Shot Down

When the issue health care the MSM screams….’how will we pay for this! how will we pay for this!’
.
When the issues is the deficit and a move is made to rein in military spending, the MSM screams….’the jobs! the jobs! people are going to lose their jobs!’
.
Of course the MSM never, ever, ever asks the question, ‘where are we going to find the money to fund the largest military in the history of the world?’. Did anyone mention the cost of an invasion of Iraq? Were brows furrowed as the MSM lamented the piling on of debt on future generations when the topic was war? Strangely……no.
.
Its almost as if whatever the issue, the MSM presents a the argument in a corporate friendly manner as the current discussion necessitates. War is good for corporate America. Military spending is good for corporate America. Health care reform w/ a public options….not so much. I guess it just a big ole coincidence. You’d have to think that the media as it is currently constituted, exists only to maintain the corporate friendly status quo, but you’d be a dirty f@cking hippie if you did. And if the media has taught us anything over the last 30 years, it’s that the left is insane, should be shunned and ignored, and who wants that?

Thank goodness congress attempted to stand up against the military-industrial complex. This won’t do much to actually reduce total spending, but it’s a start. Now, if we could just move on to earmark spending, I might start to respect congress.

Cincy,

There’s just a big chunk of this country’s industrial structure that would almost cease to exist if someone wasn’t fighting someone else in the world (and we couldn’t sell weapons of various types to both sides).

General Dynamics and Dow Chemical come to mind.

When the old Soviet Union folded, we HAD to have an enemy (i.e. someone to demonize and bomb). Up popped OBL and his crew and, therefore, the neverending “War On Terror”.

Right now, I’d say that stability in the world is the LAST thing a big chunk of corporate America wants to see. There’s big bucks in wars and fighting.

Thanks, Joe. It seems rare (ok, it is) when unnecessary military items are cut. How’s that osprey doing? Still crashing on takeoffs / landings? Some of that MI complex $ could pay for health care, but I digress (thanks, cincy). It figures that even for this bit of sanity, real needs are still hanging (literally). The Air Force’s mid-air refueling tankers are getting seriously old, and Northrop / EADS jv won a bid over Boeing but Boing got it overturned. Still no final deal. Since jobs matter NOW as you’ve sly hinted at, Joe, maybe the AF can just split the contract and hire both already. Jane Wells at CNBC covered this for over a year at her funnybiz blog. Last summer both cos.’ supporters had major email pie fights on her blog. Latest update http://www.cnbc.com/id/31804150/site/14081545 (for all posts go to cnbc search and enter [verbatim] jane wells tanker). Joe, if you have more horror or dark comedy tales, please share them. Where’s Eisenhower when we need him? rant over, thx

If Lou Dobbs proves that Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate, will these earmark sucking ingrates get their airplanes?

Funny how “stimulus” in the form of military spending is fanatically supported by the same folks who opposed stimulus in forms more useful to the masses.

I guess if you can’t blow something up with it its not worth spending on.

Th’ answer regardin’ th’ osprey be no, it don’t be crashin’, an’ it be doin’ a fine sight bettern’ th’ 30+ YEAR-OLD airframe it were replacin’. An’ I be fine wi’ tha’, b’lieve me!

Arrgh!

afguy, you and I are of the same mind on this. I wasn’t politically sentient when the USSR fell, but I have to wonder how much the threat from the USSR was hype to excuse the wanton military spending going on at the time. Eisenhower’s words come to mind. How much has the threat from radical Islam been hyped for the same reasons? Hard to tell, but I do recall Klein hyping the capture of a bunch of whacked out New Yorkers who apparantly were plotting to storm a military base disguised as pizza delivery guys as a feather in the cap of Homeland Security. Can our weapons systems stand up to ‘Calzones of Death’? When something that laughable is bandied about as some real threat, you have to wonder.

…but I have to wonder how much the threat from the USSR was hype to excuse the wanton military spending going on at the time. Eisenhower’s words come to mind.

Cincy,

Oh, the threat was definitely hyped, esp. by the CIA. After the fall, it was found that CIA analyses overestimated the capabilities of some of their technology.

The defection of the Mig pilot to Japan was a real eye-opener for us. When we examined that plane, it turned out that the electronics were still vacuum-tube technology – so obsolete from our point of view that analysts were certain that the plane was a “plant”. Turns out it wasn’t – it was just where they were. Planes were built to fly a certain amount of time and then be thrown away. An ongoing long-term maintenance program was non-existant.

Had the analysts been honest in their evaluations, it would have been revealed that virtually the entire economy was devoted to support of the military – something they couldn’t sustain.

The USSR was almost wiped out during WWII and they were psychotic about that not happening again. They surrounded themselves with “satellites” that any invader would have to come through to get to them again.

We didn’t defeat the USSR as much as we “spent them under the table”. I’ve always thought that they stirred up trouble to keep us occupied elsewhere (and out of their backyard whenever possible).

Now we’ll hear McCain argue that saving a couple of billion by cutting the F-22 is no big deal…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Airplanes are like cars: there comes a point where it’s no longer economical to keep maintaining your old junker and so you go out and buy a new car. You don’t have to go out and buy a Lexus, but you can’t keep driving that relic from 1965 unless you want your maintenance budget to be the monetary equivalent of a bonfire of $100 bills.

In that sense the F-35 is unnecessary if our current planes were to magically last forever. Of course they won’t last forever, and so it is prudent for us to start designing and building a replacement. Not a Lexus, but a perfectly funtional Toyota.

Being from Georgia, I feel for the workers who will (may?) be out of a job due to the cancellation of the F-22.

On the other hand, I’m quite happy to see an expensive program that the Sec. of Defense determined was unnecessary get cut. And I’m always happy when I see Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) get defeated in any way.

Shakespeare – do you WANT him to FAIL???

Arrgh!

Airplanes are like cars: there comes a point where it’s no longer economical to keep maintaining your old junker and so you go out and buy a new car.

Depends on the plane, Peter. We have B-52s and KC-135s that are being flown by the children of the original pilots. The airframes are over 40 yrs old.

Planes are different from cars. A car breaks down, you pull to the side of the road and call for a tow. A plane breaks down in flight, everyone probably dies. To that end, the airlines and military have long-term maintenance where things are replaced BEFORE they break – you go looking for cracks and damage.

The F-4s were around for around 30 years because of this program but, after a while, you are right in that you have to come up with something a little faster because the other guy has caught up.

With the F-22, the enemy it was designed for (the Soviets) went away. Plus, apparently, it’s not very reliable to begin with. The others mentioned (exc. for the F-4) were fairly reliable aircraft from their entry. The Boeing 707 is a legend for its reliability and longevity and the KC-135 was developed from that airframe.

Remember when Bobby Jindal opposed the stimulus bill?

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) reemerged on the national stage yesterday, penning an op-ed in the Politico to slam efforts to reform health care and declaring the Economic Recovery Act a failure. Jindal declared the Recovery Act “a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus that has not stimulated.” However, less than 24 hours before Jindal published his op-ed, Jindal traveled to Anacoco, Louisiana to present a jumbo-sized check to residents of Vernon Parish. The funds included hundreds of thousands of dollars directly from the Recovery Act — at least $157,848 in Community Block Grant money authorized by the Recovery Act and $138,611 for Byrne/JAG job training programs created by the Recovery Act. Rather than credit the federal government or the Recovery Act he opposed, Jindal printed his own name on the corner of the massive check.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/21/jindal-stimulus-check/

And champagne corks go a popping in Beijing . . . .

I understand that the F-22 also had problems when it rained. That would be interesting in a fighter.

…now that there is a slightly better chance that we will be able to pay back all that money we owe them.

“It’s about jobs–especially jobs in sun belt states that voted Republican the past 30 years (California is the exception). Wouldn’t it be nice if those jobs could be replaced by others in alternative energy? There’s a lot of sun in the sun belt. But there’s also a lot of misdirected wind power in the Congress.”

Imagine if those working class whites in the sun belt were provided with decent health care and a CCC/WPA for the 21st century, for alt-energy or to address our failing infrastructure? The MIC is, after all, a warped version of the new deal, though you’ll never hear a “fiscally conservative” republican admit it.

But should such an enormous segment of our economy go towards something that, in fact, doesn’t make us stronger, that isn’t necessary. If we’re going to deficit-spend ourselves into oblivion, financed by Beijing, shouldn’t it be to provide for our people’s welfare, for their health, for the environment’s health, for our grandchildren’s future. Or should it just be to give jobs to industries that should have been obsolete decades ago. Is that a sustainable template for a failed economy–shouldn’t these larger questions be considered?

Joe, no doubt, you understand all of this quite well. The question for me, circa 2009, is if we can continue to have this type of bracketed-off debate, where the underlying realities go largely unaddressed, where we merely skirt about the elephants in the room plaguing us as a society, can we survive? A couple of billion $, as you’d agree, is a f’ing joke. Thousands more troops to Afghan, and I just read the DEA!!!!!!!!! Cuz god knows the “drug war” is working out so well there at home. Again, it’s my contention that the same old facile debate is simply not up to the challenges we face. Yes, I agree with Spob! The champagne corks are popping in Beijing, but for far diff reasons.

B/C they look to their great rival in the “great game” and see a country unwilling to engage in honest debate, incapable of addressing the problems they face, and more than happy to beg for the funds to double-down on the same insane f’ing policies we’ve been embracing since Reagan.

And, Joe, you’re also smart enough to see the depth of the abyss we face, you’ve seen Obama’s poll numbers, you’re aware of the people’s impatience, you know where this is headed in the midterms and beyond. Doesn’t it scare you out of your loafers, the idea of the nutters getting back in power–b/c quite honestly if they do, the only way out of the void they’ll see is a massive war.

The F-22 has no mission, is too expensive to build, too expensive to maintain, and too fragile to survive even the combat role it was designed for.

What’s not to like?

And just after writing the above, I go to my email and see this (as Michael Franti sings, I know I’m not alone):

July 21, 2009

Dear Friend of CommonDreams.org,

In a perfect world I’d have hung the ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign on our door by now, and the staff and I would be looking for new jobs.

For the past 8 years we have worked long and hard to help expose the lies, the crimes – the evil – committed in our names by the Bush/Cheney gang.

We all hoped we could set things right by electing a new president and a new Congress.

Instead, we’re working longer and harder than ever. With a greater and greater sense of urgency.

Will you support our work by making a secure online donation today to our Summer Appeal?

Why so urgent? Because time has run out.

It’s painfully obvious that the stranglehold big money has on our government – and on our media – has passed the tipping point.

It’s obvious when . . .

. . . a national ‘debate’ over major healthcare reform blacks out any discussion of the most obvious fix, a single-payer system.

. . . when CitiBank, Goldman Sachs and other corporations are allowed to drive our economy into the ground, then are deemed ‘too big to fail,’ and get bailed out with hundreds of billions of our commonwealth without being held accountable.

. . . when the military-industrial complex drives our foreign policy, a policy that plans for permanent war, horrific new weapons systems and an expanding empire.

. . . when urgent, dire action on global warming is thwarted by lobbyists, big energy companies’ scare tactics and corrupt politicians.

