Obama announces changes to the military

[rumborak]

BTW, there's also a big difference between arming for defense and arming for offense. The US mostly arms for offense.

rumborak

I think that's the whole point of the former two-front strategy.  That allows you to stick your armed forces into other people's business as you feel so inclined,  while leaving a sufficient deterrent force.

In terms of protective force, considering that the US has all kinds of international partners that would join in immediately if it came to an open attack on the US, the actually necessary size of army is miniscule to the currently maintained offensive forces. I have no illusions about that the current size is meant to maintain two offensive wars, not one offensive and one defensive.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Because, unfortunately, wars happen, and if one wants his or her country to survive, it is best to plan before war happens than during.  Anyone in charge of a country's military who does not think about the possibility of being in a war is incompetent to be in charge of the country's military.

But, as I said to orcus, I wasn't talking to you.

I was talking to orcus as much as you.

To answer you actual question, becuase we owe China too much money, and China's economy is dependent upon us. That's a logical basis for thinking why there'd be no where. Until we see our trade and economic relationship just completely flounder, talk of war is extremely premature.

I think that's what they said about Pax Britannica in the first era of globalisation. What was logical about WW1?

I'm sure we've since learned. Anyway, the only place I really see any trouble brewing in U.S.-China relations has been mainstream media, so I don't think we have anything to worry about.

[El Barto]

BTW, there's also a big difference between arming for defense and arming for offense. The US mostly arms for offense.

rumborak

I think that's the whole point of the former two-front strategy.  That allows you to stick your armed forces into other people's business as you feel so inclined,  while leaving a sufficient deterrent force.

In terms of protective force, considering that the US has all kinds of international partners that would join in immediately if it came to an open attack on the US, the actually necessary size of army is miniscule to the currently maintained offensive forces. I have no illusions about that the current size is meant to maintain two offensive wars, not one offensive and one defensive.

rumborak

Yeah, that's a good point.  It's not like we're going it alone.  Add to that a sizable number of well equipped state national guards,  that as far as I know are unaffected. 

[Scheavo]

And no, they weren't too good about preventing that whole 9/11 thing.

Well, 9/11 wasn't an act of War, it was an act of terror. There are enough differences between the two that I think we have to distinguish them - most importantly, War's are between governments / states, acts of terror are performed by individuals. You have more options when attacking a state of Government, you don't have nearly as many when you're fighting a person or a small group of persons.

The US would destroy China in any war.

China's demonstrated functional ASAT capability,  and the ability to use viruses to disrupt logic controllers.  The only real usefulness for spending time and money on ASAT is to take out US GPS satellites.  Lastly,  throw in the EMP wildcard,  and they have the potential to really waylay a helluva lot of our technological assets.  It's easy to get caught up in how well the f-35 will match up against their IDF's outdated Mirage 2000's,  but if we're figting such a war strictly on their terms,  without GPS,  realtime C&C,  and hampered logistics,  it could get really ugly, really fast.

We don't necessarily need GPS to put a tomahawk missile on your face. There's computer algorithms that do a pretty good job with out em. We could also probably get a special ops team close enough to use a laser guided variety, if we so chose.
 
I mean, forgetting technology, we still have the most trained, professional and downright ass-rape army / special forces. Unlike Chinese military, ours is experienced, and that goes a LONG way. Of course, it's no the only factor, but the point still remains that the Chinese leadership would have to be pretty much suicidal to want to go to War.

[Super Dude]

Just to piggyback off that, terror by definition is carried out only on non-combatants. If a terror group attacks a president or other military individual or location, only then is it an act of war.

[XJDenton]

Even if you reduced the standing army of the US by 50% you'd still have more than enough left over to destroy the world several times. If nothing else I would like the apocalypse to be cost effective.

[El Barto]

And no, they weren't too good about preventing that whole 9/11 thing.

