Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

Wow, this thread is still going?


To make a long story short, Russia can hold its own in today's world, and its just not worth it to fight them. Lets all get along and work together to make peace, which we can do if we just try hard enough. And elect politicians willing to do that.

reply to post by Russian soldier

Wow, this thread is still going? To make a long story short, Russia can hold its own in today's world, and its just not worth it to fight them.

I personally favor CUTTING the US Defense (War) budget by 50%! On the quick, in 3-4 years. I favor reducing the size of the Armed Forces of the United States by 1/3rd. By attrition. (We lose about 40% of the enlistees each year, which Is about 15% overall in the enlisted ranks).

I want to see our supercarrier fleet cut back to 4 or 5. Down from the current 12. We have 1 non-nuclear carrier in Japan (the Kitty Hawk), CV-63, the oldest now in service. The CVN-65 - Enterprise - and running up to CVN-76 - Reagan - and 1 more under construction, the CVN-77. Total 12 plus 1. Overkill!

Submarines. We have 18 Ohio class, 5 Virginia class, 3 Seawolf class and 45 Los Angeles class. Total, 71 subs. Note: each sub has 2 equal crews, the Gold and the Blue crew. 6 months on and 6 months off. We don’t NEED more than 21 subs. I’d scrap all but 6 of the Ohio and scrap all the Seawolf and Virginia class, and keep just 15 of the Los Angeles. 21 subs.
en.wikipedia.org...

Lets all get along and work together to make peace, which we can do if we just try hard enough. And elect politicians willing to do that.

Outside Europe and Japan, any politician who ran on a PEACE NOW ticket would be wiped out! Sorry about that.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
I personally favor CUTTING the US Defense (War) budget by 50%!

Who doesn't! I suppose that 5% that earns enough never to be concerned about medical costs or retirement but despite the massive propaganda effort the large majority of Americans want a national health care service.

On the quick, in 3-4 years. I favor reducing the size of the Armed Forces of the United States by 1/3rd. By attrition. (We lose about 40% of the enlistees each year, which Is about 15% overall in the enlisted ranks).

That can be accomplished if basically all foreign bases are dismantled and all forward deployed formations withdrawn to the continental US. You can easily maintain the current ten division army and instead invest in quick deployment capacity for both the USN and USA.

I want to see our supercarrier fleet cut back to 4 or 5. Down from the current 12. We have 1 non-nuclear carrier in Japan (the Kitty Hawk), CV-63, the oldest now in service. The CVN-65 - Enterprise - and running up to CVN-76 - Reagan - and 1 more under construction, the CVN-77. Total 12 plus 1. Overkill!

Why? If your going to cut the only USN how can the US defend it's legitimate trade activities? I mean sure no one wants those one thousand bases all over the world but not even this proponent of disarmament would call for carriers to go unless they are to be replaced with similar force projection capabilities. If one's trade routes are attacked it only makes sense to have the means to launch conventional strikes against enemy airfields or cruise missile batteries.

Submarines. We have 18 Ohio class, 5 Virginia class, 3 Seawolf class and 45 Los Angeles class. Total, 71 subs. Note: each sub has 2 equal crews, the Gold and the Blue crew. 6 months on and 6 months off.

True and it does not make much sense to do it any other way given the overhead on these ships. Keeping them in the water is just about the smartest thing you can provide ,off course, that you have the infrastructure to get them out of port for six months of the year. As i remember of that 6 months 'on' ship only three months is spent on deployment with the majority of the other three months being the work up ( new crew members, training exercises in the month or so before deployment) and checks/maintenance. In the end even with two crews you have to run a good show to get a attack sub on station ( in all those far off deployments) for four months out of a year. I suppose this may be in part due to the inefficiency of the USN ( as compared to the RN and navies with generally older traditions) but there is only so much you can do safely when you can not retain personal...

We don’t NEED more than 21 subs.

Not for coastal self defense but certainly to keep all the sea lanes open in case some major player in the world ( to say nothing of a coalition) decides to intervene your going to need what the USN has and possibly more. The problem isn't that the USN or US armed forces have 'too much stuff' but that it's far too expensive for it's intended goals. Fifty odd attack subs in three Oceans means that even in wartime deployment configurations you can at best hope to have half on station at any one time provided no attrition or destruction of land based infrastructure. That isn't a whole lot ( half a dozen per ocean) and i wouldn't want to defend global economic empire with so little.