And when a free press – when journalism – is needed more than ever? We get a corporate-sponsored media that delivers nothing more than infotainment and infomercials masquerading as news.

We can’t out-spend the big-monied lobbies or out-shout the corporate media.

But we have the common good – and the truth – on our side.

Now only thing I did was wrong
Stayin’ in the wilderness too long
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.

The only thing we did was right
Was the day we started to fight
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.

– “Eyes on the Prize” lyrics by civil rights activist Alice Wine.

Thanks to your support, the Internet has spawned a small but growing independent media who are working day and night to take back our country. To keep our eyes on the prize.

Together, we will help people out of the wilderness. And we’ll fight back.

Please join with us by making a secure donation today. Or, you can use our print and mail form, which includes our mailing address, to send a check

Thank you so much.

Gratefully,

Craig

Per what Cinci and Afguy were talking about earlier, re the “threat” that other countries pose. My current favorite, US Navy Commander Jeff Huber (link):

“Contrary to what the most recent U.S. president named George told you, the oceans are “still there” and they still protect America. There is no evildoing navy or air force that can haul enough wild-eyed Islamofabulists here to conquer and occupy us. Another 9/11 will always be a slim possibility, no matter what we do, but fighting goofy wars overseas for gossamer reasons won’t prevent it. That 9/11 ever happened at all was proof positive of the institutional Onanism that infested the CIA and the FBI and the FAA and the NSA and JFCOM and rest of the alphabet soup that was supposed to keep it from happening.

(snip)

Russia and China won’t ever be military competitors, and we’ll never have another Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan to fight. Iran couldn’t bench press our jock strap. By some credible estimates, more than half of our Federal budget goes into funding defense related items, yet you seldom hear anybody with a mainstream pulpit blame the present state of our economy on our over-adventuresome military policies…

George Washington cautioned us to avoid entangling alliances. Dwight Eisenhower warned us to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” George W. Bush said, “I’m telling you there’s an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That’s the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best.”

How is that we continue to heed the words of the third conservative in that lineup and ignore the first two?”

Forget jobs. The real concern is not about jobs. While our overwhelming military superiority is unnecessary when facing an adversary such as Al-Qaeda, there are other threats that warrant a highly sophisticated capability. China and Russia are rising fast and integrating with a range of other neglected players, such as Iran, Brazil, and India. This new emerging bloc, which has been calling for an economically crushing blow against the US in its desire for an alternative international reserve currency, poses an existential threat to American interests that has been continually ignored since the fall of Soviet Russia. While I am not predicting military conflict with this bloc in the near future, it is imperative that we maintain capabilities to counter their rapidly expanding military prowess. While the enemy we currently wage war with is pre-historic in comparison to the might of the American military, this will not remain the case unequivocally. “In times of peace, a wise man prepares for war.”

To second Pirate Wench, I have a good friend who has flown on several Ospreys in Iraq, and he says they are operating just fine, no crashes or equipment failures (so far). I about had a cow when he told me one of the rigs he was flying in and he pretty much just laughed at me. I’ll get him back for it though.

Aye yutsano – me progeny be lovin’ it, too! When ‘e were goin’ t’ fly, I were tellin’ ‘im tha’ were th’ one thing I were never wantin’ t’ be seein’ ‘im in, an’ when ‘e got th’ word ’bout transition, ‘e weren’t too keen on tellin’ ‘is pirate mater! Bu’ I be adjustin’…it certain be more capable than th’ old 46 ‘e were flyin’ b’fore – b’loved tho’ it were!

Arrgh!

pintortwo-Thanks for Jeff Huber link. Bookmarked that puppy. Good stuff.

1) Are you really throwing Brazil and India into the pile with Russia, Iran and China? Last time I checked, we were trying to make friends with India and had no major disagreements with Brazil.

2) AFAIK there have been no major wars between major industrialized nations since the advent of nuclear weapons. Nukes seem to be the trump card of war nowadays.
Given that, how much should we prepare for conventional mechanized warfare against other nuclear-armed nations? Should the cost of these preparations drive our budget as much as it does?

Ya know what yer problem is, Cincy? You’re too pleasant. Almost a cream puff. You should really let loose one of these times…

We should be preparing for the possibility that peace might break out. It will cause quite a bit of short term hardship and dislocation, but it’s something we just might have to learn to live with. There’s always the right wing nutters and their inate desire to stockpile weapons and ammo to keep the arms manufacturers flush.

“Dear Bad Guys,

Because the weather just isn’t cooperating – darn those cumulonimbus clouds… – we can’t come out and kick your butts, today. Sorry. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

Sincerely,

Uncle Sam”

Dear God Sacred, we might just all turn into a bunch of (gulp) CANADIANS!!!

Sacred be this th’ result o’ th’ alcohol an’ th ‘painkillers, ‘r is this just your normal entertainin’ self?

I be no’ able t’ be tellin’!

arrgh.

Well, as a semi-wise white middle-aged male, I feel I can bring a certain viewpoint that has long been missing in the international arena. Call me an honorary Canadian. Eh?

pirate wench: No painkillers or booze for me the last few days. I’ve been doing just what the doctor told me to do. I’ve been glued to the recliner, keeping my leg elevated and either reading or watching movies for 10 days. As sad as it is to admit to, this is just me as I am normally. My poor wife has had me around the house driving her nuts with pleas to watch Star Trek dvds and John Waters movies. I’m going back to work tomorrow before she kills me.

