The U.S. Navy is risking everything on a fatally flawed technology

medium.com/war-is-boring/ ^ | May 29, 2015 | David W. Wise

[nathanbedford]

In the run-up to Nixon's opening of China in the 1970s that nation was ravaged by a prolonged and bloody civil war in the midst of a prolonged and bloody war and occupation by the Japanese. One need merely mention the "rape of Nanking." China sustained a virtual Holocaust, and famine perhaps six times in magnitude of Hitler's mass murder of the Jews. Mao Tse Tung's cultural revolution, agricultural "reforms" and his steelmaking madness probably cost 60 million dead. In the half-century since then the country has come from devastation to the world's leading economy.

I recall being criticized on these threads more than 10 years ago for predicting the rise of China and the collateral rise of Chinese military might. It was said that they could never catch us either economically or militarily. They have surpassed us on several metrics.

I do not present this record as one of infallibility or invincibility but I do cite it as one of remarkable achievement. An achievement that was accomplished in a mercantilist system which, I think you will consider, was also the system employed by Great Britain in the building of its Empire and into the Victorian era and served as a principal cause of the American revolution.

Milton Friedman and the libertarians make great arguments but I prefer to believe the evidence of my own eyes concerning the advantages of mercantilism. Interestingly, the Chinese have conducted a perestroika with only a limited glasnost having learned a lesson, they think, from the Russian experience. I am not unmindful of the corruption of the provincial banks, the rank corruption throughout the whole society, the ghost towns, the need to generate millions of jobs a year, the frequent riots throughout the country which go unreported but the trend line is clear and the power of the country is manifest.

I do not call you a Pollyanna and I do not see myself as a Cassandra, I simply say a prudent planner must assume the worst case when assessing matters of national security.

[PreciousLiberty]

“I heard this stuff in the 80s. It’s always the same crowd, the defund/liberal groups that want us to “do more with less” and who are afraid of the power projection that carriers allow. There is a reason every nation in the world who considers itself our enemy is seeking to BUILD carriers.”

Having some carriers is fine. To base our entire naval strategy around them is stupid at this point. They’ve been shown over and over again to be vulnerable to subs. My understanding is that our ASW capabilities have deteriorated at least somewhat due to the focus on the Middle East.

Further, even the Navy admits there is no good answer to swarms of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. As another article pointed out, China has 83 semi-stealthy, high-speed catamarans, each carrying 8 such missiles, which have a 160 mile range. That doesn’t count the large numbers of land-based missiles with longer ranges, or aircraft launched missiles.

Then there is the Chinese explicitly anti-carrier ballistic missile system, the Dong Fen...

It would be good if there were plans for a long-range carrier based bomber, but sadly there is no such thing planned AFAIK.

I think the article makes a good point that increasingly rare defense dollars should be spent wisely - and new carriers may not be the best “bang for the buck” at this point.

[LS]

On ship levels, I agree. I would maintain the current level of carriers to other ships. However, the best defense against a catamaran carrying ship to ship missiles is to use projected air power to blow them up before they launch. The problem with enemy subs is that certainly until very recently our own subs have been so vastly superior that it isn't funny. Hence my point about the Tridents made earlier in the thread.

I agree that China has gone through massive losses and upheavals that dwarf what happened in other parts of the world simply by population. It is that population, ultimately, more than reserves of raw materials, that is to be feared.

I think the economic history of China 1990-present, it is generally accepted, is that from 1990-2000 or so they were expanding and growing merely by putting more "hands to the tillar," and only in the last 10 years have they actually been engaging in "value added." But they ARE engaging in "value added." Still, I am always less concerned when I owe money to someone else than when someone else owes money to me. In the end, they are the ones holding the bag if things go south.

Over the past five years, I have had a number of Chinese students in my classes, especially in summer school. I do not find them to be "super students." Not bad, but not great. Some of that is language. But they are no better on average than many of my Kuwaiti or Saudi students who face a similar language challenge.

The problem with assuming they have "learned" from the Russian experience with communism is that ultimately you have to drink the water. At that point you see whether they have pulled it off or not. I'm skeptical. As I say, laying aside the free market arguments for a moment, no modern society without Christianity and common law has triumphed for long. The Chinese, as of now, have neither, and I have yet to see ANY society gradually adopt common law, or notions that people control governments. Even in the case of the USSR, it took a revolution---but then there was no follow-up to ensure common law stuck.

Your point about America under mercantilism is valid, but incomplete: the other pillars of American exceptionalism, namely a Protestant religion, common law, and private property with titles and deeds, grew and thrived under the English mercantile system due to "benign neglect," and at any rate, NO country had free trade from 1600-1800. My point is that after 1750, England buried France and Spain, who had much greater land, resources, and opportunities (in both the New World and Old) in part due to a more liberalizing free-trade economy.

One final point about believing your own eyes: as with any quasi-totalitarian country, you get to see what they allow you to see. But the final question is whether they can actually drink the water, not merely raise the glass to their mouths. We'll both have to wait to see how that comes out.

[citizen]

Like I said in another thread, with that trouble in the China sea, I am concerned. I always assumed China was no match for us on the seas.

