U.S. Military Can't Even Fight One War Today

China is a LONG WAY from being much of a threat to the U.S.

Yes...China has developed some Carrier Killer Missiles but we can Electronically Jam these easily and in a real war U.S. Carriers are not going to be in close proximity to attack.

Thing is....China would lose and lose big both economically and militarily so it makes no sense for China to go to war.

AA

 

That's why the chi-coms have been expanding their markets into Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America.

.

.......

 

The Chinese Economy is ranked #2.

The U.S. is ranked #1 at $18.9 Trillion.

AA

 

I actually have a very similar story, from 1987.

My Battalion was on the previously mentioned "Air Alert", which meant that we were as close to 100% readyness as possible, and had all of our combat gear pre-staged in a containment area. Our seabags were also packed and paletized, and only needed to be placed on the trucks for transport to the air base. We had to report in 5 times a day for Battalion formations, the latest at 2100.

I pulled into the Battalion area at 2030 to prepare for the final formation of the day, and at the entryway to the Battalion area were 2 MPs with flashlights. We were directed to pull into a prepared area, write our names and the name and phone number of our family member onto an envelope in which we put our car keys, and assemble in a large roped off area. At 2100 we were told to draw weapons and pull our gear out of storage and get onto the busses.

We were bussed to what was then Pope Air Force Base where we were issued 9 days worth of MREs and a full combat load of munitions. We were divided into chalks and lined up in preperation to get onto the C-130s lined up a few hundred yards away. At that time I was not the voratious news watcher that I am today, and only while waiting was I informed that our destination was Haiti.

Well, we sat on that tarmac for about 3 hours, then we got the word to stand down. President Reagan decided to wait to see if the situation would stabilize on it's own so we turned in the ammo and MREs, and boarded the busses to return to base. I finally got permission to call my wife and let her know what had happened at around 0800, the Corps was not going to tell them until after our aircraft had left the ground.

I asked a young Marine from Pendleton a few years ago what he thought about Air Alert, he told me he had never heard of it. From what I have seen, the only forces in that degree of readyness now are those embarked on amphibious transports.

Can I laugh now?

Well, let's see. I first served from 1983-1993, when I was seperated for a chronic knee condition.

I then re-enlisted in 2007, at the age of 42. I am now 51 years old, still serving, having now re-enlisted a total of 3 times in the past 9 years.

So I guess you can say I am doing exactly what you say, and showing them my stuff.

And questions?

I have been listening to KFI for over 3 decades now, when they were still a Top 40 station. And I still listen to it to this day when I can. Thanks to the Internet, I often listen to it when I know Bil Handel or John and Ken are on the air.

And ironically, almost 30 years later most of our equipment still dates back to his administration.

Well, other then the Tibetian Uprising.

The Sino-Soviet Border Crisis.

The Sino-Indian War.

The Sino-Vietnamese War.

And a handfull of other conflicts.

Yea, research. Is wonderful for those that use it (or know more about the military history of a nation then others).

 

They are not a direct threat to the US, because they have almost no force projection capability outside of their own physical borders. However, to those nations (some of which are our allies) they are a major threat.

As far as the "Carrier Killer Missile" (DF-21D), nobody really thinks this is a real threat to an aircraft carrier. That is unless it is carrying a nuclear payload. The idea of even attempting to steer a ballistic missile onto a moving target with a footprint smaller then the CEP of the missile itself (200-300m) is laughable at best. And it still has to get through the ABM defenses of the escorts around said carrier.

 

I am fairly certain that Chinese Missile can easily be jammed.

It must SEEK out a target at sea and unless a Carrier Group is stuck between Taiwan and China....something that the U.S. Navy would NEVER do in the event of a possible conflict....USN. Carrier Groups are going to operate far out enough to have PLENTY of warning and SM-3's might not even be used at first as a few Electronic Warfare Aircraft in the sky and this Chinese missile has to locate and then be directed to a Carrier.....well we could jam this type of missile easily.

In any REAL WAR.....all Chinese Missile Sites would be targeted well ahead of time and any PLN ships carrying PLA Troops would be either blown out of the water by the USAF or sunk by USN. Subs.

Not many people understand the level of capability that the USN. Submarine Force has.

But China could invade Vietnam....again....and Vietnam is pushing hard to get the U.S. Military to set up bases in Vietnam again.

Now that is karma.

AA

 

The younger Vietnamese Party cadre types most definitely lean toward the U.S. There are still a few 'old grey men' left at the moment, though, but they will pass on soon, due to their age; the last ones with any power left will be gone in 5 years or so. The current scare over the Russians putting another base there is overblown; Brezhnev tried to maintain a large base there, and that went nowhere fast, and so will the current Russian fantasy; it's just another bluff, attempting to shake some sort of advantage or other out of China, mostly, but nobody with any sense is buying it.

 

It's guns vs. butter economics. We currently have nearly 50% of the US population receiving some sort of governmnent entitlements. If we're going to maintain FDRs dream of a "Great Society" wherein the government takes care of everyone froom cradle to grave, we can't simultaneously maintain military readiness at full capacity...

This is why I said earlier, since funds are limited, it makes more sense to devote funds to Naval and Airpower, which are far better suited as deterrents than a ground-centric force.

In a perfect World we'd have everyone pulling their own weight, the able-bodied working and paying taxes and the government could afford to fund both national defense and entitlements. We're entering an era now as baby boomers are retiring and going on Medicaid and Social Security, and these expenses compete with funds going to our national defense.

Guns vs. Butter.

I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but once ground troops are deployed, it much more difficult to disengage them. The tendency is for mission creep to set in. For well over a decade, our national defense was focused on a ground-centric strategy. We've got MRAPS sitting over in Iraq that are cheaper to cut up and sell as scrap than to ship back here. The war in Iraq will cost over $1 trillion when it's said and done. We've still got young men and women suffering from PTSD, who are having difficulty transitioning to civilian life long after they've come home from war. There are many things to consider before we, as a nation, decide to commit ground forces to a conflict.

I agree, airpower alone cannot win a war, truly winning a war requires a footprint on the ground...but a ground-centric strategy must be committed...FULLY to the strategic goal. Otherwise, we'll see another fall of Saigon type of scenario. If we commit our ground troops, it's a going to be a long haul. Perhaps containing the ISIL threat is the best option, and airpower is able to do that; however yes, airpower alone can't win a war.

 

That's my point. That is not Obama's job, but he DOES have to hold somebody's feet to the fire. But I remember losers of defense contracts in previous administrations being rewarded with no-bid contracts of greater value simply to keep the loser afloat. The beat goes on.

 

That was not FDR, but LBJ.

FDR wanted to create large government projects (VTA, NWA, etc) and use the Government as an employer to get people to work, welfare was an income of last resort for those unable to have traditional jobs until they were able to get back to work.

LBJ is the one with the "Great Society", who thought that our nation was rich enough that we could support the percent that is unable to work.

FDR wanted a bandaid through an International crisis. LBJ is the one that wanted to make that bandaid into a way of life.

 

You're correct, I confused the New Deal with the Great Society.


If you look at the Constitution, one of the primary "jobs" of the Federal Government is national defense. There are a lot of complaints about how much we spend compared to other countries, but that is the purpose of government to protect the people. Somehow, it is has transitioned from protecting to enabling. It's a nanny-state, and there's almost no turning back from it. Most people rely on Medicaid and Social Security when they stop working. How do we turn off the spigot once the flow is so enormous.

Anyway, I'm going off-topic.

The Left prefers Butter economics, the Right prefers Guns...
Constitutionally, the Federal Government is supposed to handle the Guns...our National Defense. Now it's handling everything. We need to get back to the Constitution, it's the only honest document in politics...what's the top priority job for the Federal Government according tp this document?

National Defense.

apologies for going off course on this...I'll bow out of further discussion.

 

What do you mean that's not Obama's job ? Under Obama more generals and flag officers have been relieved of there commands than any other time in America's history. But they were replaced by Obama yes men so there are still just as many generals and admirals as there was seven years ago.

 

FYI:

There are some who might want to watch this Fox News special tomorrow night.

 

US general says we could be screwed in a war against China or Russia

 

Short of limited regional engagements and humanitarian missions why do we need to consider a major war no one is going to ,on this planet, dare take on the USA even if our conventional military was 60% the size with an enhanced reserves and national guard as the main military commitment and of course leaning to the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard over the Army and Air Force. Assuming our nuclear capability remains effective as the main deterrent force.

And if aliens attack the world enemies and friends will unite as one military and our greatest warriors engage the threat in fact if one thing would bring us together that would.

As for ISIS it cannot and shouldn't be just us we need to combine all five permanent security council members including asking China for a combined task force, and anyone else who cares to join in. That would demand we ask China as openly a regional power and peer to join the USA in calling for this which we are too proud and foolish not to do.

 

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Capability ... MARGINAL

Excerpt:

 

N.Korea fires ballistic missile into sea - Yonhap

SEOUL, March 18 (Reuters) - North Korea fired a ballistic missile on Friday off its east coast and it flew about 800 km (500 miles) into the sea, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

The launch comes amid heightened tension on the Korean peninsula with the North remaining defiant in the face of the latest U.N. Security Council resolution adopted earlier in the month in response to a nuclear test conducted in January. (Reporting by Jack Kim)

http://news.trust.org/item/20160317215614-rako8

Another Obama/Clinton success story.

 

I'd rather see Orange County get blasted.

 

Much respect, Sir.

I served in the 25th ID '74-77, in that new experiment called the all-volunteer Army. Didn't really do much except go on alert and pack everything when Viet Nam fell, but that was it. My son joined the Marines in '05, and we went on the "war parent" ride. Helluva thing ...

OK ...

We'd kick their tails, though ...

 

Tell me, how mant conflicts was the US involved in after 1945? And how many of those were detered by our possession of nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are a political weapon, not a military one. And since it is well known Internationally that the US will only use them in response of another country using said weapons against us, that is only a deterence against another nation using nuclear weapons against us or our allies. Not against conventional attack.

 

Well, none of my kids has joined the military, but I had always considered myself as a "lifer", even when I first joined in 1983. Being forced out in 1993 was rough on me, and starting in 2005 I started working on getting back in.

Interestingly enough, at that time I was active on another debate thread where I was one of the "lone Conservatives" in the political section. After fighting with many for several years over the various conflicts we were in, it blew a great many away when I finally was able to get back in in 2007. For the next 2 years some would then challenge me to "put my money where my mouth was", and it generally shocked them into silence when I would respond that I already had, and was serving at that time (having joined during some of the most intense fighting in Iraq).

When I first found PF, I was actually deployed in the ME. And many would even attack me because the national flag I was flying at the time was that of a Middle Eastern nation. It took some longer then others to realize that I was an American service member who was on deployment at the time.

I always respect all who are or have served, and salute you for your service. And the thing to me is that everybody who raises their right hand and joins recognized the fact that they might place their lives in danger protecting others. The fact that they might or might not do that is only a chance of when they join, and what MOS they happen to have (in addition to where they are assigned).

No problem, I am not trying to start a fight, I simply am a huge believer in truth and accuracy. I have long been known to support arguments of those I generally dissagree with, or oppose those I generally agree with, simply depending on where the fact of the matter lie. In many cases I agree with Apache Rat and Herk, but both will admit I have no problem correcting them, and there is absolutely nothing personal in it. I simply place accuracy before politics and personal inclination.

And in your claim we would beat them, I agree. With the caveat that it might not be so clear if it is in a nation that they share a mutual border with. One place that the US beats every other nation in is logistics. We can transport and support entire Ground Divisions at a time, and still have room left over for other forces, by air, sea, and both. Gulf War I was a perfect example of this.

However, if China is invading a neighboring nation (say hypothetically Vietnam), they have the advantage of the sheer number of forces they could sent more quickly and easily by land. Say if China and the US were facing off in a theoretical conflict in Yemen, the US would wipe the floor with them. We could send more forces, faster, and keep them better supplied then China could, hands down.

But let's suppose the theoretical conflict is in Vietnam. Well, there China has the upper hand. And not because of the quality of their forces and equipment, but their quality. As Atalin once so famously said, "quantity has a quality all it's own".

To give an idea on how offset this would be, the US has a single Armored Division, the First Armored Division. And while it is composed of one of the most formidable tanks in the world (M1 Abrams), it is only a single Division.

And while the most prevelant tank in China is the Type 59 (circa 1959), they outnumber the number of US tanks by a magnitude of 8 to 1. They outnumber the US military by a ratio of 5 to 1. So in a conflict where they can bring all of there military into the conflict, the ability of the US to dominate becomes much more in doubt.

 

from your link:




Pentagon's base budget at $524 billion and additional war funding at $59 billion






- - - Updated - - -

Orange County - the Republican district that refused to pay taxes and then went bankrupt as we have discussed on this forum -- then they got bailed out by the taxpayers.


LOL

 

OK, here is where actually knowing what happened makes a huge impact on your argument.

First and formost, the cause of the bankruptcy of Orange County.

Orange County did indeed go bankrupt in 1994. It was not caused by fiscal policies, or refusal to pay takes, or anything else of the source. It was caused by a single individual, the Treaturer-Tax Collector for Orange County.

This individual was Robert Citron, and he was highly irresponsible in how he spent the money of Orange County. And this is where the problems all happened. Part of his job involved investing the surplus and money in holding in the General Fund until it was needed. And his investments towards the end of his tenure were questionable to say the least.

He invested in high risk futures involving the futures of a great many things. Oil, Real Estate, even Interest Rates. He also invested in low cost high risk futures ("Junk Bonds"), and rolling over county repossessions in order to attempt to hide the losses he invested in Real Estate (a repossessed real estate investment would be repossessed by the county a second time, hiding the fact it was previously repossessed).

This was hidden for years, but the economic collapse in the early 1990's was eventually to much to hide, and the county lost in excessess of $2 billion from the General Fund and Retirement Trusts. The General Fund was actually manageable, but it was the loss in the Retirement Trust that actually drove the county into Bankruptcy.

And the advise he used to make these investments? Psychics, astrologers, and fortune tellers.

Oh, and guess what political party he belonged to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/b...prit-in-california-fraud-dies-at-87.html?_r=0

You know, even a little bit of research would have made this very obvious "Mr. Truth".

LOL

 

I have often said this same thing to vets who served during peace time who don't think they "did anything". I am reminded of parents of a soldier who was killed in Iraq who said, "They did not lose, nor did anyone take from them, the life that was freely given." We use the term "they gave their lives" if they die in combat. But really, they gave their lives when they joined. Their physical lives may or may not end on a battlefield during their service. But their lives "were given" long before that day.

Yes, I agree. A gigantic army like China's would be hard to defeat in a country they share a border with. And yes, they do not have the transport and logistical capability we have and would be much easier to defeat if they had to try to export their forces across a continent or across an ocean. The U.S. is the undisputed champion at that, hands down.

Cheers.

 

I doubt a ground war with any major power china/Russia will happen. china current interest are in ASIA, it only send UN peacekeeper force to middle east/Africa, and evacuate its citizen when things get bad eg Libya. China/Russia know it wont win a war with US in middles east/Africa, but if things get bad they might start a regional war around their neighbor eg Korean peninsula or eastern Europe, which will force US to send troop on the ground in the region. china got a stalemate in 53 Korean war with its backward army, now would be much worse if there is a war in central asia/korea if china involve, same for eastern Europe if Russia get involved.

that been said, if N.korea attack S.korea, and china know US/S.korea gonna retaliate, china very likely will invade N.korea from North quickly, while S.korea/US invade from south/yellow sea, afterward china might put a puppet government at N.korea, and will negotiate with SK/US on the future of NK