Pentagon says that we would lose a war with China by 2030.

[FA_Q2]

seven?? that's very odd......usually it's an even number..
?????are you lying ?

I did five years, because I signed up for four years and then extended another year to get some additional training.

..yes I did about 7.8..I re-upped before my first was over...but, like I said, that's unusual ...and it's unusual for someone to do 1 more year...and more do not reenlist than reenlist

Really?

Year extensions were really common when I was in. A lot of people use them to get orders.

....there are about 180,000 in the USMC...and they HOPE to see 6000 re-enlistments = NOT common

First-term Marines are slow to sign on for another enlistment

Fewer first-term Marines are signing on for a second re-enlistment compared with this time last year.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

And?

it's right THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
= = NOT common

Never said it was - said they were common when I was in. Nor did I refer to just one fourth of the armed services. But go on and bloviate.

....yes, you said they were common...you sound just like an idiot = contradicting yourself
..I just linked how they are NOT common..you claimed they were--where is your PROOF?..no proof and you are WRONG

your qiote:
''''Year extensions were really common when I was in. A lot of people use them to get orders.''''

Uh huh, tell us more.

I enlisted in the Nuclear Field program. When I made E-4, I was required to extend one year. Had I attended Nuclear Power School, that would have been anther year extension for a total 6-year enlistment, but I received an NROTC scholarship instead. Why do you think he would be wrong about something like that?

When did I say anything was wrong with that? All I said is that year extensions were rather common when I was in. It was harmonica spouting out of his ass about nothing. I did a year extension myself when I got orders to Germany because who in the hell would pass up a chance to get stationed in Germany.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

seven?? that's very odd......usually it's an even number..
?????are you lying ?

I did five years, because I signed up for four years and then extended another year to get some additional training.

..yes I did about 7.8..I re-upped before my first was over...but, like I said, that's unusual ...and it's unusual for someone to do 1 more year...and more do not reenlist than reenlist

Really?

Year extensions were really common when I was in. A lot of people use them to get orders.

....there are about 180,000 in the USMC...and they HOPE to see 6000 re-enlistments = NOT common

First-term Marines are slow to sign on for another enlistment

Fewer first-term Marines are signing on for a second re-enlistment compared with this time last year.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

And?

it's right THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
= = NOT common

Never said it was - said they were common when I was in. Nor did I refer to just one fourth of the armed services. But go on and bloviate.

....yes, you said they were common...you sound just like an idiot = contradicting yourself
..I just linked how they are NOT common..you claimed they were--where is your PROOF?..no proof and you are WRONG

your qiote:
''''Year extensions were really common when I was in. A lot of people use them to get orders.''''

Uh huh, tell us more.

I enlisted in the Nuclear Field program. When I made E-4, I was required to extend one year. Had I attended Nuclear Power School, that would have been anther year extension for a total 6-year enlistment, but I received an NROTC scholarship instead. Why do you think he would be wrong about something like that?

When did I say anything was wrong with that? All I said is that year extensions were rather common when I was in. It was harmonica spouting out of his ass about nothing. I did a year extension myself when I got orders to Germany because who in the hell would pass up a chance to get stationed in Germany.

Sorry! I quoted the wrong post. I was agreeing with you.

 

[whitehall]

Based on unnamed anonymous "defense sources" allegedly leaked to (guess who?) the NYT. Ho hum.

 

[Andylusion]

we might already lost to china with technology. There technology infrastructure is rapidly advancing then ours technology infrastructure.

ROFLMAO!

Only partially right..... It's true that their technology infrastructure is advancing more rapidly than our own....

Yeah, that would be because they were in the stone age not long ago.

Remember, it's all relative. If you were in a tribal camp in South America, and you went from wearing pelts for clothing, to a cotton tunic, that's about 3,000 years of advancement in a day, but they are still using technology from 1,000 CE.

The Chinese have advanced a ton, and it's worth noting it. But they are still way way way behind us.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Based on unnamed anonymous "defense sources" allegedly leaked to (guess who?) the NYT. Ho hum.

I can believe with the current buildup and spending in China of Military that would be true. That is, until now. Today, China is in serious trouble economically. Much worse than the US is. And don't even think about Russia being a player now. China is in serious trouble in a lot of areas. Companies leaving for greener pastures, workers getting sick and the factories having to shut down, more of the surplus having to go to just feeding the masses, and more. They didn't have nearly the buffer the US had or has.

That study was only good if the US didn't do anything about it and China continued it's growth. Today, the US really can't do anything about it but China has negative growth. Look for another study.

 

[Pilot1]

The Military Industrial Complex just constantly wants more and more money and will use fear to get it. IGNORE them. Our military is very well funded and way above anything the Chinese can do. Most of their crap doesn't work.

 

[B. Kidd]

I think that is a little optimistic. I suspect that the date is actually, right now.

