Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super
New York Times ^ | April 27, 2003 | GREGG EASTERBROOK

Posted on 04/26/2003 5:22:02 PM PDT by Brandon

The New York TimesSponsored by Starbucks

April 27, 2003

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super

By GREGG EASTERBROOK

Stealth drones, G.P.S.-guided smart munitions that hit precisely where aimed; antitank bombs that guide themselves; space-relayed data links that allow individual squad leaders to know exactly where American and opposition forces are during battle ó the United States military rolled out all this advanced technology, and more, in its lightning conquest of Iraq. No other military is even close to the United States. The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations; stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power. For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might.

Which means: the global arms race is over, with the United States the undisputed heavyweight champion. Other nations are not even trying to match American armed force, because they are so far behind they have no chance of catching up. The great-powers arms race, in progress for centuries, has ended with the rest of the world conceding triumph to the United States. 

Now only a nuclear state, like, perhaps, North Korea, has any military leverage against the winner.

Paradoxically, the runaway American victory in the conventional arms race might inspire a new round of proliferation of atomic weapons. With no hope of matching the United States plane for plane, more countries may seek atomic weapons to gain deterrence. 

North Korea might have been moved last week to declare that it has an atomic bomb by the knowledge that it has no hope of resisting American conventional power. If it becomes generally believed that possession of even a few nuclear munitions is enough to render North Korea immune from American military force, other nations ó Iran is an obvious next candidate ó may place renewed emphasis on building them. 

For the extent of American military superiority has become almost impossible to overstate. The United States sent five of its nine supercarrier battle groups to the region for the Iraq assault. A tenth Nimitz-class supercarrier is under construction. No other nation possesses so much as one supercarrier, let alone nine battle groups ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines. 

Russia has one modern aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, but it has about half the tonnage of an American supercarrier, and has such a poor record that it rarely leaves port. The former Soviet navy did preliminary work on a supercarrier, but abandoned the project in 1992. Britain and France have a few small aircraft carriers. China decided against building one last year.

Any attempt to build a fleet that threatens the Pentagon's would be pointless, after all, because if another nation fielded a threatening vessel, American attack submarines would simply sink it in the first five minutes of any conflict. (The new Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarine is essentially the futuristic supersub of "The Hunt for Red October" made real.) Knowing this, all other nations have conceded the seas to the United States, a reason American forces can sail anywhere without interference. The naval arms race ó a principal aspect of great-power politics for centuries ó is over.

United States air power is undisputed as well, with more advanced fighters and bombers than those of all other nations combined. The United States possesses three stealth aircraft (the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the F-117 fighter) with two more (the F-22 and F-35 fighters) developed and awaiting production funds. No other nation even has a stealth aircraft on the drawing board. A few nations have small numbers of heavy bombers; the United States has entire wings of heavy bombers.

No other nation maintains an aerial tanker fleet similar to that of the United States; owing to tankers, American bombers can operate anywhere in the world. No other nation has anything like the American AWACS plane, which provides exceptionally detailed radar images of the sky above battles, or the newer JSTARS plane, which provides exceptionally detailed radar images of the ground.

No other nation has air-to-air missiles or air-to-ground smart munitions of the accuracy, or numbers, of the United States. This month, for example, in the second attempt to kill Saddam Hussein, just 12 minutes passed between when a B-1 received the target coordinates and when the bomber released four smart bombs aimed to land just 50 feet and a few seconds apart. All four hit where they were supposed to.

American aerial might is so great that adversaries don't even try to fly. Serbia kept its planes on the ground during the Kosovo conflict of 1999; in recent fighting in Iraq, not a single Iraqi fighter rose to oppose United States aircraft. The governments of the world now know that if they try to launch a fighter against American air power, their planes will be blown to smithereens before they finish retracting their landing gear. The aerial arms race, a central facet of the last 50 years, is over.

The American lead in ground forces is not uncontested ó China has a large standing army ó but is large enough that the ground arms race might end, too. The United States now possesses about 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks, by far the world's strongest armored force. The Abrams cannon and fire-control system is so extraordinarily accurate that in combat gunners rarely require more than one shot to destroy an enemy tank. No other nation is currently building or planning a comparable tank force. Other governments know this would be pointless, since even if they had advanced tanks, the United States would destroy them from the air.