Cliff

BRIC, Brazile, Russia, India, China is an economic integration organization seeking to offset western power. While that is an entirely benign motive, it still needs to be viewed with a doze of nationalist zeal, from an American perspective. Russia and China are certainly rising militarily and are flexing their muscles regionally, while undoubtedly viewing the international realm as their future milieu. Iran is Iran, enough said. India and Brazil have been wooed by Russia and China over the last decade, and I fear we’ve missed the boat on a truly consensual agreement with either. They will be moving farther east than west. Shanghai Cooperation Agreement is particularly sought after by India, Pakistan, and Iran, hoping to join the big players, China and Russia.

Well get ye back t’ work then – I’d hate t’ be losin’ ye fer good!

Arrgh!

Cliff

I will add, though, that nuclear deterrence is a very influential paradigm. Rational powers would generally adhere to the Mutually Assured Destruction deterrent and avoid conflict with other nuclear powers. Iran and Israel being the notable exceptions. Iran has shown its irrationality through rhetoric, while Israel has done so through action. Israel has a doctrine known as the Samson Option, whereby nuclear weapons are authorized in the event of a military attack threatening Israel’s existence. This option is not limited to counter a nuclear attack, but any attack that threatens the state’s continuity. In other words, a first strike contingency. Israel used this Option as a blackmail in 1973, threatening to employ the use of nuclear warheads against Egypt unless the US expedited arms deliveries. Scary, indeed.

While it is influential, the nuclear deterrence paradigm is not perfect. Two powers, both unwilling to employ their use, could very will still engage militarily over resources or interests, under the unofficial acknowledgment that neither side would resort to nuclear arms. It is quite possible. Willing to war, without willing to destroy one another altogether.

Granted, no one can rule out a conventional clash between large industrial states.
But it seems to me that with our military (and probably the enemy’s military) being so aggressive in keeping all their options open, there’s no feasible way of restricting such a conflict to conventional weapons.

So we either get several decades of dancing around the issue, like the Cold War, or a nuclear apocalypse.

In neither scenario, to bring it back to the original topic, are large quantities of F-22s necessary.

And as for BRIC, that seems to be a matter of retaining economic clout. In which case we would do better to spend our money on bolstering our economy, instead of buying fancy fighters all the time.

As for their rising military power, I thought China had one (1) aircraft carrier, and that Russia’s military was taxed in its fight against Georgia.

Russian military recently issued a report predicting an impending Cold-War style conflict between US and China.

Also, some light reading on Russian/Chinese military capabilities…

http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/pAw-Xhv1qHB7cBNrkQbc3A/uscn_others_2008030301.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

Exiled:

The US military still has/will buy 187 F-22s. Your claim that the US will lose air superiority because the Senate voted to approve the military’s request to halt F-22 purchases at 187 is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. F-15s and F-16s still maintain air superiority over anything Russian and Chinese. Nothing in those documents you posted disputes that fact.

Nathan

Relax, man, I’m not talking about F-22s. I could not care less about F-22s. My concern is in reference to the comments that we have superiority over Al-Qaeda and therefore have no need for military advancements. I am merely pointing out that we will not always be at war with such a sophistical underdog. We, if prudence rules the day, will continue pursuing military improvements in a host of areas to ensure our superiority over other well-advanced militaries. China will not always have only a single aircraft carrier. Now that they have successfully constructed one of their own, they will be churning out carriers at a disproportionately faster rate than the US. Such is their manufacturing capability.

Can I be making a guess as to what your progeny be wearing on formal nights on the deck PW?

Ye may, yuts!

I’ll tell ye, tho’, cause they be no’ th’ same:

Red an’ gold; an’ gold an’ ultramarine blue (don’t be askin’ me whar THA’ color name be comin fr’m – someone must o’ been wi’out th’ O2 fer a few minutes too long!).

An’ I like ‘em flyin’ safe as can be in up t’ date equipment, thank ye very much!

No’ tha’ th’ F22 qualified in either o’ those two categories, mind ye. I be just as ready as th’ rest o’ th’ crew t’ jettison poorly performin’, obsolete, wasteful programs.

ARRGH!

Exiled-
No doubt China is a rising military and economic power, and we need to plan for their continued ascension. However, as they have less than one-tenth the military budget of the US and are at such a disadvantage in terms of current capability, China’s rise does not justify our $700 billion plus annual mil expenditure. I contend that there is no threat to the US, or her interests, that justify this budget. And I don’t think you would dispute that. But it does make for a scary and ironic dilemma: we borrow money from China to build weapons designed for possible use against her – and make little secret about it. What would happen if there is direct conflict between our two countries?

My concern is that we have already given China all the tools necessary to deal a crushing blow to the US. IMO, we are powerless to attack China. I shutter to think about the economic devastation should China stop buying US Treasuries, dump the billions of USD they hold and/or buy oil in non-USD currency. The irony is that the neoconservative zealotry which has dominated recent US FP (and perhaps continues), in order to maintain a Unipolar World, has fostered irresponsible military spending which gives sufficient leverage to a foreign power to the extent that they hold sway over us. Our drive to cement our place as the Sole World Superpower is directly responsible for China’s supremacy (or at least invulnerability).

We need to take away China’s leverage. I believe that the best way to do this is to dramatically cut our mil spending and “get our house in order”.

My concern is that we have already given China all the tools necessary to deal a crushing blow to the US. IMO, we are powerless to attack China. I shutter to think about the economic devastation should China stop buying US Treasuries, dump the billions of USD they hold and/or buy oil in non-USD currency.

pintortwo,

If the Chinese are paying attention and thinking strategically (and they do), they won’t have to conduct any type of direct attack on us (we’re proving ourselves to be VERY competent at destroying ourselves thru greed). All they have to do is “meddle” with countries we consider vital interests and convince us to intervene in some way that will bog us down and require more expenditures. In other words, get us to spread ourselves thinner than we already are. This will require us to go further into debt and issue more “paper” that they can buy up. Then, once we are at the breaking point, just call in the debts, watch the “card house” collapse, and ride out the aftermath.