Well, 9/11 wasn't an act of War, it was an act of terror. There are enough differences between the two that I think we have to distinguish them - most importantly, War's are between governments / states, acts of terror are performed by individuals. You have more options when attacking a state of Government, you don't have nearly as many when you're fighting a person or a small group of persons.

True, but the military's incompetence on 9/11 is noteworthy. 

The US would destroy China in any war.

China's demonstrated functional ASAT capability,  and the ability to use viruses to disrupt logic controllers.  The only real usefulness for spending time and money on ASAT is to take out US GPS satellites.  Lastly,  throw in the EMP wildcard,  and they have the potential to really waylay a helluva lot of our technological assets.  It's easy to get caught up in how well the f-35 will match up against their IDF's outdated Mirage 2000's,  but if we're figting such a war strictly on their terms,  without GPS,  realtime C&C,  and hampered logistics,  it could get really ugly, really fast.

We don't necessarily need GPS to put a tomahawk missile on your face. There's computer algorithms that do a pretty good job with out em. We could also probably get a special ops team close enough to use a laser guided variety, if we so chose.
 
I mean, forgetting technology, we still have the most trained, professional and downright ass-rape army / special forces. Unlike Chinese military, ours is experienced, and that goes a LONG way. Of course, it's no the only factor, but the point still remains that the Chinese leadership would have to be pretty much suicidal to want to go to War.

Inertial guidance is fine and dandy,  but you still have to know where you are when you launch.  There's also the distinct possibility that software wouldn't allow you to launch without working nav-aids and/or a precise launch location. 

Aside from the mindless speculation,  though,  I'm sure we could still be perfectly capable without GPS.  However,  we would lose in the process quite a few of the distinct advantages that we now possess.  As I said earlier,  what we don't want is to have to fight them on their own level,  and that's just one example of how they could bring us quite a bit closer to it.

[Super Dude]

And no, they weren't too good about preventing that whole 9/11 thing.

Well, 9/11 wasn't an act of War, it was an act of terror. There are enough differences between the two that I think we have to distinguish them - most importantly, War's are between governments / states, acts of terror are performed by individuals. You have more options when attacking a state of Government, you don't have nearly as many when you're fighting a person or a small group of persons.

True, but the military's incompetence on 9/11 is noteworthy. 

Nah, I'd say that one belongs to the American secret services.

[El Barto]

And no, they weren't too good about preventing that whole 9/11 thing.

Well, 9/11 wasn't an act of War, it was an act of terror. There are enough differences between the two that I think we have to distinguish them - most importantly, War's are between governments / states, acts of terror are performed by individuals. You have more options when attacking a state of Government, you don't have nearly as many when you're fighting a person or a small group of persons.

True, but the military's incompetence on 9/11 is noteworthy. 

Nah, I'd say that one belongs to the American secret services.

The intelligence community was on the ball with that one.  Plenty of people from plenty of agencies knew what was coming.  It was a lack of give-a-fuck that allowed it to happen,  and that's not on them.  As for the military incompetence that I referred to,  that was about what happened after the attacks began; not that they happened. 

[Scheavo]

Inertial guidance is fine and dandy,  but you still have to know where you are when you launch.  There's also the distinct possibility that software wouldn't allow you to launch without working nav-aids and/or a precise launch location. 

A few months down the road, this would matter; you cant change your bunker location in a day, and we already have all the photos and data we would need to carry out the short-term. All you'd have to do is upload the correct terrain details to the smart missiles computer. Ya, we use GPS for a lot of missiles, because it's better, but we definitely have the technology to go without it - I remember watching a documentary about the software that was able to handle the terrain data and changes, and independently navigate itself to a very precise location.

If a large scale war broke out, it be interesting to see how quickly we robotize the army. Drone planes are big right now, and I'm sure the work is being done for a land drone? Pure number of men is going to be increasingly misleading. Of course... I'm not sure how much of that we can currently manufacture without China. China would def have an advantage in the immediate production, as we'd have to start the factories up to build a lot of the components we rely on for everything.