I’d scrap all but 6 of the Ohio and scrap all the Seawolf and Virginia class, and keep just 15 of the Los Angeles. 21 subs.
en.wikipedia.org...

I would reconfigure the Ohio's and make all of them cruise missile submarines ( currently four or four planned have been reconfigured and returned to service) thus retaining the hulls and making them 'useful' in a conventional war. I would retain the LA type boats and keep building more while starting a construction program to build as many diesel submarines as can assure coastal defense against submerged threats. These boats can basically serve to protect the coastline of both North and South America and ensure that sea lanes are not interrupted. I would again turn the USAF into a intercontinental bomber /continental defense force and turn all offensive operations over to the carrier arm which may be expanded ( more carriers) or just serve as platforms for fighter aircraft that can fly in support of the USAF bombers or coastal defense. I would never build a base on foreign soil unless the host government pays for all my costs involved ( unlikely but wars happen) and i would most certainly not do anything that could remotely be interpreted as imperialist.

I would have had a national ABM defense system with tens of thousands of dual use Sam's and ABM's that could have defended every city with enough people to miss as well as a smaller but mobile land based ICBM force that can not be defeated by any type of first or second strike.

If i did just some of that ( but mostly just ending pentagon corruption and military industrial complex theft) i could slash the Pentagon budget by 50% ( or more imo) while expanding it's manpower, available weapon systems and generally making it far more potent force.

Outside Europe and Japan, any politician who ran on a PEACE NOW ticket would be wiped out! Sorry about that.

The younger Bush did, so did Clinton and Reagan! People want PEACE NOW but all they got was no means of serious self defense which allowed the government the means to drive them into wars to 'prevent' the expansion of the supposed very nations that they were guaranteeing peace against. Fact is that the American people do want peace ( trough superior and more firepower) and they do not seem to mind too much paying for it.

It is a sad joke that all they got for the massive bill Is the current USN, USAF and US army. In my opinion your exceedingly lucky if you get what you pay for in this world.

So in closing ( to westpoint, westcoast and a few others) i have always tried to show that the American people got far less than what they believed they paid for and that they in fact could have gotten something truly awe inspiring that could have defeated the Vietnamese, the Koreans/Chinese despite the fact that American draftees didn't want to be there and that America as democratic nation had nothing to gain from being there.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX

Who doesn't! I suppose that 5% that earns enough never to be concerned about medical costs or retirement but despite the massive propaganda effort the large majority of Americans want a national health care service.

I’m reading Juan Williams book, “Enough: The Phony Leaders . . “ 2006, who said the top ONE PERCENT earn as much as the bottom 40%! He also said the top ONE PERCENT own property equal in value to the lower 90% of the population. With 14% capital gains tax, almost no estate tax and I heard a 5% tax on income earned outside the US, the rich no longer advocate for the FLAT TAX. They have it!

You can easily maintain the current ten division army and instead invest in quick deployment capacity for both the USN and USA.

I thought it was ten brigades and not divisions? Whatever Armed Forces we keep, they certainly need to be prepared for the kinds of conflict we are likely to be involved in. At that force level, I’d see the USMC about 50% the size of the Army, 5 brigades.

Why? If your going to cut the only USN how can the US defend it's legitimate trade activities?

And therein lies the crux of our current American empire. Long ago, perhaps by the War of 1812, we had hit on the notion of an economic domination of weaker nations and not a old style European empire form of control.

Let me recite that Haiti has been invaded by the US more than 6 times, and we occupied Haiti from 1918 until 1933. Yet it remains the poorest country in the Hemisphere, or so we “boast.”

Let me remind that we overthrew the only land reform government ever in Guatemala (1954) and since that time, 200,000 Guatemalans have been killed by the Right Wing Army we put into place and still oversee. We had Salvador Allende in Chile killed to avoid nationalization of Anaconda’s copper mines. And everyone saw what happened to a CIA stooge when he gets off the ranch, Manuel Noriega. We called him a president before he went on his own now we call him a dictator.

This is the problem in Iraq today. The Iraqis will not grant sweetheart concessions to ExxonMobil, TexacoChevron and ConcooPhillips. That is the price tag the US has put on our ending the occupation of their country. And for which ordinary folks have paid with 4,200 KIA. Thank you George Bush.

What you have labeled our “. . legitimate trade activities” I want to see us abandon that White Man’s Burden concept and treat all God’s Chil’uns as our equals. Note: "The White Man's Burden" is a poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. It was originally published in the popular magazine McClure's in 1899, with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_burden

. . not even this proponent of disarmament would call for carriers to go unless they are to be replaced with similar force projection capabilities. If one's trade routes are attacked it only makes sense to have the means to launch conventional strikes against enemy airfields or cruise missile batteries.