US would lose a war with China fought in the Pacific, sources warn

'Eye-opening' Pentagon war games have revealed the US is vulnerable to China and that an attack from the superpower would lead to the US 'suffering capital losses', sources told The Times.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Part of the problem is that the Navy, and actually the entire Military, suffers from multiple personality disorder. A decade ago it was decided that we had no more use for Frigates. Those small ships that were too small to really operate on their own and were not large enough to project force from the sea inland at all. So all the Frigates were decommissioned. Those little ships are valuable escorts however. They provide a ring of defense around any task force. By getting rid of them, you denude your defensive capability dramatically. It is one less defensive ring to deal with.

The Navy recently realized the enormity of their mistake. They don’t have any Frigates on the drawing board that they can start construction with, and starting from scratch would take years to even begin. So the Navy has just announced that they will be buying Frigates from Italy.

Navy's New Frigate Will Be Based on Italian Ship With 'Officer-Quality' Staterooms

The frigate is an important part of the Navy's plan to position itself for future fights.

www.military.com

Now the We’re Awesome crowd will scream murder about the awesome F-22 and F-35’s. But what they don’t understand is that quantity is a quality all it’s own. And the quality is able to be matched. In time, surpassed. But as I tried to point out during the early days of the Syrian Misadventure, the Russians and Chinese answer is missiles. A lot of them.

People downplay the Russian answer because it is different than our own. But let’s say you can intercept twenty missiles. What do you do if the enemy shoots 21 at you? Eventually the number of missiles inbound will overwhelm and swamp your defenses. Some are going to get through if the enemy shoots enough of them at you. Then your multiple billion dollar carrier is a new addition to the Bottom of the Ocean.

The only way to do it is sink the enemy ships before they sink yours. But here again, we have a disadvantage. Even Submarines have a limited number of shots on board. And every time they fire, they let the enemy know they are there, and even the stealthiest submarine can be located if the enemy is looking hard enough, and let’s be honest, they’ll be looking awfully hard won’t they?

Quantity has a Quality all it’s own.

The Chinese army has more troops than we have ammunition. They have millions of troops, and infinite space to absorb attacks. They would be close to their lines of supply, and we would be far from ours. Our supply lines would be stretched to the breaking point in days, or a couple weeks maximum. It would take years to build the military we needed to return to the Status Quo Ante, and to defeat China? That would be virtually impossible.

Yes, we have nukes. And they have nukes, and we can turn the Chinese Cities into parking lots that glow in the dark. But what then? They’ll return the favor, turning many of our cities into similar scenes of destruction. We can’t turn the entire country of China into radioactive cinders. And even if we could we would be pariahs in the International World, alone without friends.

So what can we do? First, we can honestly admit that we are vulnerable. Before you can fix the problem, you have to identify it. Second, we can start a realistic examination of our Military from top to bottom. What do we need to do to protect our interests in the real world, instead of the easy one where we always win the war games? Third, we can start realistically examining our military technology. We are getting rid of hundreds of airplanes right now so we can afford a few more F-35’s. Yes, it may be an awesome plane, but if we have too few of them to do the job, what good is it to have a single awesome plane?

We got into this mess sacrificing old but good technology for awesome new. To save money. The Navy has no Fleet Interceptors to replace the decommissioned F-14’s. We got rid of the best Interceptor we ever had, because we could get everyone into one kind of plane, the F/A 18, and then declare it was obsolete so we could buy the F-35.

We abandoned the “unrealistic” scenario of having a Military that could fight two and a half wars. Now we have one that could not really fight even one war. Oh they can bomb the living crap out of some backwards Jihadi in the middle of the Desert. They can do that just fine, but they do not train to fight overwhelming odds, they don’t train and equip to fight enemies who are comparatively equal in training and equipment. They train to fight insurgents and religious nutters. Always with an overwhelming advantage of technology and information.

I doubt we could beat Iran in a stand up fight in all honesty. War Games have been denuded to the enemy doing exactly what you would want them to. If our ships can intercept twenty missiles, the notional enemy obligingly sends ten in the war game. If our troops are capable of fighting numerically inferior troops equipped with a hodgepodge of technology and weapons, the enemy obligingly puts underquipped and ill trained troops in the field, for our war games anyway.

We need to wake up, and we need to realize that just because we scream we’re number one, doesn’t mean we are. We need to realize that the enemy is unlikely to oblige your plans and stand stoically still and let you kill them. They are unlikely to surrender control of the air and sea without costing us a lot in the process, and even then it would be contested.

Wake up folks, or in ten years, we will see America’s military hugging the coast, afraid to venture out into the deep blue ocean because there be Dragons out there.

Well.
China has been watching us politically consume ourselves.
If they think the time is ripe, then they will make their play.
Even tho' I already think that they have fired their 1st volley, namely the Wuhanvirus.
Their 2nd volley? Massive cyber attacks!
Stay tuned, muppets.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Military Industrial Complex just constantly wants more and more money and will use fear to get it. IGNORE them. Our military is very well funded and way above anything the Chinese can do. Most of their crap doesn't work.

The Chinese likes to rattle a big saber but push comes to shove, they couldn't even defeat an enemy a tenth their size who was armed with old out dated Russian, Chinese and captured US weapons.

 

[B. Kidd]

China is not engaging us in a conventional war
The smartest minds in the U.S. still do not realize this!