Once we no longer have the financial ability to keep up the military presence around the world, they will be able to conduct business with other countries on THEIR terms rather than ours.

Lenin once said, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

Sounds about right. We’re doing just that right now. And we’re doing it rubbing our hands together about all of the money we’re making off of the sale.

While this has been a very interesting conversation about BRIC, I see one major issue missing form the discussion of China: The US and China have become tied together economically so tightly that we’ve reached a point of economic MAD. While the US has been borrowing like a drunken sailor from Beijing for the past decade or so, China has relied on the US turning around and spending this money on Chinese imports. If China attempted to wreak the US economy by suddenly refusing to lend, or calling in their loans, they would succeed in wrecking the US economy, but at the cost of their own economy. Call it a side effect of free trade, but there’s a theory floating around-I don’t have the name or details on hand-that says that wars will no longer be fought because they will be too expensive. The current US-Sino relationship is an example of how that theory might work.

If China attempted to wreak the US economy by suddenly refusing to lend, or calling in their loans, they would succeed in wrecking the US economy, but at the cost of their own economy.

ohiolib,

Good point, but I think that the Chinese government might figure that they could ride out what happened by making their own populace consumers of the goods we could no longer purchase. They are much more used to upheavals through their history than we are. (Anyone remember the Cultural Revolution?)

Their government can be quite brutal in doing what they think has to be done. We make the mistake that EVERYONE has the same interests and responses that we do and would fail as we would, for the same economic reasons. I’m not sure of that.

Culturally, they are a lot less isolated from one another than we are.

economic MAD

I’m glad you mentioned that. I was thinking exactly about that as the next step (but didn’t write it because I already rambled-on too long in my last comment). While I agree with you in general, I expect this economic “warfare” would be much more devastating to the US. And China holds all the levers. Ie., they could simply lessen the rate at which they buy US Treasuries, or stop altogether, for a dramatic effect on the US –our government would conceivably not have money to function. Of course, China would risk losing their best client for manufactured goods or billion$ as their reserve USDs drop in value. But bottom line, China is in the position of power and, most likely, better able to weather the storm. Its just bad politics on our part.

I’m with ohiolib. The idea that any country has a plan that sees all and will have a perfect conspiracy that ignores human nature doesn’t fly. China would fall as we fall.

If you want to take it to the cynical extreme there is no other country but the US of any population or economic power that could be as successful dupes as China needs to keep its economic machine going. China relying on China means hyper inflation (higher wages demanded by higher prices within China and erasing China’s export advantage) and hyper consumer individuality that China simply couldn’t handle and still keep to their own game plan. The have and have-not divide would become glaring and would probably create a Chinese implosion.

Also too, China is as hated as the US. Their economic overtures would probably be even more heavy handed. I don’t think they’d be popular in a post-US economic world especially when much of the inflated value of “things”, Chinese and otherwise, would crash and burn without the tradition of conspicuous US consumerism.

As far as the F-22, it’s competition the F-35 is supposed to replace the Harrier, A-10, F-16, F-15, F-18 and maybe F-14 and Skyhawk if they’re still active somewhere. Obama is fully funding the F-35 as far as I know so we aren’t naked, even against high-tech, high-flying enemies.

Look, Joe, I’d like to cut you some slack, but at times like these your fulminating reaches an idiocy of epic proportions. Your attitude is incredibly short-sighted and obtuse.

There will ALWAYS be wars. And just because a conflict is small does not in any way indicate that they do not test our well-trained, well-equipped military to the utmost.

Let me give you an example. There is no anti-aircraft SAM/Triple-A network over Afghanistan or Iraq, so the massive use of UAVs is feasible. But in the fighting over Kosovo, where the US aerial military faced an organized anti-aircraft effort manned with well-trained SAM operators, we would not be able to combat the Serbians anywhere near as effectively with our unmanned capacity. As Exiled has stated, we will not always be fighting in the sticks.

Smarter, faster, and longer-ranged missiles will continue to be invented, BY OTHER COUNTRIES. Faster, more maneuverable dogfighters will continue to be invented, BY OTHER COUNTRIES. But short-sighted individuals such as yourself will do the utmost to make sure that US military technology will lag BEHIND OTHER COUNTRIES.

There will ALWAYS be wars. And just because a conflict is small does not in any way indicate that they do not test our well-trained, well-equipped military to the utmost.

yoshi,

Yes, they do test our military by coming up with ways to attack that do not lend themselves to our ways of doing countering them.

Tanks are great against armor out in the open but vulnerable inside a city with narrow streets. The latest and greatest air superiority fighter isn’t much use if the opposition doesn’t have planes anyway and brings its munitions into a city in the back of a truck, to be detonated by the driver or remotely.

The Soviets had one of the most advanced militaries in the region and accomplished NOTHING in Afghanistan over 10 years, exc. to bankrupt their economy. We helped the Afghans defeat the Russians by supplying them with our handheld Stinger missiles. Now, the Afghan rebels have both Stinger missiles AND Soviet-supplied RPGs which are deadly against tanks and low-flying helicopters.

We’re not going to keep ourselves and the world safe by out-developing everyone else with the latest and greatest weapons. Not sure ANYONE has the financial resources in today’s world to even consider that.

We’re going to have to get smarter about addressing threats and situations than we have in the past. Stupidity and our infatuation with brute force have ruled the day.

