Armed to the teeth

[Dis]

yeah we were just discussing that.

We have 12 active carriers at this moment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
MtG,



But the whole point is, we don't NEED a large standing army IF we are committed to defense, rather than offense. That's my whole point.

Defense means standing around waiting to get ****ed. Giving the initiative to your enemies. Letting them pick the time and place and means to engage you.

**** that.

[Roland]

The world domination claim in that article is silly hyperbole. On such a measure, the US is quite weak. No monopoly on nuclear weapons, low loss tolerance among the population, etc...

What is interesting though is the idea to spend an extra 100 or 200 billion $ on the military. Apart from being loved by the Kleptocratic Party, it could increase the political ease to go against 3rd rate powers, and make it possible to go against 2nd rate powers (here China comes to mind). But I really fail to see the point how this would make the US safer.

[Sikander]

A lot of my points have already been addressed regarding the high cost of our weapons systems, procurement etc. I might add that we are also paying a hefty price tag for operations since 9/11. The only other thing that hasn't been fleshed out is how much our force structure is still reflective of it's cold war roots. There are a lot of heavy divisions and air wings that one would be hard pressed to find employment for in a vast majority of scenarios.

IMO aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete, at least with their current armament. Their air wings are too small, and their range is too short to substitute for land based air. I would keep some of them, but we need to do some serious thinking about the cost of the carrier battle group in comparison to it's firepower.

For the paranoid who think that we are trying to take over the world, I suggest that you increase your own defense spending. Even if you spend it twice as effectively as we do (which won't be too hard), I don't fear it's potential. Taking over the world is not a possibility, for us or for any coalition you wish to come up with. No one in the U.S. contemplates hegemony that I have heard of.

[David Floyd]

Defense means standing around waiting to get ****ed. Giving the initiative to your enemies. Letting them pick the time and place and means to engage you.

**** that.

Who the **** is gonna attack us? You aren't looking at realities.

Canada? Mexico? Overland invasions could only come from this hemisphere, and let's face it - I'm not worried.
No other nation has the amphibious assets to land even 1 DIVISION on US soil across an ocean, and you know it.

Regardless, we have nuclear weapons, and we can pretty much scale back our military by about 80%, retain the ICBMs, and say, "If you **** with us, we will nuke you."

Effective deterrant, that.

[DanS]

"But I really fail to see the point how this would make the US safer."

You're talking think tank theoreticals here, which may or may not reflect reality. Rumsfeld has said he is trying to move the military away from a particular threat approach (e.g., China would not be addressed specifically), toward a focus on how we might be attacked and where we are vulnerable in a generic sense.

It is a little tough to understand at this point, and you can fill a lot of golden rice bowls with that lack of understanding in the margins. But as a rule, the American people trust the military to spend in these margins. I don't know of any other country that would be fool enough to do this, but our post-Vietnam approach requires a preponderance of firepower deliverable anywhere in the world within a reasonable timeframe.

Btw, I agree that this "hegemon" label is perplexing.

[David Floyd]

but our post-Vietnam approach requires a preponderance of firepower deliverable anywhere in the world within a reasonable timeframe.

If by "post-Vietnam approach" you mean "willingness to interfere anywhere in the world and butt in where we aren't wanted and it's none of our business anyway" then you would be correct, although I'm not sure "required" is the right word. Then again, that mindset is - unfortunately - nothing new. We've had it ever since WW2, and of course during WW1 as well.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then again, that mindset is - unfortunately - nothing new. We've had it ever since WW2, and of course during WW1 as well.

Your history is a little fuzzy my boy. World War 2, we were attacked bye Japanese forces and the Nazi's declared war on us


In World war one...we answered the request of our French and British allies. Also, the sinkig of the Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram to mexico were just too much. Again, this time the enemy provoked us.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by faded glory
World War 2, we were attacked bye Japanese forces and the Nazi's declared war on us

David's going to tell you that we provoked those actions ourselves.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


David's going to tell you that we provoked those actions ourselves.

Damn straight......We got what we deserved for speaking up about there "Divide and Conquer" tactics

[David Floyd]

In World war one...we answered the request of our French and British allies. Also, the sinkig of the Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram to mexico were just too much. Again, this time the enemy provoked us.

The Lusitania was a valid military target. It was carrying war material to England. The Germans tried to warn US civilians not to travel on it but the US government suppressed the warning.
As the Zimmerman Telegram, don't you think that was possibly Germany covering themselves when it became more and more likely we would enter the war on the opposite side?

Your history is a little fuzzy my boy. World War 2, we were attacked bye Japanese forces and the Nazi's declared war on us

We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not our oil. That's like another country attacking us because we jack up grain prices

We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions

These two statements seem to betray inconsistent reasoning.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

It's not our oil. That's like another country attacking us because we jack up grain prices

We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions

These two statements seem to betray inconsistent reasoning.

That one statement seems to betray surprise.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions.

Jesus H. Christ. Yeah, our economic action really "threatened" the very existence of Japan. Poppycock! If Japan had chosen to acquire what it needed to thrive economically in a more peaceable manner, it would never have had to need the oil and metal resources it needed in the farking first place for its military (which was used to forcibly acquire the rubber and whatnot it needed to "thrive"). Hell, if they'd gone even more "Western" at the time and chosen a democratic government, perhaps the war in the Pacific would have been avoided completely.

Regarding the Lend-Lease Program, it was taken up in order to help Britain (and, yes, we did benefit from it, namely by acquiring British bases in the Caribbean). Need I remind you, Britain was (and still is) a democratic nation during World War II, and that Nazi Germany was the aggressive, expansionistic military power?

What are you, Floyd? Some sort of "hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil" sort of individual? As much as it may suck, Floyd, there are times when you *cannot* wait to take on a threat until it's knocking on your damned door and, as soon as you open it, it blows your head off. That kind of attitude got France conquered in World War II. It got Britain bombed a thousand times over. It led to Pearl Harbor for us.

Now I'm not saying we have to be paranoid, either, and punch out every Joe that looks at us wrong. That's the other extreme of what you seem to subscribe to, Floyd. We need a balanced approach to the threats in this world and, frankly, your ideas of right and wrong are beginning to make me go just as sour on you as I am on paranoid approach.

Ignorance and innocence isn't all fun and games. We *did not* deserve Pearl Harbor, Floyd.

[David Floyd]

I'm sorry, but there's a difference between an EMBARGO and a decision not to sell oil, steel, whatever to a nation. An embargo says that NO ONE can sell to that nation, and if enforced that is an act of war. Deciding, on your own, not to sell, is a simple economic decision involving no one's resources but your own.

And in light of that, Japan certainly had a justification for Pearl Harbor. If we hadn't butted in, in China, and just said that as long as they don't bother us they can get tied up in China for a million years, we don't care - there would have been no problem.

Believe me, Japan had no capability to conquer and hold down China. They would have tried, they would have failed, they would have overextended, and eventually it would have been problem solved, if you view it as a problem. I certainly do - just not OUR problem. In that eventuality, of course, today there would be a much, MUCH weaker China, which IMO is a good thing. Not that China's a threat to the US, just that I for one am not excited about a nation such as China approaching the US economically, a nation with such horrendous policies. Again, not that it's any of our business, I for one just don't like it.