I think the USMC has a small fleet of troop carrying ships also fitted out with helicopter landing pads. There may also be some USMC ships capable of supporting a few Harrier jump-jets.

As of today as I write this, we need some aid to Arizona which is being invaded by drug cartel gangs. We are going to have to begin to treat Mexico as a partner and not as a servile “protectorate” if we are ever going to stop this madness called the War on Drugs. That was started by President Nixon in case you have forgotten.


[edit on 11/13/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by StellarX

[Submarines are needed if] Not for coastal self defense but certainly to keep all the sea lanes open in case some major player in the world ( to say nothing of a coalition) decides to intervene your going to need what the USN has and possibly more.

The only “enemy” coming at us from the sea lanes is coc aine from Columbia. Despite a declaration of War on Drugs in 1969, and more than 1 million Americans imprisoned on drug or drug related crimes, it seems the price of illicit drugs gets cheaper and the product is more plentiful.

As for the “keeping” the sea lanes open, don’t forget it equally important to the SELLER as it is to the BUYER to keep the sea lanes free and safe. This sounds more like a job for the top 20 import/export countries to work on themselves. Maybe a UN Open Seas force supported by a TAX on the tonnage of goods shipped?

America cannot afford to be the world’s policeman no matter how much about ½ of our population likes the machismo effect!

The problem isn't that the USN or US armed forces have 'too much stuff' but that it's far too expensive for it's intended goals. Fifty odd attack subs in three Oceans means that you can at best hope to have half on station at any one time provided no [major loss] of land based infrastructure. That isn't a whole lot (half a dozen per ocean) and I wouldn't want to defend global economic empire with so little.

That is THIN. Even at best. 3 in the North Atlantic. 3 in the South Atlantic. 3 in the North Pacific. 3 in the South Pacific. And so on in the Indian ocean and Arctic Ocean. Very thin cover indeed, but don’t we have surveillance satellites to supplement the subs limited “visibility?” Also, I was under the impression that each of our 5-6 Carrier Battle Groups include at least 1 sum and maybe 2.

We need help!

I would have had a national ABM defense system with tens of thousands of dual use Sam's and ABM's that could have defended every city with enough people to miss as well as a smaller but mobile land based ICBM force that can not be defeated by any type of first or second strike.

The RF has already warned Poland and the Czech Republic and warned the US yesterday NOT to do that. The IRAN ploy might work in W-DC but it won’t fly in Moscow. Our OLD COLD WARRIORS are gone bonkers but hopefully Obama can put them out to pasture. And $200b to $500 b. of boondoggle waste saved!

It is a sad joke that all they got for the massive [multi-trillion dollar Defense] bill Is the current USN, USAF and US Army. So in closing I have tried to show the American people got far less than what they believed they paid for . . could have [possibly] defeated the Vietnamese, the Koreans & Chinese despite the fact that American draftees didn't want to be there and that America as democratic nation had nothing to gain from being there.

Fact is that the American people do want peace (through superior and more [sophisticated] firepower) and they do not seem to mind too much paying for it. Stellar

You’re right on and “ . . do not seem to mind paying for It . . ” because no one in our country will explain to the people what they are giving up fo FEED this war monster. You KNOW the CIA lied to the US taxpaying public for at least 20 years over the relative strength (potential) of the USSR and the USA. The American public has been whipsawed by the MIC - Military Industrial Complex.

We prefer sophisticated cruise missiles to rudimentary suicide car bombs because it is not so much the killing per se as it is killing face to face we abhor. The more automated we make the killing machines, the less personal responsibility we feel or have.

It’s a deep secret but I’d guess the control center for all our UAV - Predators etc - in the region are controlled onboard an aircraft carrier parked in the Persian Gulf. It must be very hard to hit the intended target in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[edit on 11/13/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
I’m reading Juan Williams book, “Enough: The Phony Leaders . . “ 2006, who said the top ONE PERCENT earn as much as the bottom 40%! He also said the top ONE PERCENT own property equal in value to the lower 90% of the population. With 14% capital gains tax, almost no estate tax and I heard a 5% tax on income earned outside the US, the rich no longer advocate for the FLAT TAX. They have it!

