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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Agree. MAD was the overriding factor in the Cold War.

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.

 

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?

 

They've got to do something with the money they've made from manufacturing manifolds that don't hit block. I'm sure those are resort islands and that's why they need to be able to land jumbo jets there.

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.

 

those peaceful liberals out saving the poor:

Man accused of killing UPS driver says he killed Donald Trump - NY Daily News

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ism-in-europe/

 

 

 

Thoughts on sanctions against Russia.

 

For what? . . . interfering in the election process? ****, if that warrants sanctions then the USA should be under sanctions from about half the countries on this planet.

 

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.

 

This. Don't poke the ******* bear. Especially for silly Internet news stories and nothing real. Sour grapes for losing the election and that's about it.

 

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.

 

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.

 

they only interfered with the election process in the fact that "they" released information that happened to make a particular candidate look bad.

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.

 

Anthony Bourdain gets it: