War...Where Next?

[Mr Natural]

As long as we have what other nations/dictators want, we will be at war. When we have nothing, we will be ignored.

I get it. That's the Republican strategy. Ooh, insight. If the middle class and the economy is destroyed, then we won't be attacked. We will be "safe".

Only,

After 8 years of war

A generation of young men killed or maimed

a ruined economy

Iraq was attacked. By us.

Maybe the Republicans need to rethink their "plan".

That's right. When there's nothing left worth defending, then we'll be at peace.

 

[Samson]

As long as we have what other nations/dictators want, we will be at war. When we have nothing, we will be ignored.

I get it. That's the Republican strategy. Ooh, insight. If the middle class and the economy is destroyed, then we won't be attacked. We will be "safe".

Only,

After 8 years of war

A generation of young men killed or maimed

a ruined economy

Iraq was attacked. By us.

Maybe the Republicans need to rethink their "plan".

Oh, the Drama: "A Generation of Young Men Killed or Maimed!!!"

A side from injecting your stupid partisanship into every thread, do you really need to highlight it?

 

[antagon]

how about another panama-based conflict... not with panama but over panama and its exclusivity with the canal. something about venezuela and columbia's lovemaking recently which imperils the regional peace. they either have a lover's spat we'd be interested in, or they combine to project aggression against our interests. we need a reason to renew our grip on the canal territory too.

Regional peace? The banana republics do not merit our attention. The only military powers in this hemisphere is the US and Canadian armies, all the rest are police forces. As long as the oil and minerals flow out of the republics there is no need for intervention.

Realistically other than the ongoing Korean police action a possible quick strike is likely on Taiwan by China. China’s growing economic clout and modernization of their military makes this scenario quite likely in the next 10 years. If they invade Taiwan who is going to care? Of course we will do all kinds of posturing but are we going to go to war with the new superpower of the world? Someone who has the capability of hitting the US with Nukes? Over Taiwan? I don’t think so.

It will be a quick strike with paratroopers, and air strikes. A build-up of military forces will come under the guise of an exercise. But the main thrust of the attack will come internally. China is already placing troops (as civilians) in Taiwan and recruiting people in country to help during the invasion. When the attack commences, these people will disable the key communications and defense facilities. It will be a blitzkrieg type of attack that will be over in a day or so and the US will be faced with a dilemma. Do we attack the Chinese or say let it go?

panama has the canal. the western hemisphere is our sphere of influence.

flip the script, will china attack taiwan risking confrontation with the world's top nuke power? can their chickenshit navy cover resupply of your flash expeditionary force? china will need air superiority over taiwan before an airborne assault. how long will that take? taiwan is important to the US, japan and korea. it is the containment, intel and observation platform keeping china in check at the moment.

 

[rdean]

As long as we have what other nations/dictators want, we will be at war. When we have nothing, we will be ignored.

I get it. That's the Republican strategy. Ooh, insight. If the middle class and the economy is destroyed, then we won't be attacked. We will be "safe".

Only,

After 8 years of war

A generation of young men killed or maimed

a ruined economy

Iraq was attacked. By us.

Maybe the Republicans need to rethink their "plan".

Oh, the Drama: "A Generation of Young Men Killed or Maimed!!!"

A side from injecting your stupid partisanship into every thread, do you really need to highlight it?

Yes, the Iraq's carried on an 8 years war with Iran that left a generation of young men killed or maimed. We attacked a, well, basically, a "defenseless" country. Makes you feel good and mushy warm inside, doesn't it?

 

[zzzz]

how about another panama-based conflict... not with panama but over panama and its exclusivity with the canal. something about venezuela and columbia's lovemaking recently which imperils the regional peace. they either have a lover's spat we'd be interested in, or they combine to project aggression against our interests. we need a reason to renew our grip on the canal territory too.

Regional peace? The banana republics do not merit our attention. The only military powers in this hemisphere is the US and Canadian armies, all the rest are police forces. As long as the oil and minerals flow out of the republics there is no need for intervention.

Realistically other than the ongoing Korean police action a possible quick strike is likely on Taiwan by China. China’s growing economic clout and modernization of their military makes this scenario quite likely in the next 10 years. If they invade Taiwan who is going to care? Of course we will do all kinds of posturing but are we going to go to war with the new superpower of the world? Someone who has the capability of hitting the US with Nukes? Over Taiwan? I don’t think so.