I know. Tax rates on the rich were significantly higher earlier , and for most, of the twentieth century and certainly the Reagan and Clinton era reforms made the rich richer at a pace not seen since ( as i remember) the age of tycoons in the mid nineteenth century. It is interesting then that while some reactionaries in the 'liberal' , but strangely corporate owned, msm claims that socialism for the poor is on the rise when the only thing that seems to get handed out is tax breaks for those who have more houses than they know what to do with.

I thought it was ten brigades and not divisions? Whatever Armed Forces we keep, they certainly need to be prepared for the kinds of conflict we are likely to be involved in. At that force level, I’d see the USMC about 50% the size of the Army, 5 brigades.

1st Armored Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Infantry Division, 2nd Infantry Division,
3rd Infantry Division, 4th Infantry Division, 10th Mountain Division, 25th Infantry Division,
82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division.

Well there honestly isn't much you can do with a ten division if your going to keep the war conventional with the current limitations of the USAF. I agree that the USMC should be massively expanded if the US withdraws from all foreign bases. Obviously you need a specialized force that will create the bridgeheads from which any invasion force must fight.

And therein lies the crux of our current American empire. Long ago, perhaps by the War of 1812, we had hit on the notion of an economic domination of weaker nations and not a old style European empire form of control.

It was always the intent of the founding fathers to build a empire ( first continental obviously) worthy of their privileged station and the main problem of the time was the very strong empires that existed at the time. The US could barely defeat Britain while it was occupied in a continental war of epic proportions so that should give some idea of it's limitations.

Let me recite that Haiti has been invaded by the US more than 6 times, and we occupied Haiti from 1918 until 1933. Yet it remains the poorest country in the Hemisphere, or so we “boast.”

There are no surprises there for the few of us who had at some stage started reading books about empires now and then...

Let me remind that we overthrew the only land reform government ever in Guatemala (1954) and since that time, 200,000 Guatemalans have been killed by the Right Wing Army we put into place and still oversee. We had Salvador Allende in Chile killed to avoid nationalization of Anaconda’s copper mines. And everyone saw what happened to a CIA stooge when he gets off the ranch, Manuel Noriega. We called him a president before he went on his own now we call him a dictator.

Saddam Hussein is probably the best example of the lot given how his reign and overthrowing have now cost two million Iraqi lives. We should probably point out that by 'land reform' we mean that the people of that country were attempting to end modern feudalism in their country which then led to the direct involvement of the US national security state on behalf of the landed rich folk.

This is the problem in Iraq today. The Iraqis will not grant sweetheart concessions to ExxonMobil, TexacoChevron and ConcooPhillips. That is the price tag the US has put on our ending the occupation of their country. And for which ordinary folks have paid with 4,200 KIA. Thank you George Bush.

I will let Americans care about the 4200 killed in action ( and the few dozen thousand seriously wounded despite the best efforts of the occupation forces to hide in sprawling bases) and focus my concern for the million odd Iraqi's who's lives have been ended by this brutal conflict. Had the US forces patrolled the streets to preserve the peace ( as demanded of a occupation force under the Geneva conventions) it would have been more than 4200 killed but clearly 'hard' decisions are being made and Iraqi lives not counted.

What you have labeled our “. . legitimate trade activities” I want to see us abandon that White Man’s Burden concept and treat all God’s Chil’uns as our equals.

Don't we all. Fact is even the 'evil' US empire conducts legitimate trade that can and should be defended with or with attempts at empire. Being heavily armed and armored allows one the options to do ' the right thing' if that was ever part of the intent. Currently the US have no worthy defense against the primary threat of ICBM's/SLBM's and is thus in the classic imperial way 'forced' to invade entire countries to 'defend' itself. Obviously i believe this is why the US have no continental ABM defenses ( it's very cheap as compared to invasions) as it's government will then be largely robbed of it's 'excuses' to invade and butcher of false premises. At least these days the 'enemies' must be accused of having nuclear weapons where some decades ago you just invaded them based on the premise that 'communism' was 'expanding'.

Note: "The White Man's Burden" is a poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. It was originally published in the popular magazine McClure's in 1899, with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_burden

Yes and we all know the fate of the Filipino's under US imperial rule. To be most accurate we should say the burden of the poor whites who are forced under arms when they have been taxed into poverty to maintain all those imperial 'possesions' that makes empire no burden at all on the backs of that 1-5%.

I think the USMC has a small fleet of troop carrying ships also fitted out with helicopter landing pads. There may also be some USMC ships capable of supporting a few Harrier jump-jets

It's not 'small' by comparative standards but it would be vastly expanded under my 'plan'. .

