Posted on 01/01/2014 5:28:41 PM PST by Farnsworth
Sure they did. But it is tough to run away when your own side will machine gun you down if you run.
The clock is on their side for sure. Considering the type of people we have growing up in this country, time will weaken us further too.
Last time we said that, we got involved in a decades long "compassionate war", costing thousands of lives and multi-trillions in American treasure...
And that was with a 3rd rate military which had religions nutbars for leadership, using substandard weapons, few parts, antique technology, etc...
Considering how divided this country is, I shudder to think of the U.S. going to war with a country like Red China or Russia..
War and external conflict used to unite and bring this country together...I do not believe that would be the situation in today's America.
Americans are a critically divided people.
Not the way I want it...Just sayin...
they are doing what is necessary to advance their country. America is investing in social causes and environmentalism, which dos’nt move America toward a productive future.
In 1900, Britain's naval policy was to be superior to any two other nations.
Germany's response was to build a powerful navy -- not with the goal of defeating Britain's navy: Germany knew that wasn't going to happen.
Germany's goal was to make a naval conflict too costly for Britain so that their dominance would be threatened if they engaged an adversary -- Britain might win, but would be reduced to the mere level of France or Italy as a result.
In the end, Kaiser Wilhelm (Adm Tirpitz) miscalculated, but the strategy was not unsound.
The US policy has been to fight and beat two opponents simultaneously.
We've already given up on that.
Our current goal is to be able to fight and win against anyone.
If our navy ends up crippled against China -- even if we win the war -- we might lose the ability to confidently fight against Syria, or Argentina, or Libya.
Would the US risk our global dominance? Would we risk our navy in one war, knowing that future wars would be far more problematic? I doubt it.
Not enough people are saying what you have said. I 100% agree with your brother....
I agree the changes in our military are negative, but the majority of its personnel are decent people. Well trained and disciplined people at that.
The people who are in places of importance (military, technology, and economy) are well aware of China. How an average person views China is of little significance.
Here is an informed response: (from http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2250&start=10#p21847 )
What is unfortunate in predicting the future are those who believe that the past is the present - that is just not the case with nuclear armaments.
When MAD reigned supreme, and held both the US, and Soviets at bay the nuclear picture was considerably different than it is now. At the end of the Reagan administration the US had roughly 23,000 nukes; the Soviets had 48,000. Most of those devices no longer exist. Thanks to several nuclear armament agreements over the last 35 years.
MAD - mutually assured destruction - relied on a triad of nuclear delivery capabilities - maned bombers, ICBMs, and Sub launched missiles. That strategy of a triad of nuclear response and delivery is still quietly in effect.
In 2010 Obama signed the most recent arms limitation agreement: the New START arms treaty. Under the New START treaty the US is committed to a position of having a total of 1550 strategic devices deliverable by no more than launch 700 vehicles by 2018. In early 2012 the Obama administration noted that the US had a total of 5113 nuclear devices. Of those 5,113 devices roughly 500 are tactical devices designed for battlefield use, and have no strategic value in the event of a general nuclear exchange. These numbers do not include almost 3000 devices scheduled for decommissioning and disassembly. The most recent six month New START reporting period released by the US State Department - a less than trustworthy office, considering the occupant - may be found here - http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/164722.htm. An unaudited clearer look might be obtained by - http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nuc ... s_in_2012/
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/2/77.full.pdf+html
The US has been in possession of MIRV ICBM technology for several decades. MIRV permits one ICBM launch vehicle to loft up to 10 nukes to independent targets. That technology has been negotiated away, and while the technology still exists, all American ICBMs are now, or soon will be carrying a single device per launch vehicle.
In early 2012 SecDef Panetta was instructed to prepare three different nuclear reduction plans. The three plans included a total force reduction to: 1000-1100 devices, 700 - 800 devices, and 300 - 400 devices. One of Obama’s first speeches upon his reelection was to reiterate his intent to further reduce nuclear arms.