I have seen several articles about China developing (deploying?) anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedoes with impressive range.
Seems to me, at least around their own waters, that China no longer fears the US. And given recent history, why should they? I have no doubt they fear 0bama not at all.

[1010RD]

Good points. Appearances do matter, but given the feckless Clinton/Obama foreign policy I shudder to think what the next POTUS, if we get one that loves America still, will have to do to get our military and policies taken seriously again.

[LS]

Nice step last night by curtailing excessive snooping. Just one step.

[1010RD]

Little steps are all we have, but they’re critical to getting our republic back. My real fear is corruption. In the past American corruption has enlivened the populace and cause reform. Today we have a populace that is majority corrupt. Where will the moral will-power for the corrective come from?

I mean Clinton-level stealing has been going on for a long time and it’s tolerated. The whole Hastert thing is simply a shot across the bow for every other politician doing the same thing. We’re a 3rd World country and it’s hard to fix, no?

Am I missing a bigger picture here?

[Lazamataz]

Nice step last night by curtailing excessive snooping. Just one step.

Well, to that:

A) Do you think the NSA got wind of this decision and said, "Okay guys! Pack it in! We gotta stop snooping...."? Methinks they kept at it.

B) Do you think this curtailing will last long? I don't.

[central_va]

It is the work of the gloBULList.

[LS]

And your solution is to take no steps? C’mon man. Celebrate victories when you get them.

[LS]

No. You are right on. 40 years ago Hillary would have been drummed out of the DEMOCRAT party because she is just too corrupt and too obvious.

So I do think there has been a general decline in morals, in standards, and an increase in corruption everywhere. My wife says, I think correctly, that when it is seen that the people at the top routinely engage in such massive abuses and corruptions, the entire law suffers everywhere and ordinary people begin to think, "why obey the law? Nobody else does."

[Lazamataz]

Yeah, you're right. I'll take it.

In the meantime, here is a heartwarming elephant story.

[nathanbedford]

Let me comment on two good ideas that you expressed.

I agree that I would prefer to be the debtor then the creditor especially with the advantages of the sovereign who can simply renege. But I would like to apply your other concept to the issue of debt.

The main consideration for me concerning the debt is not whether we should a lender or borrower be but rather that our political system has become so dysfunctional as to countenance a potentially mortal exposure. It is not only the conventionally defined debt of nearly $19 trillion but the unfunded liabilities of $100 trillion or more which must be reckoned with. The domestic debt is huge and makes the government shortfall even more dangerous. Finally, we have an incalculable amount of options which only a few whiz kids can define or understand lurking in the ether which could trigger a financial collapse.

The existence of these threats, all of which are homemade, all of which are the product of self-indulgence and a culture of hedonism and immediacy which bespeaks of a betrayal of the Christian values which you cite. Without those values a society is adrift and must ultimately find itself abandoning the principles of the common law. As one who has practiced in the equity courts which boast of the power to ameliorate the harder edges of the law courts, I believe that we are losing our collective soul. We proclaim as a society that we want to do equity but we pervert the good and promote a cynicism which is enveloping the land.

If America is losing its moral compass, the Chinese, relatively speaking, are hopelessly lost. But they do have a secular dynamism which is carried them very far and their momentum is evidently not yet spent. I agree with your fundamental assessment,, it is difficult to believe that nine old men no matter how wise and venerable they might be have the wisdom and the scope to fine-tune the economy for 1 1/2 billion people. It didn't work in the Soviet Union or any of its satellites, it has failed wherever it has been tried. Ultimately China will have to come to a place where it really reforms and abandons its top down economics as well as its top-down politics or it too will crash. Like the Soviet Union, China is likely to strangle itself with its own corruption. But what about our own, not just the corruption of the Clintons or the Hasterts with which we have recently been confronted, but the waywardness of the entire social, political and economic system?

Many a bear has gone broke predicting the fall of capitalism and only a fool will place his bets on timing the reckoning for China.

As you say, we shall see.

[1010RD]

You married well, sir.

That moral vacuity is what I fear. I heard a professor of ancient history at a religious university talk about his students. He teaches a 100 level classes as well as graduate level classes. When he discusses human and baby/child sacrifice the students get that it’s morally wrong to kill. They get that in general, but when he puts it into context of the culture or the civilization itself he cannot get students to judge it wrong. Then it’s just part of their culture and that’s OK.

It’s that story that finally made clear what I’d feared the most. As you know human beings have always throughout history been morally challenged, but there was a hard stop of morality to keep it in check. America is a unique country in it’s founding based on the Absolute Nuclear Family and Christian (protestant) values. Marxists have lied about it for at least three generations of school children.

Today we are absolutely without moral compass in the upcoming generation. The real challenge to the Millenials isn’t going to be economic, but moral and without God and most particularly Christian religion I don’t see how they’ll make it.

[LS]

LOL.

[LS]

Yeah, I agree. Fortunately, we have had numerous (often unpredicted) revivals in this nation and in England. We’ll see.

[TomasUSMC]

Lots of good info. Things are changing very fast. R and D is working the laser angle....check out the USS Ponce. Mach 5 missiles may seem fast now but when compared to lasers they are standing still.