The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-22-2016, 10:51 AM
#7721
I did find his comments about the size of our Navy to be a bit perplexing. I know he is far from the first person to claim our Navy is too small and in need of expansion but I still struggle to understand how that is grounded in reality. Our Navy is so much larger than the next player, China, that it's not even funny. Beyond just pure size we also have massive technological, training, experience, and infrastructure advantages over everyone else as well. I feel like on this particular point his military perspective bias is strong. We don't need to be equipped to take ALL of our enemies at the same time by ourselves. This is why we have alliances with countries that share similar interests.
As Russia found out at the end of the Cold War, simply having the physical hardware, and trained/experienced bodies doesn't mean a damned thing if you can't or won't fund it. And don't kid yourself about the ability or willingness of our allies to "help" if we get into a shooting match with a truly dangerous enemy like China. We'll still carry 98% of the burden even if/when France send their only aircraft carrier and Australia sends a frigate... and nobody but us has a global air presence (I'm talking B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's), which is what wins wars. And there's no way anybody is going to take over the role of world police if we get bogged down someplace.
That's all assuming we leave nukes off the table.
Reply
0
0
12-22-2016, 11:06 AM
#7722
If we're talking about China, we can expend every Tomahawk we've got and they'd shrug it off in a couple hours and then sink every ship we have within 500 miles of their coastline without breaking a sweat. Personally being on the front lines our current Naval Readiness (to include the Marine Corps), I would argue that we have "massive" nothing compared to what we need to fight even one real enemy, because WE have to go THERE. We're not defending our homes where our "stuff" is. We're defending our "interests" or our "allies", and the logistics to take our fighting forces around the globe and keep them supplied is some order of magnitude above the word "massive".
As Russia found out at the end of the Cold War, simply having the physical hardware, and trained/experienced bodies doesn't mean a damned thing if you can't or won't fund it. And don't kid yourself about the ability or willingness of our allies to "help" if we get into a shooting match with a truly dangerous enemy like China. We'll still carry 98% of the burden even if/when France send their only aircraft carrier and Australia sends a frigate... and nobody but us has a global air presence (I'm talking B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's), which is what wins wars. And there's no way anybody is going to take over the role of world police if we get bogged down someplace.
That's all assuming we leave nukes off the table.
As Russia found out at the end of the Cold War, simply having the physical hardware, and trained/experienced bodies doesn't mean a damned thing if you can't or won't fund it. And don't kid yourself about the ability or willingness of our allies to "help" if we get into a shooting match with a truly dangerous enemy like China. We'll still carry 98% of the burden even if/when France send their only aircraft carrier and Australia sends a frigate... and nobody but us has a global air presence (I'm talking B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's), which is what wins wars. And there's no way anybody is going to take over the role of world police if we get bogged down someplace.
That's all assuming we leave nukes off the table.
Reply
0
0
12-22-2016, 11:13 AM
#7723
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
And a B-52 would last 38 seconds over a hostile Chinese target (see also '53 Chevrolet era technology). At least they have some standoff range instead of dumb bombs these days.
A real war with China would be over in a couple of hours anyway. And it would leave Russia in charge of the world.
A real war with China would be over in a couple of hours anyway. And it would leave Russia in charge of the world.
Reply
0
0
12-22-2016, 01:04 PM
#7724
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
You obviously know far more than I ever will about this topic and I will defer to your knowledge and experience. I guess I would like to know why we would ever want to take the war TO China. I mean, I get that there could be a circumstance that involves total war but that would require some major conflict. Due to globalization China has a lot to lose to declaring war on the US as we are completely economically intertwined. Wouldn't most of our stand offs with China just be in the Pacific and Indian oceans and involve mostly posturing. Are you suggesting that they are going to sink our ships to posture their strength? In the event of total war, the US has already proven it's capabilities to mobilize the war machine very quickly. I would think due to our global military infrastructure with military installations all over the world, we would be able to fend China off long enough to keep them in their own borders. It's not like we would want to conquer China.
Just like SWAT/Police Departments/DEA don't want drug laws eased because it hurts their budgets and doesn't justify their expansion. We aren't going to war with China, ever, period. Just like they are never going to demand payment and make it so we can't buy their goods.
It's bunch of alarmist crap.
Reply
0
0
12-22-2016, 01:24 PM
#7725
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
I agree. China won't attack us because it isn't in their best interest right now. But keeping actions outside of full conflict from being in their best interest is the real issue. Much as it was not worth it to Russia to keep missiles in Cuba, there are pressures and influences related to the ability to conduct a war that can effect the foreign activities of other superpowers.
Reply
0
0
12-22-2016, 01:26 PM
#7726
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
I agree. China won't attack us because it isn't in their best interest right now. But keeping actions outside of full conflict from being in their best interest is the real issue. Much as it was not worth it to Russia to keep missiles in Cuba, there are pressures and influences related to the ability to conduct a war that can effect the foreign activities of other superpowers.
However, I still think we can influence other superpowers without having a military budget that = the next 20 countries combined with 19 of those being our Allies.
Reply
0
0
12-22-2016, 03:51 PM
#7727
The problem is that China agrees that it's not in the best interest of either us or them to go to war.
In that case, they're taking Taiwan, The Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal.
China is in a very strange position in their history right now; in the opinion of the Chinese leadership, someone else is temporarily more powerful than they are in the world.Their intent is to correct this injustice, be it by war or through "diplomacy". Currently they are taking an active role in strengthening their might in the South China Sea so that they can use their "diplomacy" to convince the many nearby puny countries that it is in their mutual best interest to denounce their sovereignty vice being wiped off the face of the Earth by the 10-million-man-swimming-army.
Before:
Today: with an approximately 10,800 ft runway. Compare this to the 8,300 feet needed for a fully loaded C-5 aircraft to take flight.