As of today as I write this, we need some aid to Arizona which is being invaded by drug cartel gangs. We are going to have to begin to treat Mexico as a partner and not as a servile “protectorate” if we are ever going to stop this madness called the War on Drugs. That was started by President Nixon in case you have forgotten.

Why bother? Let people use whatever drugs they want? I mean if you let all the cartels in or start selling it at Walmart i can assure you the prices would drop so far so fast that it would be better money to actually work at Walmart..... The war on drugs must be fought not to stop the drug trade but to ensure that the pressure and perception is enough to make prices high and jail terms very long to best enrich CIA ( or should i say Wall street) and kill off those who aren't in their drug rings.

Originally posted by donwhite
The only “enemy” coming at us from the sea lanes is coc aine from Columbia. Despite a declaration of War on Drugs in 1969, and more than 1 million Americans imprisoned on drug or drug related crimes, it seems the price of illicit drugs gets cheaper and the product is more plentiful.

The price is getting cheaper because the CIA has mostly failed to reduce the supply they wish to control. This is a war they never intended to win completely but as far as i can tell they are doing what they can to control as much of it as they can.

As for the “keeping” the sea lanes open, don’t forget it equally important to the SELLER as it is to the BUYER to keep the sea lanes free and safe. This sounds more like a job for the top 20 import/export countries to work on themselves. Maybe a UN Open Seas force supported by a TAX on the tonnage of goods shipped?

Well yes and no. In my opinion the thing to understand here is that having such a large naval and imperial presence is basically a vast import subsidy on corporations to allow them to best manufacture goods cheaply elsewhere and then sell them to the wealthiest consumers ( who will pay the most) in Europe and the US. It can certainly be argued that exporting nations should share in this cost but for most of them it would make far more sense to invest that money in their own consumers thus negating the need for foreign one's. I suppose the UNOSF might/will come to pass but i wonder if it's intent would be much other than protecting corporate profit as is the current role of the USN. In my design the USN would be funded to fulfill it's design strategy of protecting legitimate US trade and national interest ( as decided by the American public in a senate and house where the people are actually represented) against those who would attempt to disrupt it.

America cannot afford to be the world’s policeman no matter how much about ½ of our population likes the machismo effect!

Well it's more like one in five voters but either way it's not surprising given how the public is indoctrinated to believe that force is the only method to survive in this 'capitalist' world. I suppose their daily experiences of being treated like second class citizens at corporations will reinforce the view that might pretty much makes right.

Continued

That is THIN. Even at best. 3 in the North Atlantic. 3 in the South Atlantic. 3 in the North Pacific. 3 in the South Pacific. And so on in the Indian ocean and Arctic Ocean. Very thin cover indeed, but don’t we have surveillance satellites to supplement the subs limited “visibility?” Also, I was under the impression that each of our 5-6 Carrier Battle Groups include at least 1 sum and maybe 2.

Well surveillance satellites are the stuff of popular mythology in that one can see everything and hear about as much. I suppose it could be that way but for whatever reasons it just ain't; i have my ideas on this and lets just say it involves that other superpower you don't consider one.

We need help!

It's not THAT bad. What i am trying to suggest here is that getting far more bang for the buck wont be hard to do given a change in doctrine to world war fighting instead of terrorizing/policing for corporate profit without a public mandate.

The RF has already warned Poland and the Czech Republic and warned the US yesterday NOT to do that.

And they can afford to make warnings and threats because they have a national ABM missile defense force numbering in the thousands of missiles ready to fire. When you can defend yourself against all but a all out US land based ICBM attack ( and possibly even that) then i suppose you can intervene when a apparently sworn enemy wants to install their first missiles on your border...

e The IRAN ploy might work in W-DC but it won’t fly in Moscow. Our OLD COLD WARRIORS are gone bonkers but hopefully Obama can put them out to pasture. And $200b to $500 b. of boondoggle waste saved!

Well the need some type of excuse to start catching up to the Russians but the Russians aren't going to let it happen without seeking retribution eslewhere. Obama isn't going to put the cold warriors out the pasture because he will need them ( or very similar types) to fill his cabinet positions. Obama will slowly denounce the promises he made to the American public in the same way he denounced his pastor ( whom he pretend to respect to get the god vote) when the pastors rather accurate claims about white American imperialist started making national headlines.

You’re right on and “ . . do not seem to mind paying for It . . ” because no one in our country will explain to the people what they are giving up fo FEED this war monster.