It will be a quick strike with paratroopers, and air strikes. A build-up of military forces will come under the guise of an exercise. But the main thrust of the attack will come internally. China is already placing troops (as civilians) in Taiwan and recruiting people in country to help during the invasion. When the attack commences, these people will disable the key communications and defense facilities. It will be a blitzkrieg type of attack that will be over in a day or so and the US will be faced with a dilemma. Do we attack the Chinese or say let it go?

panama has the canal. the western hemisphere is our sphere of influence.

flip the script, will china attack taiwan risking confrontation with the world's top nuke power? can their chickenshit navy cover resupply of your flash expeditionary force? china will need air superiority over taiwan before an airborne assault. how long will that take? taiwan is important to the US, japan and korea. it is the containment, intel and observation platform keeping china in check at the moment.

How extended are we at the moment? Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat of war on the Korean peninsula keeps American troops there. Our military was designed to fight 2 and a half wars. The attrition on men and material has reduced our potential to fight even 2 wars. Even though we are militarily capable of fighting the Chinese we do not have the public will to fight a war over Taiwan. We are becoming war weary and it at this time that our interests are vulnerable to military action.

A war with China over Taiwan, if it happens would cost us considerably. You talk about air superiority but aircraft carriers would be real vulnerable to Chinese missiles and these are the only air superiority aircraft that would be available for a fight over the Taiwan Strait. The aircraft carriers would have to stay east of the Island itself. Our ships could not traverse the straits of Taiwan. The threat of subs and land based missiles alone make it suicidal. The theater of combat would have to be contained to Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait. If we took to bombing the mainland we would be inviting attack on the United States mainland. How would the people of California like to have a missile or two land in Los Angeles. We are not going to go nuclear over Taiwan so that option is out but the cost in material and men would be horrific and Iraq and Afghanistan would pale behind this war.

It is a war that is possible and it is probable that we would lose it too. The interior lines of support and supply are more vulnerable to the US than China. We have to use the sea to move large material and men, they have theirs right there. They have subs that are almost as quiet as ours. They have missiles that have been proven in combat to destroy our naval vessels. In warfare it has been proven time and time again that someone always gets through. All the defenses in the world will not completely stop a determined attack. And all it takes is one missile to sink a ship if it strikes a vulnerable place. We bomb an airstrip and a day later it is back in operation. They hit a carrier and if it is still operational it will have to return to the US and get repaired. This will take months and months. All this time our other commitments around the world will suffer. Do you think our other enemies will just sit back and wait till the fight is over? No they will strike us too knowing that we cannot fight everyone at the same time.

This is one fight we cannot afford and if the Chinese do attack Taiwan I do not see us responding militarily. The costs are too high.

 

[antagon]

i was talking about china obtaining air superiority over taiwan before your airborne assault. that is not as simple as you make it out to be. i dont think china could take taiwan without amphibious assault, and that would mean their navy will control the strait. i dont think that is as simple as you make it out to be either. china does not have an impressive navy. they just have a massive military much of which must maintain order over a very volatile populace.

if they prepare for such an assault, we would know in advance. we wont let it happen through a number of methods as stiff as sanctions or blockade. china is surrounded and can't afford to misstep with their economy. if they fail to match population growth with economic growth or have a sudden issue with their ecoonomy, what you describe as their superpower status will vanish in a quarter or two. china is not a fundamentally sound economy.

the entire pacific including ourselves, japan, korea, taiwan and australia could decimate china with or without nuclear force, moreover NATO and other allies likely to get involved. right now, we are china's biggest ally. if they turn on us they have NK, a comedy state which cant project their military meaningfully outside their peninsula and who would catch an asskickin from korea if they became aggressors.

i remind that this is not 1967. we could fly a cap over taiwan from nellis. but japan korea or the philippines would suffice. the pacific fleet brings more military might than china possesses all by itself. apart from china being a major US ally, they are aware that the US is not the war-weary or marginally capable nation you perceive.

the idea that we couldn't afford to whip our fleet into action or douse their ambitions in a confrontation like you propose is inverted. i doubt china could afford it. do you think a renminbi would have a value if china picked a fight with the US? that would do wonders for our debt. they wont need the money, they wont get any supplies past the blockade anyhow.