Why is china building military bases way down here in territory that vietnam, malaysia, and the philippines claim is theirs?
In that case, they're taking Taiwan, The Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal.
China is in a very strange position in their history right now; in the opinion of the Chinese leadership, someone else is temporarily more powerful than they are in the world.Their intent is to correct this injustice, be it by war or through "diplomacy". Currently they are taking an active role in strengthening their might in the South China Sea so that they can use their "diplomacy" to convince the many nearby puny countries that it is in their mutual best interest to denounce their sovereignty vice being wiped off the face of the Earth by the 10-million-man-swimming-army.
Before:
Today: with an approximately 10,800 ft runway. Compare this to the 8,300 feet needed for a fully loaded C-5 aircraft to take flight.
Why is china building military bases way down here in territory that vietnam, malaysia, and the philippines claim is theirs?
Reply
0
0
12-22-2016, 05:03 PM
#7728
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Eventually the Chinese will need "living space" for their population and much of their resources will be used up and their land uninhabitable due to pollution. They have about 4.3 times as many people as the US and roughly the same land mass. I wouldn't be surprised to see strategic annexation of other countries in the same way Russia took the Ukraine. And with as much international response. The US wouldn't try to stop annexation of Vietnam, for instance. We'd say, "Stop," but we wouldn't actually do anything. Thailand or Philippines would need to be a different story. If we have bases in a country it creates a different narrative than if we do not.
Reply
0
0
12-23-2016, 10:46 AM
#7729
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
those peaceful liberals out saving the poor:
Man accused of killing UPS driver says he killed Donald Trump - NY Daily News
Man accused of killing UPS driver says he killed Donald Trump - NY Daily News
An Ithaca man accused of fatally shooting a UPS driver outside a Walmart claimed he shot and killed Donald Trump during a court appearance Monday.
Justin Barkley, 38, stood before Judge John Rowley and said he knew where President-elect Donald Trump would be on Dec 8. He then waited for him outside of a Walmart where he said he allegedly killed him, according to the Ithaca Voice.
"I shot and killed Donald Trump purposely, intentionally and very proudly," Barkley said during his arraignment.
Ithaca police and Barkley engaged in an eight-hour standoff on Dec. 8 where they arrested him for fatally shooting 52-year-old William Schumacher and for firing shots at officers.
Justin Barkley, 38, stood before Judge John Rowley and said he knew where President-elect Donald Trump would be on Dec 8. He then waited for him outside of a Walmart where he said he allegedly killed him, according to the Ithaca Voice.
"I shot and killed Donald Trump purposely, intentionally and very proudly," Barkley said during his arraignment.
Ithaca police and Barkley engaged in an eight-hour standoff on Dec. 8 where they arrested him for fatally shooting 52-year-old William Schumacher and for firing shots at officers.
Reply
0
0
12-29-2016, 08:27 PM
#7735
Breaking news: The US Government has put in place immediate sanctions for interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Sanctioned parties include Russia, CNN, and Oprah Winfrey.
Honestly, I don't see how Russia did anything more significant than Sinclair Broadcasting/E!/MSNBC to influence the US Presidential elections...or Barack Obama, who actually had more important things to do than participate in the Clinton Campaign.
Honestly, I don't see how Russia did anything more significant than Sinclair Broadcasting/E!/MSNBC to influence the US Presidential elections...or Barack Obama, who actually had more important things to do than participate in the Clinton Campaign.
Reply
0
0
12-29-2016, 09:29 PM
#7736
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Breaking news: The US Government has put in place immediate sanctions for interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Sanctioned parties include Russia, CNN, and Oprah Winfrey.
Honestly, I don't see how Russia did anything more significant than Sinclair Broadcasting/E!/MSNBC to influence the US Presidential elections...or Barack Obama, who actually had more important things to do than participate in the Clinton Campaign.
Honestly, I don't see how Russia did anything more significant than Sinclair Broadcasting/E!/MSNBC to influence the US Presidential elections...or Barack Obama, who actually had more important things to do than participate in the Clinton Campaign.
Reply
0
0
12-30-2016, 01:35 AM
#7737
Yes, but it goes well beyond sour grapes, as it is also the perfect chess move by the democrats to further set up and discredit Trump. If he leaves them in place he has to deal with an acrimonious and likely unproductive relationship during his term, and yet if he does anything to reverse or diminish them, he plays right into the narrative that he's Putin's bitch.
Reply
0
0
12-30-2016, 05:56 AM
#7738
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
And that's the problem right there. Democrats and Republicans are constantly playing these games, instead of what it right for America and the American people.
Every damn one of them should be lined up and shot.
Every damn one of them should be lined up and shot.
Reply
0
0
12-30-2016, 07:02 AM
#7739
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
if Russia really wanted to influence the election, they'd have donated to the Hillary campaign like the rest of the middle east. Then they'd order Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to like rig things and stuffs.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-30-2016 at 07:17 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-30-2016, 07:37 AM
#7740
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Anthony Bourdain gets it:
The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we’re seeing now.
I’ve spent a lot of time in gun-country, God-fearing America. There are a hell of a lot of nice people out there, who are doing what everyone else in this world is trying to do: the best they can to get by, and take care of themselves and the people they love. When we deny them their basic humanity and legitimacy of their views, however different they may be than ours, when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good. Nothing nauseates me more than preaching to the converted. The self-congratulatory tone of the privileged left—just repeating and repeating and repeating the outrages of the opposition—this does not win hearts and minds. It doesn’t change anyone’s opinions. It only solidifies them, and makes things worse for all of us. We should be breaking bread with each other, and finding common ground whenever possible. I fear that is not at all what we’ve done.
Reply
0
0