Well i am partly in that the American public don't really know what they are getting for all the money spent and have relatively consistently tried to reduce spending where the MSM told them it would be wasted. These programs where obviously those who could best provide a reliable defense at home without having to send Gi's to foreign lands but i suppose at this time you see where i am going with this.

You KNOW the CIA lied to the US taxpaying public for at least 20 years over the relative strength (potential) of the USSR and the USA. The American public has been whipsawed by the MIC - Military Industrial Complex.

Indeed! When the USSR would have been devastated to receding degrees of pulp in the forties to mid 70's it was mostly painted as supremely potent to best maintain spending at a time when the American public wanted nothing of it.When the USSR emerged by the mid 70's to rival US strategic potential it apparently suited some equally powerful powers in the US to start undermining the perception of Russian strength thus allowing the USSR to gain such a massive advantage by the late 80's that it could relinquish it's continental empire safe in the knowledge that it no longer needed the buffer zone and could better apply the resources at home.

We prefer sophisticated cruise missiles to rudimentary suicide car bombs because it is not so much the killing per se as it is killing face to face we abhor.

"We' do not but if you want to wage illegal wars mostly without public support and or backing you HAVE to use standoff weaponry that can kill without endangering your forces too seriously. This is the main reason why the Pentagon budget keeps growing while the actual power of the US armed forces consistently declines. Those nations who prepare to fight popular wars against foreign aggressors need not concern themselves with bankrupting their nations to save a lives as lives will be willingly given in national self defense. This is very much the reason why the Vietnamese could largely defeat the US forces in Vietnam and why Chinese soldiers armed with little but heavy/light automatic weapons and mortars could force the US army to retreat further than than it ever had to before. Declining to fight in close quarters may not be a admission of defeat but it does show that your commitment to the cause isn't as great as those who will.

The more automated we make the killing machines, the less personal responsibility we feel or have.

And the less effective the seem to become at achieving the goals we set out to. I suppose it would make far more sense to be able to patrol all of iraq with walking and or flying robotic forces but you would still need the capacity to identify and subsequently capture those who attack these forces. As for the personal responsibility that again is something that i believe have most to do with fighting for a justifiable cause. Obviously American soldiers are going to suffer from emotional trauma having discovered that there are fighting not only a lost cause but for ideals the Iraqi public never voted on. Sure Iraqi's want to be 'free' from tyranny but not at the cost of millions of lives and the total devastation of the infrastructure that they might not be able to rebuild for decades to come given the flight of educated Iraqi's.

It’s a deep secret but I’d guess the control center for all our UAV - Predators etc - in the region are controlled onboard an aircraft carrier parked in the Persian Gulf. It must be very hard to hit the intended target in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

As far as i understand it's publicly disclosed that they are flown from air force bases back in the US or from mobile bases in Iraq. I don't see how it makes sense to operate such a force from a aircraft carrier... As for it being hard to hit the intended target from a platform that can loiter for half a day or more well no, it's easy as compared to a manned platform where the same authority to bomb must be gotten with a much smaller loitering envelope....

Stellar


[edit on 18-11-2008 by StellarX]

reply to post by StellarX

Who doesn't! I suppose that 5% that earns enough never to be concerned about medical costs or retirement but despite the massive propaganda effort the large majority of Americans want a national health care service.

The LAST war we indulged ended in 1989-1991. We’re not sure exactly when but it was in that time frame. The mislabeled fiasco on-going today since the Nine Eleven Event that is touted by the Bush-ite Neo Cons as the ‘War on Terror’ is not a real war. It is a propaganda scheme to support MIRC - the Military Industrial Republican Complex. The sooner we SOBER UP and end this waste of time, manpower and money the better off we’ll all be.

We can then devote a large part of the unimaginable waste that passes for the defense budget to fund all those things we really need, such as rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our K12 education system and providing affordable health care for 100% of our citizens (and guest workers, too).

The last year’s Defense budget was $550 b. Before Iraq and Afghan were funded at about $10 b. a month. Add another $120 b. The VA needs $55 b. a year per the DAV. It’s not getting it but what the hey, WE CLAIM WE LOVE OUR VETERANS BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT’S A LIE. We send them to Walter Reed etc.

The Defense budget represents 75% of the discretionary budget. The entitlement part is still running in the BLACK. Therefore 75% of the $350 b. a year we pay in interest on the national debt is Defense budget shortfalls. Add $260 b. to the cost of what we have euphemistically called “defense” since George Orwell explained New Speak to us in his book, “1984.” Total outlay per year for Defense: $550 + $120 + $55 + $260 = $885 billion a year!