 

[zzzz]

i was talking about china obtaining air superiority over taiwan before your airborne assault. that is not as simple as you make it out to be. i dont think china could take taiwan without amphibious assault, and that would mean their navy will control the strait. i dont think that is as simple as you make it out to be either. china does not have an impressive navy. they just have a massive military much of which must maintain order over a very volatile populace.

if they prepare for such an assault, we would know in advance. we wont let it happen through a number of methods as stiff as sanctions or blockade. china is surrounded and can't afford to misstep with their economy. if they fail to match population growth with economic growth or have a sudden issue with their ecoonomy, what you describe as their superpower status will vanish in a quarter or two. china is not a fundamentally sound economy.

the entire pacific including ourselves, japan, korea, taiwan and australia could decimate china with or without nuclear force, moreover NATO and other allies likely to get involved. right now, we are china's biggest ally. if they turn on us they have NK, a comedy state which cant project their military meaningfully outside their peninsula and who would catch an asskickin from korea if they became aggressors.

i remind that this is not 1967. we could fly a cap over taiwan from nellis. but japan korea or the philippines would suffice. the pacific fleet brings more military might than china possesses all by itself. apart from china being a major US ally, they are aware that the US is not the war-weary or marginally capable nation you perceive.

the idea that we couldn't afford to whip our fleet into action or douse their ambitions in a confrontation like you propose is inverted. i doubt china could afford it. do you think a renminbi would have a value if china picked a fight with the US? that would do wonders for our debt. they wont need the money, they wont get any supplies past the blockade anyhow.

The Chinese have been modernizing their armed forces for awhile now. Yes they are not up to our standards but remember we defeated the Germans and the Japanese not by technology but by superior numbers. We could afford to lose aircraft and men because we had a larger population. The Korean conflict brought this into focus even more. We we conquered North korea but the masses of Chinese we could not contain. Even though the world is more dependant on technology than back in WWII combat uses up resources. We have a limited amount of missles and over time the technological advantage becomes a burden. To resupply and rearm takes longer.

To fly a cap from Nellis with what? Here is an interesting RAND study in 2008 on a possible conflict with China you should read about capabilities.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf


Excerpt:

"If a conflict develops between China and the US over Taiwan then:
–Can’t predict who will have had the last move in the measure-countermeasure game
–China could enjoy a 3:1 edge in fighters if we can fly from Kadena (my insert:Taiwan airfield)
–about 10:1 if forced to operate from Andersen
•Overcoming these odds requires qualitative superiority of 9:1 or 100:1
•Such qualitative superiority is extremelydifficult to achieve against a comparable power
–Neither the USAAF/RAF nor Luftwaffe ever achieved this level of dominance on a large scale at any time during WW II
–The USAF did not achieve it in Korea 1950-53"

As you can see in this analysis the logistics are very difficult. And this does not take into account the stress and time a pilot must fly to get to and back from the theater of operations. War is not won by who has the most modern equipment and training

 

[antagon]

who said anything about technology? china has a small navy and airforce. they have numbers over land.

i haven't yet checked out your link yet, but are they assuming that china sends their whole arsenal of planes over the strait at once? are they assuming that taiwan doesn't aim to defend themselves with their 200 or so f 16s and 50 or so mirages and surface to air capability as china tries to gain air superiority? the sortie rate of the defending party will match their forces in tighter ratio than what is proposed in that link... and that is just taiwan's defense.

china only has about 1000 planes. how many of those are medium range fighters needed to cross the strait, fight, and make it back? maybe 5-600 su27s?

they do have the missile gallery. that could put taiwanese airstrips out of commission altogether, but i argue that just a confrontation with taiwan would leave china exhausted before korea, australia or the US get involved... and that will be no time at all. we would have a week or more foreshadowing.

 

[theHawk]

We have been at War constantly for the last two hundred years. There have only been brief respites during this two hundred year War. This age-old Empire-building policy isn't just gonna go away in an instant. I think minds are changing but this is happening very slowly. Someday most will firmly believe in a Non-Interventionist and Neutral Foreign Policy. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen anytime soon. The Globalists/Interventionists are currently entrenched in power all over the World. They truly believe in it like one does a religion. We've been bombing someone somewhere non-stop around the clock for the last 60yrs. I don't think most Americans can even remember a time when we weren't bombing someone somewhere. It's ingrained in our being.