The American lead in electronics is also huge. Much of the "designating" of targets in the recent Iraq assault was done by advanced electronics on drones like the Global Hawk, which flies at 60,000 feet, far beyond the range of antiaircraft weapons. So sophisticated are the sensors and data links that make Global Hawk work that it might take a decade for another nation to field a similar drone ó and by then, the United States is likely to have leapfrogged ahead to something better.

As The New York Times Magazine reported last Sunday, the United States is working on unmanned, remote-piloted drone fighter planes that will be both relatively low-cost and extremely hard to shoot down, and small drone attack helicopters that will precede troops into battle. No other nation is even close to the electronics and data-management technology of these prospective weapons. The Pentagon will have a monopoly on advanced combat drones for years. 

An electronics arms race may continue in some fashion because electronics are cheaper than ships or planes. But the United States holds such an imposing lead that it is unlikely to be lapped for a long time.

Further, the United States holds an overwhelming lead in military use of space. Not only does the Pentagon command more and better reconnaissance satellites than all the rest of the world combined, American forces have begun using space-relayed data in a significant way. Space "assets" will eventually be understood to have been critical to the lightning conquest of Iraq, and the American lead in this will only grow, since the Air Force now has the second-largest space budget in the world, after NASA's.

This huge military lead is partly because of money. Last year American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the United States, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.

The runaway advantage has been called by some excessive, yet it yields a positive benefit. Annual global military spending, stated in current dollars, peaked in 1985, at $1.3 trillion, and has been declining since, to $840 billion in 2002. That's a drop of almost half a trillion dollars in the amount the world spent each year on arms. Other nations accept that the arms race is over.

The United States military reinforces its pre-eminence by going into combat. Rightly or wrongly, the United States fights often; each fight becomes a learning opportunity for troops and a test of technology. No other military currently has the real-world experience of the United States.

There is also the high quality ó in education and motivation ó of its personnel. This lead has grown as the United States has integrated women into most combat roles, doubling the talent base on which recruiters can draw. 

The American edge does not render its forces invincible: the expensive Apache attack helicopter, for example, fared poorly against routine small-arms fire in Iraq. More important, overwhelming power hardly insures that the United States will get its way in world affairs. Force is just one aspect of international relations, while experience has shown that military power can solve only military problems, not political ones. 

North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the United States, owing to nuclear deterrence. As the global arms race ends with the United States so far ahead no other nation even tries to be America's rival, the result may be a world in which Washington has historically unparalleled power, but often cannot use it. 

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraqifreedom; newnwo; superpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2003 5:22:02 PM PDT by Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Amazing. Awe inspiring. Truly impressive. Really something.

Now, can we take a tiny little part of that military might and use it to secure our southern border? Please?
2 posted on 04/26/2003 5:26:05 PM PDT by Billy_bob_bob ("He who will not reason is a bigot;He who cannot is a fool;He who dares not is a slave." W. Drummond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Does this mean that we are now a hyperpower?
3 posted on 04/26/2003 5:31:19 PM PDT by Jedi Master Yoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; Nick Danger; section9; Dog Gone; AdamSelene235

FYI

4 posted on 04/26/2003 5:33:38 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
"North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the United States, owing to nuclear deterrence."

Which is EXACTLY why the US cannot and will not allow them to do so. One way or another, NK is toast unless they drop their nuclear program.

5 posted on 04/26/2003 5:42:07 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known

Wow, can you imagine what it would be like if Clinton had not spent 8 years trying to gut it.

6 posted on 04/26/2003 5:42:14 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Yoda
No, I think the next step up from super power is super duper power.

Tommy Daschle is deeply saddened.

7 posted on 04/26/2003 5:44:18 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Which means: the global arms race is over, with the United States the undisputed heavyweight champion.

I am the greatest! I am the greatest!

So do we get one of those great big belts?

8 posted on 04/26/2003 5:47:02 PM PDT by wimpycat ('Nemo me impune lacessit')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
I'm sure you will think I'm being trite, but they thought the same thing of Grngis Kahn, Rome, and Alexander the Great as well as a few others.
Don let out technilogical advantages fool you into complacency.
You never know when or what some maniac like say Castro might come up with. He has one of the best and biggest bio programs in the world.
9 posted on 04/26/2003 5:49:11 PM PDT by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
All the hate-America types around the world (including those in the United States) ought to stop their rantings long enough to thank their lucky stars that it is America, and not some evil regime such as the Soviet Union, that wields this awesome dominence of power.
10 posted on 04/26/2003 5:49:53 PM PDT by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Since the NYSlimes printed this, I think we might be getting setup, as in "We're so far ahead of everyone else that we can cut the defense budget by 50% (spending the money on social programs of course) and still be "ok".
11 posted on 04/26/2003 5:50:51 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the United States, owing to nuclear deterrence. As the global arms race ends with the United States so far ahead no other nation even tries to be America's rival, the result may be a world in which Washington has historically unparalleled power, but often cannot use it.
Asymmetry can be a serious constraint . . . but the weakness of asymmetry is its all-or-nothing nature. Israel calls it "the Sampson option" . . .