WHY?

After the United States, the ten most powerful countries in the world are: 1) China; 2) Germany; 3) United Kingdom; 4) France; 5) Russian Federation; 6) Brazil; 7) Japan; 8) Canada; 9) Israel; and 10) Pakistan.

Q. Which one of those countries poses a REAL threat to the United States in any way, shape or form that would require a military response on our part?

Why? If your going to cut the only USN how can the US defend it's legitimate trade activities? I mean sure no one wants those one thousand bases all over the world but not even this proponent of disarmament would call for carriers to go unless they are to be replaced with similar force projection capabilities. If one's trade routes are attacked it only makes sense to have the means to launch conventional strikes against enemy airfields or cruise missile batteries.

Just look at what you have said. “ . . legitimate trade activities . . force projection capabilities . . launch conventional strikes against enemy . . “

1) This is the real crux. What we call “legitimate trade activities” other call colonialism, exploitation, or extortion. In our worst case, we have overseen the killing of 200,000 people in Guatemala since 1954 to protect our banana growers. We are still punishing the people of Cuba because of the American Sugar Refining Company property seized by Cuba in 1959. What American like to call “legitimate” trade means something entirely different every where but here. We orchestrated the murder of President Allende of Chile when he threatened to nationalize the Anaconda Company’s copper mines. We have imprisoned Manual Noriega as an example to all the other toy dictators we like to address as president when doing out bidding but dictators when getting off the ranch. We are currently pressuring the president of Bolivar to conform to our economic interests there in natural gas. And etc.

2) force projection. Reverend Wright was correct when he said America is the LARGEST exporter of terrorism in the world. But we will hear none of that! Down with Rev. Wright! Slandering us. Who does he think he is? We ignore our history of sending the US Marines into Nicaragua 4 times, Haiti 6 times and occupying Haiti from 1918 to 1933, and its still the poorest country in the Hemisphere.

3) Launch conventional strikes. We sent 10,000 soldiers into Russia in 1918-1920 to put down the Bolshevik revolt. Along with 1000s of solders from the UK, France and Japan. Why would Stalin not mistrust the US? He’d be a fool not to. We waged war on him! And never said so much as a “Fare thee well” when we departed, defeated. We don’t much about wars we lose.

We are still paying the price for our overthrow of the socialist government of Iran in 1953. We have backed any murderer in the world who does our bidding. Did not Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of Ronald Reagan supply war materials and satellite intel to Iraq under Saddam Hussein when in a war of aggression against Iran? Why would not Iranians mistrust and HATE America? I mean, when are we going to wise up and look at ourselves in REAL life?

We are so wrapped up in the propaganda we get every day I do not know if there is any hope for improving our foreign relations. Certainly not as long as US foreign policy is dictated by corporate interest alone. Which I reluctantly admit has been the case since James Monroe was president. Without interruption but times have changed. Soon anyone can have an atom bomb thanks 99% to the United States. And one day some aggrieved person will plant one in the top of the Washington Monument and set it off on July 4. A perverse form of justice?

reply to post by StellarX

. . but to keep all the sea lanes open in case some major player in the world (to say nothing of a coalition) you’re going to need what the USN has and possibly more. The problem isn't that the USN have 'too much stuff' but that it's far too expensive for it's intended goals.

Fifty attack subs in 3 oceans mean that even in wartime deployment configurations you can at best hope to have half on station at any one time provided no destruction of land based infrastructure. That isn't a whole lot (a half dozen per ocean) and I wouldn't want to defend [a] global economic empire with so little.

Again, please allow me to reconstruct your bottom line position thus: “ . . some major player . . decides to intervene . . what the USN has . . it's far too expensive for it's intended goals. Fifty attack subs in 3 oceans mean . . you can at best hope to have a half dozen per ocean . . to defend [a] global economic empire . . “

What country will be that major player? Refer to my earlier post of the 10 most powerful countries after the US. Our trade with China which gets the most attention amounts to about 20% of our total foreign trade. Our largest (measured by dollar value) trading partner is Canada. Mexico is No. 3 after China.

I take the position that no nation currently has or could reasonably be projected to have either the immediate NEED OF or the long term CAPABILITY TO interfere with OUR trade with any of our 3 largest trading partners. Canada, China and Mexico.