Yoshi

Precisely my point. Wars are inevitable, such is human nature. Economic strain will do little to curb warfare. Nations such as China lag behind in spending and advancement, currently, but with a population of 1.4 billion and an adherence to Communistic principles of shared labor, military production, if so desired, could sky-rocket beyond anything the US could match. Having recently perfected the aircraft carrier, China will no doubt have an imposing naval presence. As it currently stands, China has been engaging in menacing naval exercises and antagonization of American vessels in the Pacific Ocean. While purely speculative, Samuel Huntington has a rather insightful scenario at the end of his “The Clash of Civilization,” whereby a 2010 conflict erupts between the US and China. To state it briefly, the hypothetical result is not flattering to US military dominance.
~

On a related note, the idea of economic MAD is intriguing. While China certainly holds sway over American economic strength, China would certainly take a massive economic hit itself, were she to attempt to subvert the US economy. Simple conversion away from USD as a reserve currency would cost China billions. The short-term loss would be massive. However, economic integration would not necessarily thwart the potential of military conflict. It is not inconceivable that two economically entwined nations could ultimately find themselves military adversaries over other resources, national interests, or territories.

While China certainly holds sway over American economic strength, China would certainly take a massive economic hit itself, were she to attempt to subvert the US economy.

During the 40′s and 50′s, the Chinese leadership decided that they needed to re-make the country in a different direction and undertook the Cultural Revolution. Teachers and other professionals were shipped off to work on farms or to “reeducation camps”. Development and education pretty much came to a stop for a generation. The country didn’t implode or dissolve into anarchy. Life was h*ll for the citizens but the effect on the rest of us in the world (other than the Korean War) wasn’t that great.

As much as we would like to think (hope?) that they have the same consumer goals as we do, I don’t think they do. Both the leadership and population are different from ours.

I wonder what would happen if India decided that it was in their greater interest to forge closer economic ties with China at our expense in the future. India is the 2nd most populous country on the planet with a sizeable brain trust of its own. And a close neighbor to China.

Sorry, just checked some dates.

The Cultural Revolution was between 1966-1976 and has pretty well been disowned by the Chinese Leadership since.

However, my point still stands. The Chinese leadership is quite willing to undertake drastic changes in their culture if they think it’s needed and the citizenry are quite capable of rolling with the punches to deal with what happens.

Don’t underestimate their ability to deal with economic adversity. I think they’re able to absorb changes on a huge level.

I don’t disagree, AF. But that same ability to absorb hardship lends itself to the notion that they could easily surpass the US in military capabilities were it deemed an interest to do so. On the eve of potential military conflict, they could increase output full throttle and gain superiority over the US, not merely in numbers as they currently have, but in technology and manufacturing.

$700 billion plus in mil spending is un-justifiable. Especially considering (but not exclusively because of) the state of our economy.

In my perfect world, we’d get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, cut mil spending to under $100 bil (so we can still make advancements and maintain our superiority) and invest some of that money in new technologies: alt-energy, broadband, stem-cell (and other) therapies, etc. which can produce (replace) jobs and develop exportable innovations. Save the rest to fix HC and service our debt. And I’d drastically change campaign finance and lobby influence (and I want a pony).

Exiled, RISK is a fun game to play. It’s not reality.

I don’t buy it either way afguy or neo. China survives by wrapping their population in bubble wrap and being machine shop to the world. They’ve done it for thousands of years. Their people buy into the cultural “purity” but it would never last if they had to become consumers in a big sense. They would never buy an Elvis Dish and their country would fall apart if they got it in their heads to do it. India is the same way, in their own way.

And neo, the idea that China would see an economic advantage to gear up a world reaching military, something they have never had, just doesn’t gel. The US could become a manufacturer again long before China could send an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf.

China doesn’t capture anyone’s imagination for good or evil. They don’t care about other cultures and they would never integrate or ingratiate themselves to become the world power everyone bows to.

Exiled- I read your last comment after writing mine.
I think you’re overestimating the potential for China to overtake us militarily. You can’t just make new technology- it needs to be developed. China spends less than 1/10th the amount we do on its military. And we’d know if they were making this “full-throttle” push. Perhaps the situation will change in the future, but right now, I can’t fathom how our current mil budget helps the American people.

centfan,

We fought a lot of the Vietnam war with one eye on China, afraid of what would happen if they sent a few of those millions of military into N. Vietnam. Same as Korea – we got too close to the Yalu and triggered their direct entry into that conflict.

I’m not that worried about there being a direct military conflict to harm us. They own enough of our debt to leave us very vulnerable to any mischief they might entertain. And, when I was talking about technological capabilities, I was referring to their ability to use their knowledge of computers and related areas to cause problems with our economic well-being – not a crash program to invent the best fighter aircraft on the planet to overrcome any lead we might have in that area.

Thye would NOT be immune to any economic shocks that might result. I’m just saying that they might be able to ride it out better than we do, because their culture is not as reliant on (and obsessed with) the latest toys as we are. And, if their leadership decided that that was what they needed to do, the populace would be mobilized to do what they thought was needed to a degree we cannot do right now.

We are just too fractured right now as a country. And, honestly, if it happened, we might not even know who was the source of the attack.

We just simply aren’t the source of all of the sharp minds in the world of IT. A lot of what we do is out-sourced. No law that says that what they learn has to be forgotten after the project is finished.

They’re actually working on trying to get the Chinese to consume more domestic goods as we speak Af. The Chinese have an insane 30% domestic savings rate, and that’s a long-ingrained cultural habit that will be VERY tough for the Chinese government to break. That and the issue of income disparity in China is rearing its ugly head, so for now we own the Chinese just as much as they own us. If they called in every loan not even their internal manipulations would save the yuan at that point.