12 posted on 04/26/2003 5:52:38 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
God, it's great to be an American. The only dark cloud I can possibly bring to bear is that this dominance in pure military might will cause opponents to use unconventional methods to attack us, i.e., terrorism.
13 posted on 04/26/2003 5:53:07 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
NO.

If you want the problem fixed, join the Border Patrol and ask that their forces be multiplied to 2 to 5 times their current strength.

I signed up to kill Communists, Ba'athist & Co., not to chase pimps and coyotes around the countryside of the American Southwest. Force me to do that job and you probably won't like the way I do it. Wait till a squad of soldiers tracks an illegal into an American border town, sees the guy run into a cul-de-sac, and then goes house-to-house smashing peoples' windows in and breaking down doors, then running into people's bedrooms and checking their walk-in closets trying to find the illegal. Now that would be great for civil-military relations!

There have been far too many incidents (e.g., The Mexican-American War, continuous violence on the crooked borders of the various South Asian states, etc.) caused by the fact that troops trained to fight as maneuver warfare brigades make lousy stationary border guards.

I think they ought to follow my proposal: CREATE a 6th military branch for border patrol purposes, but have reduced physical standards and age limits to allow former military or people not quite tough enough for mobile warfare to take part in it. But they would still get to train on military bases and would be bound to the UCMJ, so you could trust them to follow orders.

By starting this 6th branch, you could take advantage of the patriotism (or perhaps just the outrage) of older folks who don't want to go adventuring abroad but want to solve the immigration crisis at home. I'm thinking basically of a more mature version of the nation's Military Police forces, trained only in patrolling and static defense, as opposed to all the quasi-infantry and convoy escort stuff the combat MP outfits go through.

Also, thank God, posse comitatus makes it a pain in the butt for soldiers to do police work within our own borders. You practically have to walk around with a JAG whispering in you rear to avoid violating someone's rights. The new service, like the Coast Guard, could draw it's peacetime authority from some provision outside Title 10, meaning it's members would be subject to the same disciplinary restrictions as military personnel but would carry authority as federal law enforcement personnel, able to arrest, cite people for violations, etc.

Now, if you were to recommend we simply invade Mexico, push them back from the frontier and guard the border from their side, I think we could make a deal...ha.

14 posted on 04/26/2003 5:53:21 PM PDT by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Yoda
Absolutely. We done good. We'll do better.
15 posted on 04/26/2003 5:56:34 PM PDT by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Wow.

That pretty much covers the spectrum: air, sea, land, space. Complete and unquestioned dominance, now and for the foreseeable future.

And the truly amazing thing about this in the historical sense is that an entity that has this power, is using it to bring individual liberty to the world and not conquest, slavery, or subjugation. Amazing.

This article pretty much defines the only remaining issue: a demonstration of how to deal with a rogue NBC equipped state.

Bring it on.

16 posted on 04/26/2003 6:00:12 PM PDT by LocalYokel (my state might be blue but my county was red)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Since the NYSlimes printed this, I think we might be getting setup, as in "We're so far ahead of everyone else that we can cut the defense budget by 50% (spending the money on social programs of course) and still be "ok".

Your take on this is the same as mine. The NYT would like us to get overconfident, cut spending as "our lead is so great", continue integrating women into the combat forces "to double the pool we draw from" and in general, not pay attention to business. They would have us believe our weapons are so superior they can't be touched, ignoring the age of our platforms, the eventual vulnerability of ships to anti-ship missiles, etc.

We've got a fine military, but it hasn't been tested (and I hope it doesn't have to be) against anything but third or fourth rate countries. Do our chemical defenses work? We don't really know how well they do. We seemed awful worried about GPS jamming. Then there's the Kornet anti-tank missiles.... The list goes on. Anyone in first place doesn't stay there long if he doesn't look over his shoulder.

