Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-02-2010, 12:23 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default United States Military Might now wanes

this comes the same day President Barack Obama has declaired that the United States is to undergo a huge nuclear dissarmament not to unlike the Tritons of the United Kingdom not so long ago.

I dont think its wise. This is the second time in so many years that Obama is risking the lives of Americans by cutting on the Military...first Starwars, now by lowing the amount of Nuclear weapons the U.S has in stock.




During the Cold War, the Pentagon built the greatest naval and air forces the world had ever seen, endowing the United States with the superpower ability to land huge military forces anywhere in the world, at any time, whether invited in or not.

So it was that Washington, using its armada of aircraft carriers, cruise missile-launching submarines, fast cargo ships, long-range bombers, airlifters, and air refueling fighters, could eject the Iraqis from Kuwait (1991), bomb Serbia (1999), kick over the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (2001), and knock off Saddam and his cronies (2003). Everybody else had to meekly follow along (or sit on the sidelines).

But now the party's over. The United States, Pentagon strategists say, is quickly losing its ability to barge in without permission. Potential target countries and even some lukewarm allies are figuring out ingenious ways to blunt American power without trying to meet it head-on, using a combination of high-tech and low-tech jujitsu.

At the same time, U.S. naval and air forces have been shrinking under the weight of ever more expensive hardware. It's no longer the case that the United States can overwhelm clever defenses with sheer numbers.

As Defense Secretary Robert Gates summed up the problem this month, countries in places where the United States has strategic interests -- including the Persian Gulf and the Pacific -- are building "sophisticated, new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace.''

Those innocuous words spell trouble. While the U.S. military and strategy community is focused on Afghanistan and the fight in Marja, others Iran and China, to name two are chipping away at America's access to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf and the increasingly critical extraterrestrial realms.

"This era of U.S. military dominance is waning at an increasing and alarming rate,'' Andrew Krepinevich, a West Point-educated officer and former senior Pentagon strategist, writes in a new report. "With the spread of advanced military technologies and their exploitation by other militaries, especially China's People's Liberation Army and to a far lesser extent Iran's military and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the U.S. military's ability to preserve military access to two key areas of vital interest, the western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, is being increasingly challenged.''

At present, "there is little indication that China or Iran intend to alter their efforts to create 'no-go' zones in the maritime areas off their coasts,'' writes Krepinevich, president of the non-partisan think tank, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

What will save America's bacon, Gates and others hope, is something called the Air-Sea Battle Concept. Problem: It has yet to be invented.

The most worrisome of the "area denial/anti-access'' strategies being deployed against the United States (and others) is by China, which groups its defenses under the term "shashoujian,'' or "assassin's mace.'' The term refers to an ancient weapon, easily concealed by Chinese warriors and used to cripple a more powerful attacker.

In its modern incarnation, Krepinevich explains, shashoujian is a powerful combination of traditional but sophisticated air defenses, ballistic and anti-ship missiles, and similar weapons to put at risk nearby U.S. forces and regional bases, together with anti-satellite and cyberwar weapons to disable U.S. reconnaissance and command-and-control networks.

Dennis Blair, the top U.S. intelligence official, described these developments in detail in a report to Congress last month, adding that taken together, they "improve China's ability to execute an anti-access and area-denial strategy in the western Pacific.''

Iran's area-denial arsenal includes coastal and inland missile batteries, ballistic missiles to threaten U.S. bases and Arabian oil facilities, mines and shallow-draft missile boats that can quickly swarm around heavy, slow-moving U.S. warships. Iran's ability to threaten any would-be invaders, or simply to shut off access to the Gulf, would be enhanced if it acquires a nuclear weapons capability, which some analysts believe could happen within President Obama's current term in office.

As these new challenges have grown, America's air and naval forces have been quietly shrinking, a function of the staggering increase in complexity and cost of the hardware. Although other factors are at play, the bottom line is that the Pentagon can afford fewer planes and ships because each one costs more and more. As former Lockheed Martin chairman Norm Augustine pointed out in 1983, the cost of a fighter aircraft has quadrupled every 10 years, since the dawn of the age of aviation.

The F16 fighter, for instance, originally cost about $35 million each (adjusted for inflation). It is being replaced by the F-35, currently priced at $266 million each. The pattern holds for the F-22, which the Pentagon has bought to replace its F-15s, and the B-1 and B-2 bombers built to replace B-52s and F-111s. Small wonder the Air Force inventory of fighter-attack planes and bombers has sagged 20 percent during the past 15 years from 2,073 to 1,649.

The Navy also has fallen victim to the rising-cost, falling-inventory phenomenon. During the Vietnam War it boasted 932 warships. By 1985 the Navy could barely maintain 571 ships (despite the Reagan administration's rallying cry of a "600-ship Navy!''). Today's Navy has dwindled to 283 expensive warships.

Robert Work, currently the under secretary of the Navy, pointed out as a private researcher last year that not only is the current naval force inadequate for a bust-in-the-door mission, the Navy's plans for a larger future fleet are still inadequate and unaffordable to boot. The Navy's planned future fleet of 313 ships, he wrote in a major paper on naval strategy, "lacks the range to face increasingly lethal, land-based maritime reconnaissance/strike complexes (networks), or nuclear armed adversaries.'' And, he said, it ignores the growing challenge of China's shashoujian.

Anyway, Work added, "the signs are that the Navy's plans are far too ambitious given likely future resource allocations ... the Navy needs to scale back its current plans; they are simply too ambitious for expected future budgets.''