Deconstructiva
~
The world may no longer be driven by pure imperialistic expansionism, as it is in RISK, however, that is not to say that we are moving towards an era of global peace and international goodwill. War is ingrained in the nature of man, much more so than peaceful desires. War is an inevitable conclusion of the vast divides among mankind coupled with competitive self-preservation. Wars will continually erupt, the threat of war will always loom overhead. You cannot escape this truism, no matter how idealistic your view of the world may be.

You’re right; wars will still happen. But perhaps more Russia and China are our friends the less likely we’ll fight them? Imagine in ‘40’s we’d be having a similar discussion on vacuum tube computer-run internets over copper wires. Japan is our enemy. We’ve won, but will they try to ally with someone else to fight us again? Or can we be friends instead? There are some BRIC deals going on but I really think BRIC is partly a media creation (CNBC rants about BRIC all the time). They don’t have to be the Next Great Cold War Enemy[tm]. Maybe Russia and China aren’t as beloved as we’d like to believe; ask Georgia or Eastern Europeans if they want to go back to the USSR. Let’s try to befriend them first before rebuilding Berlin walls, please.

pintortwo

I am not suggesting that China has already begun a massive manufacturing of arms. What I am proposing is that China is steadily gaining ground technologically. With their massive production capabilities they can put technology into substantive results much faster than America. Were the decision made they could easily surpass the US in numbers of aircraft carriers within a relatively short time. It would not matter if we’re aware or not, they far surpass us in full-capacity output. My point is simply that China has the means to put all their recent tech breakthroughs into action and exponentially close the militaristic gap with the US in such a short span that the US would not have the ability to effectively counter such a move.

This is not to suggest that we need F-22s or that the military budget is justifiable. It’s merely a note of caution that we should not seek to transform our military into an insurgency fighting force. It must have a broad range of capabilities and MUST remain a potent conventional armed force, as well. Too many analysts predict that the wars of the 21st century will all similarly parallel the insurgencies and low-tech warfare of Iraq and Afghanistan. This will be one element, surely. But to focus on this to the detriment of conventional technological advances is wholly naive.

I really do not think that we disagree. I am advocating for rigorous pursuit of increased capabilities in a broad range of facets. Many of you are generally advocating for a reduction of military spending. These two thoughts do not need to be mutually exclusive. I’m sure all of us can agree that it is necessary to focus on more than mere counter-insurgency, regardless of the struggles we currently face. Vigilance and preparation for potential future conflicts is required.

I’m very late to the thread but I’d like to throw my 2 cents worth in about China. True, they own a tremendous amount of our debt, but I can’t imagine them calling it in. It would trash our economy, theirs and plunge the rest of the world into a depression. When we got out of it, would we ever buy ANYTHING China makes again? Would our allies still trade with China after seeing them destabilize our economy?

What happens when China finally realizes that their huge industrial base is poisoning their air, water, land and people? In the 70′s we started a massive cleanup of our own country and it was enormously expensive. I remember when the river up in Cleveland caught fire. The air here where I live was terrible. We frequently had alerts to not go out unless you had too. I don’t even remember when we last had an air quality alert.

They’re going to have to deal with it sooner or later and it’s going to gobble up a huge chunk of their economy. Clean energy is about to receive a big bump here very soon. It’s going to be really expensive. They have four times as many people as we do. The longer they wait the bigger the financial drain it’s going to be for them.

Echoing some of the other posters, I think the Chinese are just as dependent on us as we are on them. They have a huge stake in us being financially sound.

Let me be clear that I am not attempting to demonize Russia. In fact, I have the utmost respect for Russia. While I do not condone authoritarian leanings, I do appreciate savvy diplomatic aptitude and brilliant use of international incidents as a political domestic tool. Russia is a master of both. Putin is brilliant. Russia now understands how to strengthen Russia. For this, I have nothing but admiration for the recently crippled empire. Its rebound has been stellar. However, respect and friendship are not synonymous. Russia, in my opinion, has no use for closer ties with the US. Its economic stability is ensured through Europe’s undying appetite and need for Russian energy resources. Its military is quite self-sufficient. Domestically, Russia gains more from exploiting anti-western sentiments. Internationally, Russia gains from marketing itself as the antithesis to the United States. Through this it reins in alliances with the likes of China, Iran, India, Brazil and other less significant players, forming its own political bloc with itself at the helm. All of this dissipates if Russia integrates more with the US economically and diplomatically.

We’re not going to keep ourselves and the world safe by out-developing everyone else with the latest and greatest weapons. Not sure ANYONE has the financial resources in today’s world to even consider that.

We’re going to have to get smarter about addressing threats and situations than we have in the past. Stupidity and our infatuation with brute force have ruled the day.

afguy
July 22, 2009
at 1:39 pm .

If you could name exactly what you consider this stupidity and infatuation with brute force, I would appreciate it.

That being said, you’ve thrown out a red herring – nobody is saying that we can keep the whole word safe. What we are planning for is contingency. We have to have the ability to take on the best-trained, best-equipped military in the world (other than our own of course) and defeat it. Because there’s no telling what the future may bring.

The other option, of course, is letting our technology stagnate while everybody else plays arms race. If that happens, we lose a certain clout on the world stage. We lose standing. We lose overall.

That’s my summary. A few miscellaneous things:

Tanks are great against armor out in the open but vulnerable inside a city with narrow streets.

You are not the first person to come to this conclusion. However, tanks aren’t much of a problem fighting poorly-trained, poorly equipped soldiers – Humvees are. Remember, the Rangers and Delta Force operators in Mogadishu were bailed out by, in part, tanks. All that armor isn’t for nothing.