Indian Ocean. Disregarding the pirates of the Southeast Asian archipelago and the pirates plying their trade off the Horn of East Africa, there just aren’t any real or perceived enemies out there. We could stop the pirates if we wanted but for some reason not readily apparent to me, we don’t engage the pirates. A UN “Sea Security Force” would be ideal to keep the Indian Ocean free of pirates and open to sea traffic. The cost could be spread among the users by levying a tax per ton on freight hauled into or out of the Indian Ocean. Let the users pay.

Atlantic Ocean. No visible threats to trade anywhere.

Pacific Ocean. No visible threats to trade anywhere.

That leaves only the Mediterranean Sea as a potentional site for any kind of interference with sea borne trade between countries and that is so remote I’m almost embarrassed to bring it up.

My bottom line is the only present or projected sea borne threat is posed by a few wildcat pirates in the Indian Ocean which could be stopped in a few days with a well coordinated robust effort by the multi-national naval forces already in or near the two regions. India is said to have sunk the “mother” ship of Somali pirates 2-3 days ago. A check on recent bank deposits of Somali war lords, send in the US Marines and the Royal Marines, arrest and detain those people incommunicado in a remote Guantanamo Bay type camp until the issues are worked out. End of pirates.

The problem isn't that the USN or US armed forces have 'too much stuff' but that it's far too expensive for it's intended goals. Fifty odd attack subs in three Oceans means that even in wartime deployment configurations you can at best hope to have half on station at any one time provided no attrition or destruction of land based infrastructure. That isn't a whole lot (half a dozen per ocean) and I wouldn't want to defend global economic empire with so little.

I would turn the USAF into a intercontinental bomber defense force . . turn all offensive operations over to the carrier arm which may be expanded (more carriers) or serve as platforms for fighter aircraft that can fly in support of the USAF bombers or coastal defense.

I would most certainly not do anything that could remotely be interpreted as imperialist.

Almost everything we do commercially speaking, is imperialistic. We started with Hawaii in the 1890s and have never stopped. I feel I can safely say we have NO bi-lateral treaties that were negotiated by parties of equal standing. Well, we do have some but only with WHITE nations. Any nation of color has seen its government first subverted by bribes and then the lackeys have betrayed the nation’s scant resources into the exploitive hands of a few large American corporations. And we gladly send American boys over there to DIE to protect those shareholders. Wow!

Osama bin Laden has tried to explain that to Americans but no one wants to listen. Fidel Castro has tried for 59 years without results. Hugo Chavez is trying now but gets nowhere fast when talking to Americans about our bad habits. It is our form of imperialism that causes 80% of the people of the world to HATE America.

I would have had a national ABM defense system with tens of thousands of dual use Sam's and ABM's that could have defended every city with enough people to miss as well as a smaller but mobile land based ICBM force that can not be defeated by any type of first or second strike. Fact is that the American people do want peace (through superior firepower) and they do not seem to mind too much paying for it.

Sweet Jesus! The Russians have already said NO to this act of supreme fiscal irresponsibility and military folly. Thank you Lord, that someone in power somewhere has what we used to call GUMPTION. Between Russia, China and the EU, America may yet regain its sense of balance we lost in the 1980s.

The American people . . could have gotten [weapons] truly awe inspiring that could have defeated the Vietnamese, the Koreans [and the] Chinese despite the fact that American draftees didn't want to be there and that America as democratic nation had nothing to gain from being there. Stellar

We accomplished our legal (and political) goal in Korea. That has to be counted as a WIN. We failed in Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh was the irrepressible leader of a determined country full of patriots. “Expel the foreigners” was his mantra. Not anything we did or did not do would have changed the outcome. We have to count that as a LOSS. China’s Army is for keeping internal order and the Chinese Communist Party in power. And that only until they die off. I’d say the CCP will be history by 2020. Which does not mean I think China will be a BLUE state either. But neither will it any longer be RED.


[edit on 11/24/2008 by donwhite]

Strange game you - the Americans.
One thing I can say for sure if you're not going to attack, you will not lose. But if the attacks, it is unlikely to return at least one of the attackers.
The same applies to our side.
And you have a strange assessment of military capabilities ... Germans, French, the Mongols, the Romans - is also thinking on similar topics ... thought probably not too bad ... but Russia is still there.

and by the way, if anyone has a problem with the reality of 1941-1945, I advise you to go here www.pobediteli.ru...

reply to post by vedemir


Vedemir...

You DO realise you just bumped a thread that is 2 years old?