[Jamariquay]

My main point there was that generally, the intelligence community is pretty good at picking out threats we should be worried about. Ten years after 9/11, I'm not really all that concerned about who specifically dropped that ball anymore, only that at some point, it *was* dropped.

(I say that, of course, as a civilian. Were I a high-level government official..... Heads, spikes, etc. Actually, OK, bring out the head-spiking machinery anyway).

But yeah. As you were. This is interesting.

[Super Dude]

And no, they weren't too good about preventing that whole 9/11 thing.

Well, 9/11 wasn't an act of War, it was an act of terror. There are enough differences between the two that I think we have to distinguish them - most importantly, War's are between governments / states, acts of terror are performed by individuals. You have more options when attacking a state of Government, you don't have nearly as many when you're fighting a person or a small group of persons.

True, but the military's incompetence on 9/11 is noteworthy. 

Nah, I'd say that one belongs to the American secret services.

The intelligence community was on the ball with that one.  Plenty of people from plenty of agencies knew what was coming.  It was a lack of give-a-fuck that allowed it to happen,  and that's not on them.  As for the military incompetence that I referred to,  that was about what happened after the attacks began; not that they happened.

Okay, thank you for clarifying, but if I can nitpick one more time, knowing it was coming and taking preventive measures mark the difference between them being on the ball or not. And the fact that the CIA could've arrested Osama back in 1999...whew, what a doozy.

[El Barto]

And no, they weren't too good about preventing that whole 9/11 thing.

Well, 9/11 wasn't an act of War, it was an act of terror. There are enough differences between the two that I think we have to distinguish them - most importantly, War's are between governments / states, acts of terror are performed by individuals. You have more options when attacking a state of Government, you don't have nearly as many when you're fighting a person or a small group of persons.

True, but the military's incompetence on 9/11 is noteworthy. 

Nah, I'd say that one belongs to the American secret services.

The intelligence community was on the ball with that one.  Plenty of people from plenty of agencies knew what was coming.  It was a lack of give-a-fuck that allowed it to happen,  and that's not on them.  As for the military incompetence that I referred to,  that was about what happened after the attacks began; not that they happened.

Okay, thank you for clarifying, but if I can nitpick one more time, knowing it was coming and taking preventive measures mark the difference between them being on the ball or not. And the fact that the CIA could've arrested Osama back in 1999...whew, what a doozy.

We're veering way off topic here,  but I'll answer your nitpick.  Osama sort of dropped off the radar in 1996.  I'm not aware of any opportunity to arrest him in '99.  The possibility in '96 was when the Sudanese offered to turn him over.  The problem was that in '96 he wasn't accused of anything specific,  and nabbing people and sticking them nowhere because we think they're naughty wasn't really a trendy thing to do way back then.  When Clinton tried to blow him up,  it was in '98,  and in response to the '98 embassy bombing.  From that point on,  he was a cave dweller,  and it'd be hard to fault the CIA for not getting him.

What they were able to do is to piece together a few tidbits of intel on what he was up to.  Now,  keep in mind that their role there isn't to act.  Their role is to convey the intel to the people who will choose exactly how to act.  Alas,  they conveyed it to people who just didn't give a shit.  Game over.

[Super Dude]

Alright, but whose job was it to act then?

And I don't remember any specifics, but in an American Foreign Policy class over the summer, I watched a video that said in '99 Osama made a blip in Kabul and Clinton had the chance to arrest him but didn't.

[Fiery Winds]

Alright, but whose job was it to act then?

And I don't remember any specifics, but in an American Foreign Policy class over the summer, I watched a video that said in '99 Osama made a blip in Kabul and Clinton had the chance to arrest him but didn't.

I seem to recall something similar from a book written by one of the guys who carried the "football" during his administration.  Something about having confirmation on Osama's location but not making the final decision to send in an explosive birthday present.