The latest and greatest air superiority fighter isn’t much use if the opposition doesn’t have planes anyway

Then, we should take up the ground issues with the Army. Adjustments are already underway.

The point is that the US hasn’t dominated almost every conventional engagement post-Vietnam just because we’re the US. People tend to think that F-15s, F-14s, and A-10s, with their guided missiles and lasered GBUs, just show up and blow away everybody like a piece of cake. But a more realistic view of the late-20th century conflicts tends to put the US on the razor’s edge. We win because we give it our all in terms of equipment and training. Anything less gets people killed.

One more thing. All through this thread, people were beating down on the F-22. Now, let me ask, what happens if we actually get into a war and it’s really as terrible as you seem to think it is? If it’s the Russians, they’ll show up with Su-37s. Besides them, there’s the Rafael, the Eurofighter, and the Gripen – a whole host of next-generation jets with thrust vectoring and the latest radar just looking for a kill. If the F-22 bites, then we get bitten. HARD.

And this is a justification to stop development of new weapon systems? Only if the world is full of rainbows and unicorns.

Good points, but did we go thru something similar in early 20th-c.when the early USSR tried to win over Europe, etc. to communism through “cultural invasion” new artistic ideas (constructivism) and artists such as El Lissitzky, the Persimfans conductorless orchestra, etc. – long before any military actions from Stalin finally kicked in (how did that Prague Spring turn out?) and literally blew away any illusions of peaceful intentions? Maybe Putin wants the USSR back but do all Russians? Certainly Kasparov does not. I’d bet many Russians are simply tired of corrupt corporations and politicians, want a better economy and “good life” for themselves, and save some face in the world view / not look weak or ridiculous. Then again, don’t we want these too? Or the Chinese?

I suspect that you voice this idealism without much conviction. I doubt that you are naive enough to belief that what the people desire is considered top priority, even among democratic governments. The foreign-policy machines of the US, Russia and China are well-oiled and unwavering. They do not bend to the will of the people. Foreign policy relys, quite generally, on continuity. The American, Russia, and Chinese approaches to foreign policy will all center on the institutionalized perceptions of international diplomatic posturing, not on the will of the people. Of that, I am quite positive.

Actually, I am that naïve, if ironically for the most selfish of reasons: self-preservation. If a government doesn’t take care of its people then eventually someone – the peasants, military, or fed-up neighboring countries – will overthrow it (Eastern Europe, Africa, etc.). Maybe Russia was lucky to avoid civil war after Gorbachev was tossed out (and I admired him). China still faces riots even now (Uighurs) long after T-Square massacre. I wonder how much $ the Chinese army spends to maintain public order. Even after 2000 stolen election we didn’t take up pitchforks and march on DC like the British in 1812. But again, between R/C’s internal pressures and our external biz trades and offer of friendship, we have a “fighting” chance to win them over…without real fighting. We can win more Russians and Chinese with McDonalds, KFC, and Megan Fox than with F-22’s. We need more drinking games with the Russians, literally, za vas!

If you could name exactly what you consider this stupidity and infatuation with brute force, I would appreciate it.

We win because we give it our all in terms of equipment and training. Anything less gets people killed.

For the “stupidity” part, I give you our foreign policy in the ME for the past 50-60 years, starting with the overthrow of the Iranian government in favor of installing the Shah. Move to our tacit support of the Shah and his brutal regime because of his willlingness to give us base access.

After the fall of the Shah, we began to support his neighbor named Saddam Hussein in a war with our new enemies, the Iranians, giving him all sorts of assistance and technology to help in his fight.

Then we had to get rid of Saddam when he over-stepped his bounds.

We supported and equipped the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Now, they are the enemy.

See where I am going with this? This discussion has been in the Swamp on more than one occasion. Short-sighted doesn’t begin to describe our involvement in that part of the world.

As for the brute force description, I’ll admit it’s overstated on my part. But we have always been in love with our own technological prowess and figured that our toys were always too good to lose.

No argument of the quality of our training and dedication. Unfortunately, in many cases, our leadership doesn’t know or can’t articulate what we are trying to accomplish and the service members suffer. What’s the goal in Afghanistan now? In Iraq? Same as it was when we started? Or are we just trying to figure out a graceful way out because we don’t like losing?

Anything we win over with McDonald’s, KFC and Megan Fox, I want no part of. These are the worst of what American culture has to offer. And, actually, it is precisely this type of quality-lacking, uninspiring mediocrity that the world resents about American society. Any perceived cultural victories America attains via such means will be offset by more resilient resistance to American social globalization among more cultured peoples who see this for what it is.

How about Panera, Chipotle, and Sandra Bullock instead? Now Faye Dunaway in her prime, whew! Actually, THAT subject (our culture offerings to the solemnly amused world, not Faye) would make a fabulous debate / post here by Jay, Amy, or KT (give her a break from HC). Actually, I have to go fix dinner: Kraft[tm] mac n cheese cassarole with Kroger[tm] frozen veggies and StarKist[tm] tuna. 0% organic ingredients. Thanks for the debate; good ideas swapped here, food for thought.

Well, I have no problem with your summary. I just disagree with those who think that just because we aren’t fighting conventional wars now means that we never will.

We need to be prepared for conventional warfare. And that doesn’t mean turning the Air Force into a UAV hangar.

Hear! hear!

It’s just that the stealth features don’t work when the surface of the plane is wet. That’s true for all current stealth vehicles. The water reflects radar, so it doesn’t matter that the plane itself doesn’t.

That’s why the one that was shot down in Serbia got hit.

Because of that incident, I’m really shocked that anybody who doesn’t even follow the issue when it’s in the MSM would deign to comment.