with us.
Are we talking science-based, kill-it-with-fire zombies? Or magical, find-the-necromonicon zombies?
This is actually not entirely true--in effect, there are only so many ways you can design a reusable "space plane" or a supersonic passenger aircraft.
The Buran was definitely inspired by the American space shuttle. The Tupolev Tu-144 was actually cosmetically similar, but very, very different (and made an operational flight a short time beforehand) mechanically.
They are not 'copies' in the same way the Tu-4 was a very obvious copy of the B-29 accomplished literally through reverse engineering.
To use your own words, they might be better called 'remixes'. The B-1 Bomber looks an awful lot like Tu-22M that came a few years earlier (and was based on an even earlier Tupolev aircraft), but it's not a copy--it was just intended to do the same thing.
Though in this specific case, this might be a copy of the F-22, despite the physical dissimilarities.
Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?
Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
Except that the entire NATO alliance is never going to deteriorate to that extent. What's more, even if it did we are still protected by two oceans. I'm not arguing for Fortress America, but to suggest that we need to be so drastically concerned with our conventional military and force readiness in order to keep us safe (from China) as our internal infrastructure is bleeding our economy dry and literally killing us by the thousands every year seems...let's go with shortsighted.
But yeah, we're heading for unmanned with full force. Gates himself has even said that there probably won't be a 6th generation manned fighter.
Oddly enough, the corporations that spawn the virus that causes them. History has shown that even when they are making a zombie virus, they just don't think of killing zombies.
There's a danger there though. You could have the enemy hack into your systems and control all your drones. Then you're screwed.
Much harder to do that when you strap humans into combat aircraft.
people have some very deep prejudices about un-manned aircrafts. But there are drones with anti air capability in service now, they're role however is quite a bit lower priority then manned aircrafts.
Plus people aren't as terrified of a drone as an F-22. They just look like wimps while F-22 looks rather evil.
My understanding that with encrypted transmissions, no, they can't.
Yes, the leet haxors will take down US military drone. Sure.
...shouldn't they just look like contrails and burning things right behind you?
Romero style zombies. If its find the necronomicon style zombies then the only thing to do is find the book.
Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
We need a tenfold increase in the budgets of the Library of Congress and the National Archives.
My being a recently graduated librarian without a job has no bearing on this statement whatsoever.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/04/world/fg-uschina4
http://rinf.com/alt-news/sicence-technology/how-chinese-military-hackers-took-over-a-nuclear-armed-b52/1320/
5 sec google search
Well if you're being escorted out of someone's airspace you should be able to see the other plane quite well. And even the silhouette of the F-22 is quite easy to spot and is pretty damn creepy.
They're still more likely (okay...I take it back, equally likely) as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan happening in the immediate future. The cut throat nature of some levels of the Taipei government is, in part, to blame for this--politicians lie! More at eleven!--and perhaps it is more likely than 400 million Chinese troops landing in LA or San Diego. The lead guy warning of a Chinese takeover wasn't just president, he was sentenced to life in prison after the most recent election for corruption charges (since downgraded to 20 years, I think). The point is, this guy is not any more trustworthy than the current guys, who refer to the Chinese as distant brothers and think the island's destiny lies in closer ties.
But it's still pretty unlikely. Especially since, in 50 years or so, Taiwan will probably bow to Chinese sovereignty anyway--after having been made economically indispensable to the mainland, which is true for a lot of the Taiwanese economy right now. And then there's the whole issue of cultural ties (I wonder if they're going to ask for all that nice swag in the National Palace Museum back...).
That being said, the US should have a plan for that contingency. China invading Taiwan. China invading LA. Zombies invading LA via shipping vessels from Taiwan flagged under Rhode Island. For half the world's military expenditures, they should be.
We owe them enough and have enough common economic interests that starting shit over Taiwan is not worth it to them.
Probably. Besides, if China wanted to take over Taiwan, they'd just threaten to sharply raise taxes on Taiwanese businesses operating in the mainland or something similarly disadvantageous to both sides. The corporate world would hand over the country without a shot being fired.
The effects of a US default on any of its debt would be impossible to foretell, but to say it would be bad is as much an understatement as to suggest that the last/current Recession is a touch inconvenient.
Preparing for, adjusting our military, or thinking about how to cope with China does not strike me as absurd. China is a large, powerful country that will continue to grow in strength. It is doing so in a world order that, it appears to me, to be destined for greater uncertainty over the next decades. China has been engaging in a much more muscular foreign policy and we've seen the discomfort of its neighbors result in a resurgence of US diplomacy in Asia.
