Sinking US aircraft carriers will resolve tension in South China Sea, says Chinese admiral

Traitorous is spending a Trillion dollars a year on "national security" / defending the homeland - on the basis of threats that do not exist.

 

You kind of contradict yourself do you not ? If the one that tosses the first nuke may cease to exist - how does China not have sufficient strategic nuclear capability to make a full nuclear exchange an option.

The reality is that we do not have any idea what China's true nuclear capabilities are. While China maintains that it has only enough for a deterrent (200-400 is supposedly roughly what that means) some estimate they have as many as 3000.

Regardless - even if we go with the low number - 200 - that is a "full nuclear exchange". Live as we know it in the US would - for all intensive purposes - would be destroyed by 75-100 nuclear detonations.

 

As soon as we retaliate on china soil they do the same so we are put in the position of escalating a sea based strategic attack to nukes in country. Not a comfortable position they would put us in. Strikes on our military targets would involve massive civilian casualties which would force us to retaliate on the china population then it's all out nuclear war which we would likely win if you consider many of our cities being annihilated "winning".

 

And so, China, by nuking a US CVN, initiates a full nuclear exchange.
This is why they won't do it.

 

I do not think the nuclear option - by either side - is realistic. The reason is because I do not think either side attacking each other's homeland is realistic. If one was to threaten the homeland of the other - all bets are off. Then nuclear deterrence becomes an option.

China doesn't need tactical nukes to take out carriers. The dirty little secret is that our carriers have been vulnerable to advances in conventional missile technology for at least 2 decades. This is part of the reason why neither China or Russia are in any big hurry to build large numbers of Carriers .. there is simply no point.

Sure Carriers are good for projecting power against smaller less militarily advanced nations. They really serve no legitimate purpose other than this. We are not going to be attacking the Russian or Chinese homeland with Carrier groups - simply on the basis that this could lead to the use of nukes.

Even without nukes - these carriers are obsolete floating cities of metal with respect to modern missile technology - as well as submarine launched drones and torpedo's.

Regardless - the conventional conversation aside - the idea that we would use Carriers to attack the homeland of a significant nuclear power is nonsense.

This false "necessary illusion" serves merely to justify our massive military spend -to keep the cash flowing into the pockets of the international financiers and national oligarchs that run this nation.

 

I think the admiral in the OP would do it thinking it wouldn't initiate all out nuclear war because we would back down. I'd say it's 50-50 what we would do but with snowflakes in charge I'd lean toward we back down.

 

If you are correct about missle technology it makes the scenario of taking out all our carriers in a first strike even more likely. If that technology exist our navy is completely obsolete and is a paper tiger. China could effectively force us to stay out of the world and retreat to what would effectively become Fort America where we would live under siege.

 

This has been the case for decades - from a military perspective. Even when China was not an economic superpower they still had enough nukes to deter us from attacking them. How is our navy not a "Paper Tiger" - against China for example - if there is no realistic threat to China from our Navy ?

This whole "we are stronger than them" mindset is a massive "necessary illusion" fostered on the US public by the "Military Industrial Complex" and other big money Establishment interests to keep the gravy train flowing.

It is not just military spending that pads the pockets of these folks. The massive deficit generates 500 Billion dollars in interest revenue every year - which goes into the pockets of the same folks.

The reality is that the world has changed since the advent of nukes. In the "good ol days" - as in for all of human history prior to nukes - if your economy was in the dumps you could just attack your neighbor and take his stuff. This is no longer true - with respect to nuclear superpowers. The return on investment is so negative (having your nation destroyed to the point of - life was we know it ceasing to exist) that it is madness to even attempt.

The strongest piece on the geopolitical chessboard is no longer Military. "Its the Economy Stupid" - not referring to you .. just thought the colloquialism was apt. Economy is the strongest piece on the geopolitical chessboard. This is where the real battle is being waged. The rest is just propaganda fodder for the ignorant raging masses... something to keep the sheep preoccupied while awaiting their slaughter.

If the powers at be were actually acting on the basis that this "necessary illusion" was true that "us being stronger than them actually has some realistic validity and benefit" - this would be a massive blunder on the geopolitical chessboard. How can you expect to play a solid game if your assessment of the position is deeply flawed ?

The fact of the matter is that the powers at be are not stupid - they know exactly what is going on. The people making the massive blunder are the US citizens by thinking that these powers are acting in their best interest .. and not recognizing that these blunders are hugely destructive to the future viability, prosperity of the US and to their long term essential liberty - which is being taken away on the basis of "fear of an external threat" - the oldest trick in the book.

Consider this. In 2000 our total military spend was roughly 300 Billion/year. At this level of spending we were far and away the most powerful nation on the planet.

Through 8 years of Bush that spend went to 900 Billion and exceeded 1 Trillion under Obama. Had we maintained 2000 level spending (increasing with inflation) -- way more than enough to keep the homeland secure - hundreds of billions more than was required - we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to Infrastructure, Technology, Ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium (where the real war is being fought).

Instead - what did we do with this money ? Well - we took out Saddam Hooo Raahhh. So if I said to you - We can spend 8 Trillion dollars to take out Saddam - someone who poses no realistic threat to the homeland - or use that money for the above - which would you choose ?