17 posted on 04/26/2003 6:01:27 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (South-south-west, south, south-east, east....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: American Soldier
That's quite an idea you are proposing there. Quite an idea indeed. Is there anyone else proposing/working on something along these lines?
18 posted on 04/26/2003 6:06:53 PM PDT by Billy_bob_bob ("He who will not reason is a bigot;He who cannot is a fool;He who dares not is a slave." W. Drummond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
I am glad to see that at least SOME of my taxes are being spent well.
19 posted on 04/26/2003 6:07:10 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
"all other nations have conceded the seas to the United States, a reason American forces can sail anywhere without interference.."

I thing the writer overstates the case somewhat.

The only naval vessel I can recal being attacked at Sea since the Falklands war have been American Navy ships. Nobody attacks the Mexican Navy or the Norweigen Navy.
20 posted on 04/26/2003 6:07:50 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might.

Despite what the liberals say, let's keep it that way.

21 posted on 04/26/2003 6:10:52 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: konaice
Mexican Navy? What possible political advantage could be obtained from attacking the Mexican Navy? That's like going down to the local pre-school and picking on the little kids. Ooooh, big man. Picking on little kids. You'd just end up with everybody hating you. That's no fun.

Sometimes there is a tactical advantage in being the weak player on the board. For example, there are no status point to be gained from pushing you around.
22 posted on 04/26/2003 6:12:28 PM PDT by Billy_bob_bob ("He who will not reason is a bigot;He who cannot is a fool;He who dares not is a slave." W. Drummond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
The two greatest threats to the United States--and consequently the world--are hubris and decadence.

"Liberalism" is the prevalent form of decadence.

Oh--and in a leader, character is of utmost importance.

23 posted on 04/26/2003 6:14:42 PM PDT by Savage Beast (Peace is the prerogative of the powerful. The path to peace is confrontation, not appeasement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
It is worth noting here that American aircraft carriers are not the CAUSE of American military might; rather, they are the RESULT of same. An aircraft carrier could be easily defeated by a supersonic missile with a low-yield nuclear warhead (e.g., Russian A.S. 15, etc); the reason that other nations have not used such missiles against our carriers is that they know that to do so, would invite an American nuclear response. Our carriers are, in a sense, a luxury, an artifact of our nuclear superiority.
24 posted on 04/26/2003 6:16:20 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Well, maybe not. The Chinese didn't pay Clinton all that money to buy American technology just to give up the challange.

I, too, was looking for the hook, whatever it was that the Times was setting us up for. It may be a major cut in military spending so we can afford to buy all the minority kids in the country whatever the Times determines they should have to become useful members of society. But, I don't think its the military budget.

I think it is StarWars. The Times, the dems, and all America-haters know that, once we have a missle shield, we are truly the super power. They don't want this to happen and I believe we have heard the first of the drumbeat that says, "We are so far ahead, that we don't need an expensive new toy." Mark this article. It will be cited as we move toward the election. Bush will want StarWars and Tommie the Commie will whine that even the Times says we don't need it.

25 posted on 04/26/2003 6:17:15 PM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Soldier
You make a fantastic argument.

Thank you.

Do you think that there is a chance that this could happen? As an old warrior I hope so.

TomEaker.com

26 posted on 04/26/2003 6:21:05 PM PDT by Eaker (64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday. Somehow, it didn't make the news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Excellent

"the United States is working on unmanned, remote-piloted drone fighter planes that will be both relatively low-cost and extremely hard to shoot down, and small drone attack helicopters that will precede troops into battle."

These are the next generation of "Brilliant" weapons. Flip the 'go' switch and they will seek out and destroy targets by themselves.

27 posted on 04/26/2003 6:21:26 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Foreign enemies take notice. Now...about them domestic enemies...
28 posted on 04/26/2003 6:25:35 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
It is the rationalization of NK's plans to be able to kill millions of Americans. Further, I would quote Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction, but to paraphrase "Let's not start patting each other on the back just yet." A lot of our capability is to PROJECT power on the other side of the globe, because we need to. Our opponents are regional threats and get to fight in their own backyards.

I am sure we can beat any nation, but I wouldn't look forward to a conventional or nuclear war with China.

Finally, does everyone remember when George Foreman fought 3 (or 5) other heavyweights one after the other in one 15 round tournament? He was disgraced because he had to contend with 5 different attackers. They each had to take just a little bit out of his one hide.

Just a cautionary note. We have to be very careful to pick our fights. My next pick would be a serious wiping up of NK. They are a deadly threat.