Is that really surprising? After all, we don't prepare for war with India, which could also be described in a similar manner.
I think part of the reason it's not so unthinkable with China is the high degree of uncertainty in the changing political system. China is, in many ways, a black box to the West. It's authoritarian. It has a potentially fragile political system and it is experiencing a surge of nationalism (a bit rich, I know, coming from an American). From what I have read, much of it's force structure is being aimed at denial of access to American military forces. I think much of what China does appears to be directed at that nationalist, internal audience, which makes me a bit queasy about the internal math of any military/political action. Mistakes happen and things can escalate despite the best interest of a rational political actor.
Does that mean we have to build a ginormous military, full of F-22s? I would think not. But it might mean that we should think about ways of gaining naval or air superiority, or at least credible threats to gain those things.
Also, I don't think China would go to war with Taiwan for any particular material reason. If they do it, I'd venture it'd be for political reasons and any hit to economic gain from Taiwan would be secondary.
Anyway, just one random, not that knowledgeable dude on the internet's thoughts.
Our credit is probably good enough that we'd still be considered trustworthy by all our creditors who aren't going to fuck with us. Really, how many banks are going to invade anything? Besides Goldman Sachs.
Actually, that's one of the reasons a default isn't a toy to be played with, I think. The minute it becomes a realistic option on the part of the US for an ulterior goal, the whole idea fucks up, right? "Oh, sure, I'll lend you the trillions of dollars you need...no, I'm sure you won't fuck me over if things go poorly in the next few decades, that was just a one time thing, right."
"....right?"
Because who's the say what counts as "not fucking with us?". I'm not an economist, but really, I think it's the sort of commitment both sides are in, whether they like to or not. And our credit rating going to shit as a country probably wouldn't help businesses.
Declare war, but don't really do anything militarily. That should be justification enough to default without freaking out everyone else.
..Yes, because a formal state of war between China and the USA would make international relationships much calmer.
Look, guys, this may sound talk hippie talk, but war is bad. War with China would have immeasurably worse consequences than any possible benefit we would get out of it, for a whole host of reasons. It isn't going to happen, and it isn't something you play silly buggers with. It simply isn't in our interest, and a whole lot would have to change before it approached being a not completely devastating idea.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Are you...are you under the impression that United States does not have naval or air superiority over the PRC?
Or army superiority?
Or nuclear weapons superiority?
Let's be straight with this. Last time a more powerful military then the U.S. Armed Forces existed on this planet was the Red Army around 1946 or so on. That's it. From that on, United States has been the greatest military power on Earth, and the greatest one that has ever existed.
The Chinese Navy has one half-rotting aircraft carrier haggled out of the stinking remains of the Soviet Union. United States has thirteen carriers, with plans to make ten brand new ones to replace them. The Chinese Air Force is less then half of the U.S. Air Force, and yet much less in quality and level of technology. The Army may be larger, but that's the only think it beats U.S. army in. It has 130 times less nukes then United States. It spends thirty times less money on it's military then the United States does.
Even if China was stupid enough to enter an arms race with United States - which they aren't, because China is very smart - it would take it a better part of this century to even begin to catch up with it. China is not interested in total war. China is not interested in gaining control of Taiwan with military when they can simply reel them slowly in with the economy. China is not interested in invading it's neighbors when it can dominate them with money. And it certainly isn't interested in total war with the greatest military in existence when it can own the economy of the country that hosts it.
See, the current situation is practically a dream come true for any budding superpower. For the last fifty years U.S. military has been building up for a fight with an equivalent military force. Soviet Union fell. Now instead of gearing down, they are building on the Cold War legacy military they have, even when they don't have the big red threat to fight against. You don't think China learned from the Soviet Union? Why engage U.S. in an arms race when U.S. is engaging itself on it? It's managing to do the same to United States that Reagan did to the Soviet Union without spending a single yuan themselves on anything else but their actual needs. And hey, that's 900 billion that United States won't be spending on economic competition with China.
See, China is winning, but not in a way all the doomsday sayers are predicting. There won't be a 400 million Chinese invasion landing in the shores of California any time soon. Why would the Chinese bomb their own buildings and banks, after all?
I seriously think that there have been very few times in the history of the world that a country has played into the pockets of it's supposed "enemies" as well as United States does. China is not the only one, really. I mean, United States spend the better part of the 2000's winning the Iraq War for Iran.
Then the cold war ended and we got a look at the Warzaw Pacts actual plans. They where planing to use tactical nukes in their opening bombardment, followed by massive nervegas attacks, followed by conventional forces moping up the remains.
Edit: Which one of these plans would have worked do you think?