One might care to note that this is the same person who gave you the current economy, and debacle that’s become Obamacare.
The US Navy is in possession of nuclear deterrent in the form of the nuclear armed surface ships, and submarines - Ohio class - boats. Each of the 14 Ohio class boats has 24 tubes each containing a Trident II DF5 missile. Like it’s ICBM counterpart the Trident II sports the ability to deliver up to 8 nukes on a single launch vehicle, and much like its ICBM counterpart much of the MIRV capability has been negotiated away - although not all of it. Future modifications to the Ohio class boats are being considered to alter the missile launch capability from 24 missiles, to 20, with a plan to field a future replacement for the Ohio class boats with a boat capable of delivering only 16 missiles per boat. Though the Navy has 14 of the “boomer” subs no more than 10 are fielded at any given time because of defense budget cuts - essentially 1/3 of the US missile sub capability is grounded. While the Trident’s still maintain MIRV capability they each only carry 3 - 5 devices, instead of the full compliment of 8 devices that they are capable of lifting. In light of the ICBM circumstance it may be expected that the remaining MIRV capability of the Trident’s will also be negotiated away.
The Chinese are parties to no arms limitation treaties of any sort. Estimates of Chinese nuclear capability range from 250 - two thousand devices, depending upon who you talk to. Being parties to no arms limitation agreements, the Chinese are free to build possess, distribute, alter, and improve any nuclear device(s) that they desire, and can afford to pursue. The US is certain that the Chinese, through spies, have duplicated the miniaturized W88 device used on both the US Trident missiles, and US ICBMs. Further the Chinese have in-service two nuclear missile submarines capable of delivering 12 missiles per, with three more boats scheduled for production. When all five are in-service the Chinese will have 60 missiles capable sub launch. It is further understood that the Chinese are working toward fitting these missiles with a MIRV capability; the recent soft moon landing illustrates China’s ability for controlled maneuver in space; assuming 3 MIRV devices per missile, that would give the Chinese a delivery capacity of 180 independently targetable nukes for those five subs alone.
The above estimate does not include the Chinese cruse missile, or ICBM capability or programs. Obviously with the successful test of the DF41 ICBM the estimates of 250 nuclear devices in the Chinese arsenal is a gross under estimate, or the Chinese are planning to increase dramatically device production in the very near future.
The message is that this is no longer the Cold War, those who lived through the 30s, and 40s are almost all gone, and so is most of the Cold War hardware they gave us, so forget about burning up anything, or anybody. Regarding the use of nuclear devices in war, the two participants who end up visiting destruction upon each other, may count on the third party - the Russians - to wait to see who wins, then bomb the rubble that will be what’s left of the weakened “victor.”
I would hope so, but my confidence in America is at a low. But Freepers are improving my confidence.
Now, officially, the situation is exactly reversed, and the Peoples Republic of China has a permanent seat on the Security Council to boot.
We discount our debt
*****
What does that mean? Is that the same as renouncing or writing off?
You should post that. Eye opening piece.
Obowma
Government at all levels in the U.S. is not the least bit concerned with what actually benefits, supports or protects Americans or America. If this were not true, we would already have extremely cheap or very reasonably priced fuel, electricity, a country of employed people with a reasonable healthcare systems for all Americans...At bare minimum our borders would not have become a country killing lawless, violent invasion of millions....
And would we not be in debt to the Communist Chinese for trillions...
Is this outright betrayal?
they and russia own the UN, why we are even in it is a mystery to me.
simple fact, cheap energy = higher standard of living
We all have our ups and downs. Take care.
Given how much of the hardware the Chinese built, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had back doors to all the chips, routers, hardware, etc.
“I have no confidence in the will of the American people.”
I do. I’ve spent the past 30 plus years entering the homes
of 8-10 folks per weekday. There are a large percentage of
truly good people in this country, at least in the south. YMMV
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.