Oh Oh .. but we also killed some terrorists and have been keeping Afghanistan free from the terrorist threat for 18 years. OK .. you can add that to the .. "Look what we got for our 8 Trillion" pile. Joy oh Joy .. like we needed to spend 8 Trillion (in addition to the money we were already spending on military) to take out Bin Laden and a few bands of terrorists.

Just as an aside - if we are so concerned about Al Qaeda - why on earth were we arming them to the teeth and supporting them (and others of the same ilk) in Syria ... and why do we currently fight along side them in Yemen. OK .. my brain is in "does not compute mode" lets forget about this reality.

The story is not done - interest payments on the debt = 450 Billion/year again x 16 years and you can add another 7 Trillion to the total. Now yes .. this is not all due to the military spend but .. more than you would think and the other portion is a function of "necessary illusions" stemming from the same source.

Healthcare spending is another massive way to pad the pockets of the exact same "powers at be". We spend double what other first world nations spend for less than what is provided by these other nations. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

In 2017 we spent 3.5 Trillion dollars on healthcare (this includes Gov't and individual spend) this is insane. How much can we add to the total ? Can we not provide healthcare for every US citizen for 2.5 Trillion ? Every other first world nations managed to do it for less than that (on a per person basis) - despite their systems being massively bloated inefficient cesspools of bureaucratic excess.

Is it that we are just a bunch of idiots here in the US compared to the rest of the first world - incapable of tying our shoes without spending a Trillion dollars ? 100% no - we are completely capable and we are not stupid.

Same "necessary illusions" same result - we are getting sodomized from both ends.

I can get into outsourcing of our manufacturing sector - and the economic damage that has done - tax law that allows profits to be siphoned out of the US economy - and so on. Tough to calculate how much more this would add to the total but it is substantial.

Same "necessary illusions" same result - sodomy in multiple ways ... it is pornographic orgy that would make Stormy Daniels blush.

 

I really don't care if you're grateful or not. To boil down your palabber, you can't pay for your own defense because your collective economies suck. We need to be out of NATO all together. Turn it over to your very capable hands.

 

I think our navy is still relevant in today's world of engagement with hostile governments and is useful to protect our overseas interest especially in keeping shipping lanes open and our access to various natural resources world wide. I do think in a war with a country like Russia or China though it would and would be quickly neutralized with tactical nukes or possibly conventional missles if your theory on that is correct. That's why I believe if a military leader like the one in the OP got his way and if China wanted to contain us in our country so they could start gobbling up all their neighbors they could do so with a first strike on our carrier fleet. I'm not predicting this action but I do think if China ever decided to seek world or at least regional domination that's where they would start. Hopefully those in the know have thought about and have a plan for such a scenario.

 

I think we are pretty much on the same page. I agree that the navy is relevant with respect to keeping shipping lanes open and also it is a threat to a nation that is not a nuclear superpower.

The point of my post was not to state that the Navy is not relevant at all.. the point is that we do not need 18 Carrier battle groups to keep shipping lanes open and be a threat to nations that are not nuclear superpowers.

The bigger point was that the public is sold a false narrative in order to justify the massive military spend.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for a strong military and defending the homeland - the idea that we need to spend a Trillion dollars a year to do this however is preposterous nonsense.

 

But there are still severe limits on what the president can do without a formal declaration.

1; He is limited access to troop deployments.
2; He has limited funding
3; He can't issue certain orders, such as activation reserve troops or the national guard for active service

Vietnam was the only time congress was willing to authorize any extension military actions without a formal declaration of war. Most American't wouldn't support such a thing now, and without congress agreeing to expand the president's authority, he is limited to what he already has the authority to do.

 

Iraq/Afghanistan., 2002-present.
Remember that neither Congress not the courts can force the President to order troops home (or anywhere else).

 

Yes, but without a formal declaration of war, or some other emergency situation, such as martial law being declared, the President can not order inactive or reserve troops to active duty. He only has access to troops that were already serving on active duty. He can't just activate federal troops at will to send them oversees.

 

He did in 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/sprj.irq.pentagon.callup/
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/...ve-call-up-for-iraq-war-may-equal-1991-s.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/22/...es-support-saudi-trooplift-rejects-iraqi.html
et al

He can.

 

Congress had already declared war on Iraw in october of 2002, and no federal troops has been activated solely for use in Iraq until afterthat.

 

Lol ... again some sort of lacking American knowledge? I give a bunch facts which proof that Trump is a liar and all those who agree with his lies are fools as result ... and you come with palabber to it ... makes really sense!

But anyway ... you do nothing for NATO at least, so go away ... not your problem! And btw... in meantime is Russia for me a much more trustful partner in all issues as the US ever was ... due to the bad US behavior and very due since Trump is President.
Make America great again, but make inside your country and don't disturb the rest of the world with it!

 

Congress passed an authorization of force.

 

Uh no the US was not there when the North violated the Paris Peace Accords and Ford opted to let it slide.

 

BS not about the five casualties...

 

Trump should definitely do this. Collapsing the US economy and causing a second Great Depression will ensure he will never get re-elected.

 

What exactly are you trying to say here?

 

It doesn't matter who's President. As soon as the USSR dissolved we should have turned NATO over to Europe. BTW we should boot the UN out of the US.

Good luck ponying up the money to keep it going.

 

Getting out of the UN is a great move. Without the US, the ethnic cleansing apartheid regime in Tel Aviv will finally face sanctions and we won’t be able to veto them.

 

True

Gradually raising tariffs is a better approach

Thanks for reminding me