George Bush, the Tax cuts and the collapse of American Power

[GePap]

The claim that if you took the US vs all other armies the Us would win handily is absurd., not only in terms of numbers, but of technology as well. (since all the other world armies not only include vast ones like China's, but the UK's, France's, Japan's, Israel's....) And this is ignoring utterly the fact that at least one other state has the ability to turn our major cities into planes of glass.

Power is a relative measure. Heck, the amry of the DRC could beat the Roman legions, in terms of just absolute power...but that is an utterly worthless comparison.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DanS

You and Hershell have influenced each other too much.

Nope, Jon is way too optimistic.

"Anyway, this "soft power" stuff is hogwash. If Europe doesn't pay to keep up, it won't be listened to."

Yes, we'll just have the guys suffering from imperial overstretch for help after they misjudge the consequences of their actions.

[Odin]

The US is currently equivalent to the end of the Pax Romana, when Marcus Aruelieus(sp?) died. We are still a hyperpower, but we are loosing are grip on the world.

Basically Bush = Commodus

[pchang]

Starring Condoleeza Rice as Cleopatra?

[Odin]

Originally posted by pchang
Starring Condoleeza Rice as Cleopatra?

nah, Cleo = Big Oil.

[faded glory]

its my ****in money. Time to cut these worthless services that dont do crap. GW did the right thing on this issue. Let the tax cuts go on!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
The claim that if you took the US vs all other armies the Us would win handily is absurd., not only in terms of numbers, but of technology as well. (since all the other world armies not only include vast ones like China's, but the UK's, France's, Japan's, Israel's....) And this is ignoring utterly the fact that at least one other state has the ability to turn our major cities into planes of glass.

Power is a relative measure. Heck, the amry of the DRC could beat the Roman legions, in terms of just absolute power...but that is an utterly worthless comparison.

GePap, Idon't know if you are exactly correct in your assumption. Beyond the weapons that are in the field now are several factors.

First, The logistical support capability of the US is vastly larger than the rest of the worlds combined. This would necessitate them fighting defensive wars whereas the US philosophy is totally offensive. It would not take very long for any army in the world to become overextended very far beyond its own boarders. This would not be the case with the US.

Second, while the relative production capacity of the US is not what it once was, it is still vast even when put up against the rest of the world. Don't know the exact figure but I would imagine that it is still around the 30% mark. In addition to this there are vast resouces of production still available in this country with fully developed transportation systems between them and the production facilities. Couple these facts with the vast number of educated workers (by world standards) available to be added to a production force.

Third, the organizational structure of the US military and its training facilities would weigh in heavily. Having one centralized system would provide an efficiency over the rest of the world trying to field new troops from a variety of training systems and methods. This says nothing of the benefits of having one set of standardized weapons.

Fourth, The bluewater Navy of the US could easily and effectively deal with all the rest of the worlds service ships in short order. Anti-submarine assets are huge (ex: SOSUS) and have been a large focus since Soviet heyday. No threat will approach the country by sea. Conversly, critical production facilities of the rest of the world are easily within range of our strategic bombers. The rest of the world combined does not posses the capability of breaching our air defenses. This would cause the production gap for the US to grow in the same way it did in WWII.

The conclusion is that the "Rest of the World" force would be unable to prosecute a quick end to a conflict and that the longer it went on, the stronger the US strategic position.

Nuclear options are the great equalizer. Once they are put in the equation it becomes a nightmare scenario. The US strategic forces are certainly capable of laying waste to the world. The problem is that there is no effective defense against having the favour returned.

[el freako]

Plato, to deal with your points:

Originally posted by PLATO
First, The logistical support capability of the US is vastly larger than the rest of the worlds combined. This would necessitate them fighting defensive wars whereas the US philosophy is totally offensive. It would not take very long for any army in the world to become overextended very far beyond its own boarders. This would not be the case with the US.

True to begin with, but the sort of war you are describing would probably mean that the combatants are spending 15% to 25% of their GDP on the military (compared with 2% to 4% now) - so both sides are ramping up production from a low level, and the non-us side can easily outproduce the US.
Within 4 to 6 years the rest of the world could easily outproduce your navy, take control of the seas and build the logistical support to enable invasion of the US homeland.

Originally posted by PLATO
Second, while the relative production capacity of the US is not what it once was, it is still vast even when put up against the rest of the world. Don't know the exact figure but I would imagine that it is still around the 30% mark. In addition to this there are vast resouces of production still available in this country with fully developed transportation systems between them and the production facilities. Couple these facts with the vast number of educated workers (by world standards) available to be added to a production force.

First off 30% is a massive overestimation of the US's share of global manufacturing productive capacity - the US's GDP is only 20% of the world and manufacturing accounts for a much smaller than average share of your GDP so your share of world manufacturing output is around 17%.
You could not have a large army and increase production like you did in WW2 as there is no huge pool of untapped female labour to draw on.

Originally posted by PLATO
Fourth, The bluewater Navy of the US could easily and effectively deal with all the rest of the worlds service ships in short order. Anti-submarine assets are huge (ex: SOSUS) and have been a large focus since Soviet heyday. No threat will approach the country by sea. Conversly, critical production facilities of the rest of the world are easily within range of our strategic bombers. The rest of the world combined does not posses the capability of breaching our air defenses. This would cause the production gap for the US to grow in the same way it did in WWII.

You seem to be making the same error twice here.
First, big though it is, the US's strategic bomber fleet does not have enough aircraft to significantly damage production facilities worldwide - and by the time you could build enough to do so the rest of the world would have strong enough defences to make it suicide to try.
Second, no navy is going to be stupid enough to challenge yours on the high seas with it's current force composition - they will stick close to their shores under the protective wing of their airforces untill they have built enough ships to overwhelm you , this would probably only take 3 to 4 years, then the US would find itself unable to control the oceans and vunerable to air attack itself.


The only way the US could take on the rest of the planet and win is if it can achieve a crippling blow with the forces it has now, before the rest of the world can bring it's economic might to bear, and US forces are a fraction of the size needed to pull this off.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


First, The logistical support capability of the US is vastly larger than the rest of the worlds combined. This would necessitate them fighting defensive wars whereas the US philosophy is totally offensive. It would not take very long for any army in the world to become overextended very far beyond its own boarders. This would not be the case with the US.

The US has the ability to supply 500,000 men better than anyone else. The Us could Never support 6-10 million men, which is what the rest of the world's armies combines come to, so to say the US's logstics ability are greater than anyone elses really makes no sense. Second, the US depends on countless OVERSEas bases to store it's stuff. By definition, if it is taking on everyone else, it CAN NOT use overseas bases. This greatly limits the abiity of the US to project power. the fact is that the US can roject power as it does becuase it has a network of friends around the world letting the US through. We don't generally own our oevrseas bases like old Empires did.

Second, while the relative production capacity of the US is not what it once was, it is still vast even when put up against the rest of the world. Don't know the exact figure but I would imagine that it is still around the 30% mark. In addition to this there are vast resouces of production still available in this country with fully developed transportation systems between them and the production facilities. Couple these facts with the vast number of educated workers (by world standards) available to be added to a production force.

Europe and Japan alone have more educate dworkers than the US, the EU's eocnomy by itself is about 90% of the US's, Japan's 40%, and China 30% or more. If the war were to become a war of attrition, where production mattered, the US vs the world would lose. add to this of course that the US is a net importer of raw materials, including various rare metals the US can not replace, and energy. The loss of US food would hurt many, but most other markets in which the US dominates someone else could eventually plug up.

Third, the organizational structure of the US military and its training facilities would weigh in heavily. Having one centralized system would provide an efficiency over the rest of the world trying to field new troops from a variety of training systems and methods. This says nothing of the benefits of having one set of standardized weapons.

This is only a major thing in places were multiple un-coordinated armies would have to face the US. That is not that likely.

Fourth, The bluewater Navy of the US could easily and effectively deal with all the rest of the worlds service ships in short order. Anti-submarine assets are huge (ex: SOSUS) and have been a large focus since Soviet heyday. No threat will approach the country by sea. Conversly, critical production facilities of the rest of the world are easily within range of our strategic bombers. The rest of the world combined does not posses the capability of breaching our air defenses. This would cause the production gap for the US to grow in the same way it did in WWII.

This is the point closes to reality. The fact is that the US could successfully have a fortress US: sort of situation, where it kept foreign navies form ebing able to move forces to the western hemisphere. But it would be very strained, and the training of the Japanese, UK, and French navies are nothing to sneeze at. As for within range of bombers: the fact is that overseas bases that our planes ussually use to refuel can be counted as NOT avaiable. That greatly shorttens the range of our planes, since you can only count on them having the range to fuel from the US itself. Any oevrseas refueling bases would be quick targets and alsmot imp[ossible to defend.

The conclusion is that the "Rest of the World" force would be unable to prosecute a quick end to a conflict and that the longer it went on, the stronger the US strategic position.

The Us could certainly sit at home and cu itself off from attack: the US could not make significant beachheads into the other continents beside the Americas, and if the US tried to go too deep into Latin America, the US would get bogged down bad in guerrilla and terrorist fighting. The compleet cutoff of foreing capital, fuel, metals and so forth would eat away at the US economy. Certainly the rest of the world would suffer to, speicfically form an end to US grain and meat exports. otherwise, they can make it out better than we.

Nuclear options are the great equalizer. Once they are put in the equation it becomes a nightmare scenario. The US strategic forces are certainly capable of laying waste to the world. The problem is that there is no effective defense against having the favour returned.

There are plenty of states that would escape fatal aamge from a nuclear strike if the entire US arsenal had to be parcelled world-wide. The area that is the US would be made inhosipitable for a long, long time.

In short, NO, the US could not take on the world.

[DanS]

Well, even if we couldn't take on ROW (which we could IMO), then that just proves my point all the more.

If you want to paint the US as a unipole, then you've got to recognize that the US doesn't have the capability to perpetuate this situation and has never really had this capability. So why care too much about it? If you want to paint the US as a superpower, then we can perpetuate this situation forever, basically.

What Bush does now will have almost zero impact on these facts, unless he gets us nuked. Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran during his presidency won't change the parameters. Continued large deficits (which aren't planned, currently) during his presidency won't change the parameters.

[BeBMan]

BTW, what happens if China really becomes the superpower? Will we see a lot of China-bashing here?

[DanS]

We'll be pretty old by that time. I see them more as wanting to be strong regionally. Once China gets European bases, nuke subs, carriers, an expidtionary force, and a credible navy, then we might reevaluate the situation.

[BeBMan]

[DanS]

Apolyton Forums 2100. Now in 3D!

[Ted Striker]

"The Collapse of American Power"