Most people cannot allow themselves to even consider a Non-Interventionist neutral Foreign Policy. They have been indoctrinated with interventionist War propaganda all their lives. So it's not their fault that they can't even consider the possibility of a Non-Interventionist foreign policy. They just don't know anything else. They throw those old & tired labels at you like "Isolationist" and "Protectionist" because that's what they've been taught to do as part of their defense mechanism. They really don't know any better in the end. It is kind of sad. We will only achieve real peace & prosperity for our people when most decide it's time to end this long War. We probably wont be around to see that day but i'm optimistic that day will come. So where will the next War be? Who knows? I just know that there will be one.

I somewhat agree with this. Only if we are attacked (or allies are) then we should responde with nukes, **** this sending in soldiers crap.

 

[zzzz]

who said anything about technology? china has a small navy and airforce. they have numbers over land.

i haven't yet checked out your link yet, but are they assuming that china sends their whole arsenal of planes over the strait at once? are they assuming that taiwan doesn't aim to defend themselves with their 200 or so f 16s and 50 or so mirages and surface to air capability as china tries to gain air superiority? the sortie rate of the defending party will match their forces in tighter ratio than what is proposed in that link... and that is just taiwan's defense.

china only has about 1000 planes. how many of those are medium range fighters needed to cross the strait, fight, and make it back? maybe 5-600 su27s?

they do have the missile gallery. that could put taiwanese airstrips out of commission altogether, but i argue that just a confrontation with taiwan would leave china exhausted before korea, australia or the US get involved... and that will be no time at all. we would have a week or more foreshadowing.

Korea cannot get involved because of the North and the same can be said about the US forces committed there and designated for the Korean theater of operations based in Japan. Some have to stay on station to deter the North. Austraila only has 284 planes total and this includes transports etc. so they are insignificant in the argument.

The link I provided goes into detail about air combat involving US and Chinese forces in a war in the future. It takes into account the quality and size advantages and disadvantages involved on both sides. The US would have to have a "Perfect Storm" to succeed in this conflict and in war that never happens. (except for the Israelis)

The Chinese Air force has 1,300 assorted fighters plus the Navy has an additional 400 aircraft. The total US inventory is 2,130 fighters of which we must keep a considerable portion spread over the planet. Yes we also have carrier based fighters but they too are spread around the globe and these would be subject to the carriers being sunk.

The Chinese Navy has a small navy but has a Submarine Force of:
SSBN: 3, SSN: 5-7, SSK: 56

I do understand your contention that the economic implications of an attack by China would be enormous but a conflict in Taiwan would impact the whole world, especially the US, because a large part of our imports come from China. That is why if China attacked Taiwan the US would bluster and huff but in the end would not respond militarily. It does not make sense militarily and politically to initiate a major war with a country like China over its own former territory. The current administration would bail on Taiwan in a minute. Taiwan has no strategic importance in the defense of the United States.

Therefore I beleive this is the one place a major invasion will take place in the next 10 years.

 

[Samson]

I get it. That's the Republican strategy. Ooh, insight. If the middle class and the economy is destroyed, then we won't be attacked. We will be "safe".

Only,

After 8 years of war

A generation of young men killed or maimed

a ruined economy

Iraq was attacked. By us.

Maybe the Republicans need to rethink their "plan".

Oh, the Drama: "A Generation of Young Men Killed or Maimed!!!"

A side from injecting your stupid partisanship into every thread, do you really need to highlight it?

Yes, the Iraq's carried on an 8 years war with Iran that left a generation of young men killed or maimed. We attacked a, well, basically, a "defenseless" country. Makes you feel good and mushy warm inside, doesn't it?

WTF!! Do YOU EVEN READ YOU'RE OWN POSTS?

First you babble away about "Republican Strategy," then you bemoan some "generation of young men killed or maimed," then you try to thy to excuse this stupidity pretending you were talking about a generation of Iraqi young men?

What the **** did Republican Strategy have to do with the Iraq/Iran War?

You really are a total ******* joke.