So what's the plan? The plan is to develop a plan, for now being called the Air-Sea Battle Concept. The idea is based loosely on a strategy the Army came up with during the Cold War when the generals realized they were out-manned and out-gunned by the Red Army. Their solution was AirLand Battle, based mostly on the early work of Army Gen. Donn Starry, who advocated using closely coordinated air and ground combat power to attack deep into the enemy's rear at the outset of the fight, rather than waiting for the enemy to advance up to "the front.''

AirLand Battle became a reality after much headbutting among senior generals not willing to share the glory (or the budget dollars). It arguably helped to deter Soviet aggression in Europe. And it proved highly successful in Desert Storm and in the invasion of Iraq.

The hope for Air-Sea Battle is to achieve similar synergy by joining naval and air power with space and cyberspace war-fighting capabilities for "defeating adversaries across the range of military operations, including adversaries equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial capabilities,'' according to the Pentagon's most recent strategic plan, the Quadrennial Defense Review, published earlier this month.

If that sounds vague, it's because there's not much behind the words. A laconic sentence in the QDR hints that no one has any idea what Air-Sea Battle might mean in practice: "As it matures, the concept will also help guide the development of future capabilities needed for effective power projection operations.''

Last fall, the leaders of the Air Force and Navy, two services not known for cozy relations, signed an agreement to share work on this concept.

They immediately recruited a small working group, which set off on a listening tour to hear the views of senior U.S. commanders on what Air-Sea Battle should look like.

While the Air-Sea Battle task force is at work, Iran's extremist Revolutionary Guards are slowly taking over control of the government, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, suggesting that Iran's keep-out defenses will continue to be hardened. And China's work on cyberwar continues.

As all that unfolds, the Pentagon's attention will be elsewhere. Gates has directed that the Defense Department's strategic and budgeting focus in 2011 be directed at fighting "the wars we are in today,'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-02-2010, 01:22 PM
bradwright
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

you do realize Dave that the US has around 9,600 nuclear weapons and Obama is proposing to drop that number to around 7,500.

it would only take a couple of hundred nukes to completely destroy the world so i dont see what your so worried about...it seems to me they will still have enough nukes left to destroy the world some 30 times over if they so desired.

that should cheer you up some.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-02-2010, 03:13 PM
Rev
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradwright View Post
you do realize Dave that the US has around 9,600 nuclear weapons and Obama is proposing to drop that number to around 7,500.

it would only take a couple of hundred nukes to completely destroy the world so i dont see what your so worried about...it seems to me they will still have enough nukes left to destroy the world some 30 times over if they so desired.

that should cheer you up some.
Thank you, Bridwright. Dont worry Dave, we will still have enough to protect you when it gets thick. lol jk

Everytime a liberal gets in office, our military gets demolished. Durring the Clinton admin. Our Naval fleet was cut by 66%.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-02-2010, 04:03 PM
TheConcretekid
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev View Post
Thank you, Bridwright. Dont worry Dave, we will still have enough to protect you when it gets thick. lol jk

Everytime a liberal gets in office, our military gets demolished. Durring the Clinton admin. Our Naval fleet was cut by 66%.
And after our naval fleet was cut we were left vulnerable to Viking attacks and the Spanish Armada.
And when Reagan and Bush were in office they had a much smarter military plan: Give aid and weapons to Afghanistan... that worked out well.
Speaking of which, when Bush was in office our military was cut by 5,388. Thats the number of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, some killed by weapons Reagan and Bush Sr. supplied.


But you are right Rev, we'll have more than enough to cover us and our buddies across the pond
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-02-2010, 04:19 PM
Rev
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And if we dont help everyone people complain about that, so whatcha gonna do? What are all the anti military Americans going to say when we have war with terrorist on our own soil because they finaly got their way and we didnt fight them over seas?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-02-2010, 04:23 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,490
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev View Post
And if we dont help everyone people complain about that, so whatcha gonna do? What are all the anti military Americans going to say when we have war with terrorist on our own soil because they finaly got their way and we didnt fight them over seas?
A bit off topic but it wouldn't be normal around here if someone didnt do it. lol

Anyone want to take a wild guess at how many people were arrested for terrorism here in the US last year? (And I mean they were tried and found guilty.)

Any guesses?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2010, 05:53 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradwright View Post
you do realize Dave that the US has around 9,600 nuclear weapons and Obama is proposing to drop that number to around 7,500.

it would only take a couple of hundred nukes to completely destroy the world so i dont see what your so worried about...it seems to me they will still have enough nukes left to destroy the world some 30 times over if they so desired.

that should cheer you up some.
The number acts as a deterent. PUBLICALLY reducing the number acts like a dare.

Its not the use of them, its the threat of using them...

...and yes...I did Strategic Studies at University...specifically on the US Military...I just dissagree with Obama...First he cuts the extention to an early warning misslile defense web, then he cuts Nukes...what next? Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq?? Tell Iran its okay to have Nukes also, because we're all grown ups and can trust one another...

I do not like his cuts to the American Military....I mean, someone has to be the Greatest...who would you perfer...to be under the Americans...or the Chinese???
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-02-2010, 05:54 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
A bit off topic but it wouldn't be normal around here if someone didnt do it. lol

Anyone want to take a wild guess at how many people were arrested for terrorism here in the US last year? (And I mean they were tried and found guilty.)

Any guesses?
Zero. in terms of Trial I would have thought...a few held as suspects maybe....

I was nearly one of them in Bettendorf I reckon

Do tell
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2010, 08:12 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

as we are on the subject of nukes....here is an eye witness acount of the Hiroshima Bomb (set to music obviously)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmvw4KH9FJU
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-03-2010, 03:35 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,490
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Zero. in terms of Trial I would have thought...a few held as suspects maybe....

I was nearly one of them in Bettendorf I reckon

Do tell
80. Found guilty.





























Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.