 

[whitehall]

Yeah but the Pentagon didn't say it. The NTT said it based on alleged leaks by anonymous "defense dept" workers which could be anyone from the janitor to an angry Obama appointee. What's the intent of releasing such a story today? To disrupt the Trump administration's dealings with China regarding the epidemic?

 

[JoeB131]

.....doesn't matter ..they violated the cease fire and HINDERED the inspectors from inspecting--the Iraqis didn't let them find them

There weren't any to find. BUsh LIED people DIED.

 

[harmonica]

.....doesn't matter ..they violated the cease fire and HINDERED the inspectors from inspecting--the Iraqis didn't let them find them

There weren't any to find. BUsh LIED people DIED.

....sorry to blow you away again--but Iraq had gassed it's own people with them...they DID have them ...and they had USED them BEFORE
1. it doesn't matter if they found any or not!!!!!!!...it matters that they hindered the inspectors
--a. they hindered the inspectors to get rid of them/etc!!!DUH!!!
--b.the inspectors could not search the WHOLE country

 

[JoeB131]

....sorry to blow you away again--but Iraq had gassed it's own people with them...they DID have them ...and they had USED them BEFORE

Uh, stupid, that was back in the 1980's. Ronnie Reagan sold them the weapons and blocked the UN from taking action against Iraq in the UN back then. It's like saying we need to bomb Germany right now for what they did in 1945. Also, it's kind of stupid to consider chemical weapons to be a weapon of mass destruction because they are less effective than conventional weapons.

In 2003. Saddam didn't have WMD's. He was cooperating with inspections. Most of the world was against another war, and for good reason, given that it turned out to be A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER>

 

[harmonica]

....sorry to blow you away again--but Iraq had gassed it's own people with them...they DID have them ...and they had USED them BEFORE

Uh, stupid, that was back in the 1980's. Ronnie Reagan sold them the weapons and blocked the UN from taking action against Iraq in the UN back then. It's like saying we need to bomb Germany right now for what they did in 1945. Also, it's kind of stupid to consider chemical weapons to be a weapon of mass destruction because they are less effective than conventional weapons.

In 2003. Saddam didn't have WMD's. He was cooperating with inspections. Most of the world was against another war, and for good reason, given that it turned out to be A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER>

hahhahahaaahh WRONG--they hindered inspectors

 

[JoeB131]

hahhahahaaahh WRONG--they hindered inspectors

No, actually, they didn't... but since they DIDN'T HAVE the weapons, it's moot point.

 

[Mac-7]

Third, we can start realistically examining our military technology. We are getting rid of hundreds of airplanes right now so we can afford a few more F-35’s. Yes, it may be an awesome plane, but if we have too few of them to do the job, what good is it to have a single awesome plane?

I like your thinking on this

At the start of the Pacific War in WWII the Japanese navy was a superior force to our navy

they had better aircraft and more skillful pilots

but they were deficent in two respects

COMSEC and industrial production

they were unable to replace their losses

and they also allowed us to read their mail

we knew what they were going to do before they did it

today I think the situation is reversed

we have limited industrial capacity compared to china

and I fear they are reading our mail

 

[SavannahMann]

Third, we can start realistically examining our military technology. We are getting rid of hundreds of airplanes right now so we can afford a few more F-35’s. Yes, it may be an awesome plane, but if we have too few of them to do the job, what good is it to have a single awesome plane?

I like your thinking on this

At the start of the Pacific War in WWII the Japanese navy was a superior force to our navy

they had better aircraft and more skillful pilots

but they were deficent in two respects

COMSEC and industrial production

they were unable to replace their losses

and they also allowed us to read their mail

we knew what they were going to do before they did it

today I think the situation is reversed

we have limited industrial capacity compared to china

and I fear they are reading our mail

One of the things Japan could not do was train pilots. Even when they could manufacture planes, the pilots were ill or untrained. The last wave, the Kamikaze pilots could barely fly straight and level. They would often report Destroyers as Battleships.

By contrast some of the pilots who survived Midway and Coral Sea were Rotated back to teach the hard won lessons to the next generation of Pilots. The vets of Guadalcanal did the same. They told the new pilots about how to survive and win in air combat.

Now most of our electronics are made in China. And that gives them an advantage.

Tiny Chinese Microchips Reportedly Found Hidden in Amazon, Apple Servers

The jaw-dropping report is disputed by some of the supposed victims.

www.popularmechanics.com

I wonder if a war starts and all our planes with all their high tech awesomeness will just sit on the ground and refuse to start?

 

[Mac-7]

I wonder if a war starts and all our planes with all their high tech awesomeness will just sit on the ground and refuse to start?

It could happen.

yet globalists continue to sing the praises of china and sneer at the very thought of producing what we need in America

 

[Mac-7]

And the euro’s are even more in bed with the communists than we are

Shamefully America has fallen behind in 5g technology

the euro’s have in house 5g through Nokia and Errisson but appear poised to go with huawei instead

how stupid is that?

 

[themirrorthief]

Mac-7 but if we shut down wal mart the majority of chinese would starve to death within ayear