29 posted on 04/26/2003 6:26:41 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus; Jedi Master Yoda
Ultra Super-Duper Hyper-Power.
30 posted on 04/26/2003 6:26:54 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: American Soldier
"I think they ought to follow my proposal: CREATE a 6th military branch for border patrol purposes, but have reduced physical standards and age limits to allow former military or people not quite tough enough for mobile warfare to take part in it."

I think you are right.
Take the Coast guard and Border Patrol as the heart of that new Branch, and militarize them to a higher degree. Let them operate within 50 miles either side of the border (as needed)
and tell the Canadians and Mexicans they can either HELP us, in which case we will Help them, or we will essentially close the border and cut them off from their largest market.

Give the land element Fast Lightly Armored all terrain vehicles (Bradleys), and area survielance aircraft (like GlobalHawk), and give the Coast Guard some cutters that were at least made sometime in the last 50 years, and fast interdiction boatss with enough firepower to do the job.

We have the core of the 6th branch by merging the Border Patrol with the 5th Branch.
31 posted on 04/26/2003 6:27:15 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Most of the World figured this out in 1991.
It has take Iraq, North Korea and the wizards of the NY Times a dozen years longer.

Amazing.

So9

32 posted on 04/26/2003 6:28:19 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
We could conquer the world if we wanted to, but we don't want to.
33 posted on 04/26/2003 6:29:43 PM PDT by LibKill (MOAB, the greatest advance in Foreign Relations since the cat-o'-nine-tails!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Yoda
Does this mean that we are now a hyperpower?

No, it means we are The Hyperpower

So9

34 posted on 04/26/2003 6:30:26 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LocalYokel
Not only air, sea, land, space but underground too. The counters to our level of military might are hard to realistically imagine, but might include lasers, quantum-communications, vey-smart-mines. Maybe a twenty-year period.
35 posted on 04/26/2003 6:33:18 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Williams
"Just a cautionary note. We have to be very careful to pick our fights. My next pick would be a serious wiping up of NK. They are a deadly threat."

I just wish we were another year along in our anti-balistic missile program before we bust the NK chops.

They claim the have the banger, and we know they have the launcher to reach Anchorage, Tokyo, Guam, and maybe Seattle.

Unless we can get some Patriot batteries close enough to get them in the boost phase all they need is ONE nuke to re-distribute the landscape in Alaska (where I live).

As far as I know, they have no mobile launchers that can reach us with nukes, and their fixed test tites for their Long Dong or what ever they call that missile is an easy target, our guys could take it out with no problem. But they have Scads of Scuds which can carry a fairly good payload about 400 miles, which makes most of South Korea ground zero.

We need to do this in a totally different way than we did Afganistan or Iraq, and I'm confident we have something totally unexpected up our sleve.
36 posted on 04/26/2003 6:40:31 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
It's the New York Times. They merely wish us to become complacent. We must not. We must continue to build. We must use genetics to develop a radioactive fire-breathing Godzilla monster to terrorize our adversaries.

But even that's not enough.

We must clone Justin Timberlake and create an army of giant, mutant Justin Timberlakes to strike fear into our enemies and make them understand there is no hope. When they see the giant mutant Timberlakes rising from the sea dancing onto their beaches, impervious to shell, impervious to shot, impervious to flame, they will know there is no hope.

We must not sleep.

37 posted on 04/26/2003 6:45:19 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
God, it's great to be an American.

I know I'm expecting a bit much . . . but wouldn't it be great if more of us just sometimes pushed back from all the daily BS bombarding us and just said out loud to ourselves what you wrote?

"God, it's great to be an American."

I can remember when dirt was invented and I've never been prouder to be an American than I am right now.


38 posted on 04/26/2003 6:51:47 PM PDT by geedee (In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made the French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations; stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power. For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might.

This makes me very nervous. Remember "victory disease?" I hope the folks in charge of worrying about things think the same way.

Confidence in one's abilities is a good thing- overconfidence is a killer.

39 posted on 04/26/2003 6:59:53 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
I, too, was looking for the hook, whatever it was that the Times was setting us up for. It may be a major cut in military spending

I thought I saw that coming too, but they didn't do it. We can only hope that some Congressional Democrat like Daschle or Pelosi sees this and is moved to call for defense cuts. That oughta just about do 'em in.

In the absence of a "let's cut spending" close, I decided that this was more Quagmirology from the New York Times, a way to tag Bush with, "A fine mess you've gotten us into this time... now they're all going nuclear!"

    If it becomes generally believed that possession of even a few nuclear munitions is enough to render North Korea immune from American military force, other nations -- Iran is an obvious next candidate -- may place renewed emphasis on building them.

This is left hanging by the author, as if it's a quagmire, but it is so true that it cannot be allowed to become a quagmire. Instead we must arrange for it to be "generally believed" that if you pull a stunt like Kim Jong Il just did, some really Bad Things happen.

If Kim Jong Il was paying attention, he will have noticed that we don't just have a bunch of bombs. We have delivery vehicles -- enough of them so that at some points during the Iraq war, there were six or seven hundred munitions going off in different areas around the country in the space of 30 or 40 seconds. Does he want nukes with that?


40 posted on 04/26/2003 7:00:00 PM PDT by Nick Danger (The liberals are slaughtering themselves at the gates of the newsroom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: American Soldier
I signed up to kill Communists, Ba'athist & Co., not to chase pimps and coyotes around the countryside of the American Southwest. Force me to do that job and you probably won't like the way I do it. Wait till a squad of soldiers tracks an illegal into an American border town, sees the guy run into a cul-de-sac, and then goes house-to-house smashing peoples' windows in and breaking down doors, then running into people's bedrooms and checking their walk-in closets trying to find the illegal. Now that would be great for civil-military relations!

What are you, a programmed robot? As a member of the military, you are trained to obey and follow orders. If your commanding officer tells you NOT to go house-to-house smashing peoples' windows in and breaking down doors, then running into people's bedrooms and checking their walk-in closets trying to find the illegal alien, then you don't do it, unless you want to face charges of insubordination.

41 posted on 04/26/2003 7:01:19 PM PDT by judgeandjury (The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
While the Clinton's and Albright's of this world bemoan the fact that we are the only 'superpower'...
42 posted on 04/26/2003 7:06:01 PM PDT by Guillermo (Sic 'em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Oh, I think we could take a break and pat ourselves on the back............. There, that was refreshing. Now back to work.

As far as the Foreman thing... that goes back to an ancient sport called Bear Baiting in which a pack of dogs would fight a bear. The bear would usually kill several of the dogs but eventually a nip here, a bite there and the bear would start to weaken. For this to happen to us would require the rest of the world to gang up on us, a common liberal bete noir. Fortunately, the rest of the world seems to hate each other even more than they hate us. ]

And finally... Did anybody hear General Tommy Franks, in the interview he gave to Tony Snow, say regarding the Syrians "I think any nation that wants to control its borders can do so"? I thought it was a little shot at our policy here at home, but never saw it reported that way.
43 posted on 04/26/2003 7:06:37 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
I don't see how we could ever conquer AND occupy the world. It seems like logistics and politics have always mitigated against the possibility of this except in the fevered minds of evil demagogues.
44 posted on 04/26/2003 7:08:53 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: konaice
Give the land element Fast Lightly Armored all terrain vehicles (Bradleys)

liked most of your post but the above- brads, although not tanks, are not really "light" armor- they weigh 25 tons, and are fairly costly to operate, compared too- tadaa: the upgraded M113 Gavin!

Reliable, armored "enough", much lighter, much less exepensive, new suspension/engine damn equals Brad cross country ability...plus, crotchety old viet nam vets could maintain and operate them.

(there would be a "WhenI" procductivity hit- i.e. young bucks having to listen to the VN vets preface every conversation with "When I was in viet nam...*grin*)

45 posted on 04/26/2003 7:09:55 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
"victory disease?"

The Clap? Ooops, watching Sex in the Civil War. ;)
46 posted on 04/26/2003 7:11:14 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
"Tommy Daschle is deeply saddened."

Has anyone noticed the total lack of tommie d. on the tube lately. His silence is saddening....

NOT

47 posted on 04/26/2003 7:11:16 PM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
Maybe he's in that box marked USA?
48 posted on 04/26/2003 7:13:57 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
Control the southern border?

Let's go with what's worked in the past.

Texas Rangers. More of 'em. Lot's more.
49 posted on 04/26/2003 7:15:19 PM PDT by LocalYokel (my state might be blue but my county was red)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Pre-empt the Chinese and NK's demise is very easy to war-game and not much more difficult to accomplish. The preemption of the Chinese might just happen of its own accord. We are a 40 billion dollar trading partner, whereas the North Koreans are just a pain in the butt to them.
50 posted on 04/26/2003 7:18:39 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson