What we support and defend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

True -- but that's when WW II was 'decided.'

---

In the American world view ... because they showed up too late to play a role in the widely recognized turning point battles...

Quote:

---

;)Uh, no. That's rather incorrect...

The US had adopted the 90mm as Standard A in late 1943, production started on the 90 mm M3 towed antitank gun, on the M36 Tank Destroyer and on the M24 Tank.

---

Aside from the M24 being equipped with a 76 mm* (based very much on the first quick-firing gun ever; a rather weak calibre comparable to the T-34 M1940's gun) and 90 mm guns playing no role in U.S. WW2 mediums, I think you read a bit more into "insistence" than I meant to.
The U.S. kept 76 mm as a calibre in the M41 and in some post-war prototypes, and the ~76 mm-equipped Shermans were the almost exclusive medium tank of the U.S. until the Korean War wartime production mode kicked in.

*: I think you meant M26, which saw WW2 only in prototype-like quantities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Yes, the British dealt with each in curiously similar ways, we left Palestine after a rather grim attempt to "keep the peace" between Arab and Jew; in Rhodesia we left the population to resolve "majority rule" themselves - which they did bloodily - and not to overlook Rhodesia was a self-governing colony.

You could add Ireland too; with the dispute over the Protestant minority wishing to remain British in Northern Ireland after Ireland achieved independence. This time we fought several campaigns, the longest being 1969-1998 'The Troubles', until the communities were able to make a compromise that gave peace (very short summary).

---

You might also cite Australia, new Zealand, and Canada as cases where "settler colonialism" made an orderly transition to independence. One lesson that a historian might deduce is that orderly transition is easier when the indigenous population is either exterminated or utterly marginalized. That's not a guarantee of orderly transition (didn't work with the US) but it seems conducive to orderly transition.

Fortunately settler colonialism is no longer in vogue, so there's nobody left to apply that particular lesson!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

You might also cite Australia, new Zealand, and Canada as cases where "settler colonialism" made an orderly transition to independence. One lesson that a historian might deduce is that orderly transition is easier when the indigenous population is either exterminated or utterly marginalized. That's not a guarantee of orderly transition (didn't work with the US) but it seems conducive to orderly transition.

---

but in my view there has been a real effort by the Canadian federal government to not marginalize native peoples (4% of their population, which to me as someone who grew up in a native community in the States seems like a relatively large percentage). Nunavut is something of an experiment in indigenous self-rule, and in 2008 Stephen Harper (of all people!) made what I felt was a substantive and non-pandering public apology for the Canadian residential school policy. The idea that there are and will continue to be different kinds of Canadians is central to contemporary confederation. Part of the work of Canadian governance is dealing with the legacy of not just one but rather two settler societies. There have been some less–than–orderly patches to navigate related to that fact more recently than a lot of Americans may realize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Too bad life forces you to make decisions about things before they become certain. Because often when things become certain it is too late to do anything about it.

---

That's a poor reason to bankrupt yourself over a distant hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

And if you really wanted to hurt us, hitting those planes out over the ocean where they would be hard to protect might be a good way to do it. If little ol' me can figure that, the rest of the world figured it long ago. So if they thunk it, it might be wise to think about how to counter it. That is called looking ahead and being prepared by me. You, I know, call it something different.

---

The rest of the world also knows that we have asymmetrical options at hand that do not require direct threat-to-threat engagement. We can, for example, cut off the economic lifeline of the offending party without coming anywhere near the effective range of their military forces. Why would you prepare to fight someone where they are strongest when you can fight them where they are weak? Unless, of course, you need to justify spending a whole lot of money.

Of course once you start with the premise that China is our enemy and we must prepare to fight them, you automatically bias yourself in a certain direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

There are only 183 or so F-22s. The line is closed. There won't be any more. In a serious conflict with a big nation, 183 of anything won't be enough. 183 St. Michaels complete with flaming sacred swords wouldn't be enough.

---

There are only 2 J-20s, of uncertain capability. We don't even have an accurate assessment of where that program really is, what bugs and problems it's encountered, etc... "we" meaning you and I, that is, I expect some others on our side know a lot more about that than we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

What convinces me that the situation can only be handled with large numbers of superior fighters? Well, it won't be because we won't have large numbers of superior fighters. We'll have to figure another way if we can, which was the point of my idea (horribly bad as it was, see WM's opinion above). But as far as large numbers of superior fighters handling such situations goes...let's see 1914 was when airplanes started shooting at each other and that's been...98 years of aviation history convinces me that large numbers of superior fighters are good for handling such situations.

---

Look at the state of our economy, our public sector deficit, and the cost of large numbers of superior fighters, and recall that these are known factors, not hypotheticals. Do those realities convince you of anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

I don't assume we have no spy capability whatever. I just assume that what we do have is, in total, inferior.

---

Basis for that assumption?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Your nervous about that and I'm nervous when people are cocksure about what the other guy can't do. Together our neurotic concerns cover all there is to worry about.

---

You're worried about something that might happen in the future based on certain assumptions. I'm worried about the present reality of what we can and cannot afford to spend. There's a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

If you remember that then you also remember that the USAF always used F-15s as the primary air to air fighters. F-16s were used to supplement when needed but were/are primarily bombers. The F-35 will not be a top flight fighter because it was doesn't have the flight performance needed and it doesn't have the flight performance needed because it is designed primarily to be a light bomber. I thought I already said that.

---

Yes, you did say it. I'm just not convinced that it's an accurate statement.

What is it, exactly, that you propose to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

but in my view there has been a real effort by the Canadian federal government to not marginalize native peoples (4% of their population, which to me as someone who grew up in a native community in the States seems like a relatively large percentage).

---

Some people I know would argue over the extent and sincerity of that effort. I'd be more inclined to point out that the effort came well after the orderly transition, and that it's mostly an attempt to compensate for and potentially reverse the marginalization of the past.

How much influence did indigenous people have over Canada's current political structure and its relationship with its former colonial master?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Some people I know would argue over the extent and sincerity of that effort. I'd be more inclined to point out that the effort came well after the orderly transition, and that it's mostly an attempt to compensate for and potentially reverse the marginalization of the past.

How much influence did indigenous people have over Canada's current political structure and its relationship with its former colonial master?

---

I know less about how natives shaped Canada than I do about the shape of the relationships between the various parties to Canadian governance and individual First Nations. Indigenous affairs are on a nation-to-nation basis in Canada with the monarch as intermediary. A non-trivial quirk: Canadian federalism works in such a way that the Crown is so-to-speak “divided” amongst the provinces. You have issues stemming from nations within (or is it surrounded by?) a larger nation, including but not limited to issues of citizenship. You have other issues, too, of course…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

That's a poor reason to bankrupt yourself over a distant hypothesis.

---

Or it is a good reason to name the first chapter of a history of some possible future, hopefully never fought, war "How we lost before it started."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

The rest of the world also knows that we have asymmetrical options at hand that do not require direct threat-to-threat engagement. We can, for example, cut off the economic lifeline of the offending party without coming anywhere near the effective range of their military forces. Why would you prepare to fight someone where they are strongest when you can fight them where they are weak? Unless, of course, you need to justify spending a whole lot of money.

---

You're right. Why, I hadn't thought of that. We do what you suggest and just give up supplying various islands by air until the Red Chinese cry uncle. Or better yet, we move Guam about a thousand miles to the east and after the Red Chinese say "I give", we can move it back again. They'll never expect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Of course once you start with the premise that China is our enemy and we must prepare to fight them, you automatically bias yourself in a certain direction.

---

Or you can bias yourself in the other direction, and be certain that if the time ever came, we weren't prepared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

There are only 2 J-20s, of uncertain capability. We don't even have an accurate assessment of where that program really is, what bugs and problems it's encountered, etc... "we" meaning you and I, that is, I expect some others on our side know a lot more about that than we do.

---

How many times do I have to explain that I am not talking about today, I am talking about 6-8-10 years in the future. I expect there will be a few more by then.

You go right ahead and believe the crafty powers that be on our side actually know a lot about what the Red Chinese are up to. I stopped believing completely they know much about anything right after I finished reading "Blind into Baghdad."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Look at the state of our economy, our public sector deficit, and the cost of large numbers of superior fighters, and recall that these are known factors, not hypotheticals. Do those realities convince you of anything?

---

The reality I'm convinced of is you ignore the substance of a question and answer in order to do some preaching. You asked "What convinces you that such a situation can only be managed through deployment of large numbers of fighters that are superior to what you imagine the J-20 to be?" I answered "Well, it won't be because we won't have large numbers of superior fighters." I then followed that up with the observation that "...98 years of aviation history convinces me that large numbers of superior fighters are good for handling such situations."

But if that isn't a good springboard for a preach, "You go ahead and do what you think is best Ned." (1000 points that can be exchanged for nothing to whomever knows what movie that line is from.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Basis for that assumption?

---

How about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction for a starter. All those bombers and missiles we thought the Soviets had. Surprise! India just tested a nuke. Basically, history. But I already said that. "You go ahead and do what you think is best Ned."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

You're worried about something that might happen in the future based on certain assumptions. I'm worried about the present reality of what we can and cannot afford to spend. There's a difference.

---

Geesh guy. Lighten up. I write a throwaway line in order to get a small laugh (I thought it was funny). You respond with an arch comment about a "difference." Has it been raining a lot where you are? A lot of rain always gets to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Yes, you did say it. I'm just not convinced that it's an accurate statement.

---

Oh, okay. Well can't do much about that. Mach numbers are mach numbers and height capability is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

What is it, exactly, that you propose to do?

---

Go back and read all that I've written on this thread and the South China Sea one for an answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

The 4% = Canada's "Total Aboriginal identity population" of 1,172,790. That breaks out to:

"North American Indian single response" of 698,025;

"Metis single response" of 389,785;

"Inuit single response" of 50,480;

"Multiple Aboriginal identity responses" of 7,740;

"Aboriginal responses not included elsewhere" of 26,760.

Source: Statistics Canada.

The two major groupings, "North American Indian" and "Metis", are treated differently legally. Within the "North American Indian" grouping, there are "registered" ("status") and "non-registered" ("non-status") Indians - with very, very different rights under the Indian Act (Wiki; Text of Act), especially the 1985 C-31 Amendment (from the Wiki):

Quote:

---

Under this amendment, full status Indians are referred to as 6–1. A child of a marriage between a status (6–1) person and a non-status person qualifies for 6–2 (half) status, but if the child in turn married another 6–2 or a non-status person, the child is non-status. If a 6–2 marries a 6–1 or another 6–2, the children revert to 6–1 status. Blood quantum is disregarded, or rather, replaced with a "two generation cut-off clause". ... According to Thomas King, around half of status Indians are currently marrying non-status people, meaning this legislation accomplishes complete legal assimilation in a matter of a few generations.

---

Thomas King, The Truth about Stories (2003).

In practical Canadian politics (where votes in the Commons count - and the Crown don't), Labrador has one Innu (not Inuit), Peter Penashue (Conservative); and Quebec, an Innu, Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (NDP) and a Cree, Romeo Saganash (NDP). Canadian "North American Indian" politics are scarcely a monolith.

Is the view better looking from Turtle Mountain to north of the border - or, vice versa - or, are both views equally clouded in different ways ? Bonita Lawrence (a Mi’kmaw) sees both the US and Canadian systems as part of the same problem:

Quote:

---

Abstract

The regulation of Native identity has been central to the colonization process in both Canada and the United States. Systems of classification and control enable settler governments to define who is "Indian," and control access to Native land. These regulatory systems have forcibly supplanted traditional Indigenous ways of identifying the self in relation to land and community, functioning discursively to naturalize colonial worldviews. Decolonization, then, must involve deconstructing and reshaping how we understand Indigenous identity.

---

Gender, Race, and the Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the United States: An Overview (2003).

Of course, to realize Ms Lawrence's "decolonization" (by political means), you have to have the votes in "Commons".

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

In the American world view ... because they showed up too late to play a role in the widely recognized turning point battles...

---

Which, aside from Kursk was really what? :wry:

Quote:

---

Aside from the M24 being equipped with a 76 mm* (based very much on the first quick-firing gun ever; a rather weak calibre comparable to the T-34 M1940's gun) and 90 mm guns playing no role in U.S. WW2 mediums, I think you read a bit more into "insistence" than I meant to.
The U.S. kept 76 mm as a calibre in the M41 and in some post-war prototypes, and the ~76 mm-equipped Shermans were the almost exclusive medium tank of the U.S. until the Korean War wartime production mode kicked in.

]*: I think you meant M26, which saw WW2 only in prototype-like quantities.

---

I did indeed mean the M26 -- that should also have been M26 and M46 with reference to Korea.. I'm old... :D

The M26 was indeed only in theater in small quantities but it did see combat and was headed for major production runs when the war ended and Congress stopped the procurement

The M24 didn't have a 76, it had a 75. The M41 did have a 76 but both were light tanks, scouting tanks to some and were not intended to engage other nations main battle tanks -- that was the job of the M26, 46, 47,(90s) 48, 60 (90 / 105) and 1 (105 / 120). We both agree that the Sherman was the principal de facto US tank until mid 1952 -- but that was because there was no war and, in the view of Congress, no need to produce more powerful tanks until then. Korea obviously changed that but still, once again, the US Army went to war with obsolete gear from the last war. My point was and is that is true but it was NOT because the Army wanted it that way and no one was stupid about it -- except Congress.

Nothing new in that.

I, for one, enjoyed flipping the turrets off of all of those little tanks with 105s and 152s (M60A1s and A2s) at Hohenfels.

Another Old Guy, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

The two major groupings, "North American Indian" and "Metis", are treated differently legally. Within the "North American Indian" grouping, there are "registered" ("status") and "non-registered" ("non-status") Indians - with very, very different rights under the Indian Act (Wiki; Text of Act), especially the 1985 C-31 Amendment (from the Wiki):

---

My friend Sarah’s dissertation gets into the whys and hows of some of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

In practical Canadian politics (where votes in the Commons count - and the Crown don't), Labrador has one Innu (not Inuit), Peter Penashue (Conservative); and Quebec, an Innu, Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (NDP) and a Cree, Romeo Saganash (NDP).

---

Canadian electoral politics are only one aspect of native affairs, of course. And the Crown does have a dog in the broader fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

Labrador has one Innu (not Inuit)

---

Just say Montagnais. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

Is the view better looking from Turtle Mountain to north of the border - or, vice versa - or, are both views equally clouded in different ways ? Bonita Lawrence (a Mi’kmaw) sees both the US and Canadian systems as part of the same problem:

---

The situations are homologous, with roots in British colonial policy. As is the existence of the FATA in Pakistan, amongst others.

Montagnais excludes Naskapi. So, Innu is the more accurate term.

Admittedly, such issues are often more theoretical than real (as are many of the issues we "support and defend"). A Turtle Mountaineer might well say (cuz some have): Go north of the border and you're a Metis. Come back to Turtle Mountain and you're an Ojibwe.

And, human nature and "somebodies" being what they are, we even find allegations of corruption in Innuland (Nitassinan) - link and link.

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Planner

I, for one, enjoyed flipping the turrets off of all of those little tanks with 105s and 152s (M60A1s and A2s) at Hohenfels.

Another Old Guy, I guess.

---

How you think an M4A3E8 Gunner and an M41 TC feel... :o

Not long before I retired, I was a Controller in an exercise and watched one 60A2 knock out two platoons of A1s (with MILES, of course)... :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Which, aside from Kursk was really what? :wry:

---

Turning points of European WW2:

El Alamein for Commonwealth guys.
D-Day for Americans.
Stalingrad for everyone else.


The war was lost by Germany by late '41, though.
Almost nobody is going to discuss the loss of motor vehicles and quality horses in fall '41 as the final failure that made defeat inevitable, that's too complicated. Most people prefer simple battles (symptoms) as turning point markers.




Fig leaf for on-topic-ness:

The U.S. military expanded, and I see a couple main reasons for why it's not going to shrink to anything similar as envisioned 200+ years anytime soon:
(1) A childish belief that you can go to a war of choice and be better off afterwards than you would be without

(2) An exaggerated intolerance for distant phenomenons (no matter what size; only a handful distant phenomenons have the attention, and it's about the same attention no matter Red Army or a bunch of guys with fertiliser bombs)

(3) Bureaucratic self-preservation instinct

(4) Congressional corruption of the system (exploitation of budgets as a means to funnel money to the own district/state and donors)

(5) True conservatism that prefers the status quo over the experiment of not getting involved in so much (coupled with wild fantasies about the indispensability of U.S. military power)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Or it is a good reason to name the first chapter of a history of some possible future, hopefully never fought, war "How we lost before it started."

You're right. Why, I hadn't thought of that. We do what you suggest and just give up supplying various islands by air until the Red Chinese cry uncle. Or better yet, we move Guam about a thousand miles to the east and after the Red Chinese say "I give", we can move it back again. They'll never expect that.

---

Have you forgotten, or do you choose to ignore, the place that deterrence has in this calculation? The point is not to prepare to counter any possible move a hypothetical antagonist might make, that is the way to insanity and bankruptcy. You have to ensure that the hypothetical antagonist has more to lose than to gain from starting anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Or you can bias yourself in the other direction, and be certain that if the time ever came, we weren't prepared.

---

Do you propose to prepare for every conceivable eventuality, no matter how improbable? That's going to be quite a task, given the budgetary realities involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

How many times do I have to explain that I am not talking about today, I am talking about 6-8-10 years in the future. I expect there will be a few more by then.

---

There would have to be a whole lot more, and a fairly rarefied chain of events that would offer numerous opportunities for preemption and intervention, for what you fear to come to pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

You go right ahead and believe the crafty powers that be on our side actually know a lot about what the Red Chinese are up to. I stopped believing completely they know much about anything right after I finished reading "Blind into Baghdad."

---

Of course there's a lot we don't know, though of course as well most of what we do know isn't going to be revealed. there's also a lot they don't know. They don't know, for example, how we might respond to a whole range of eventualities. They can't possibly know, because we don't even know. Strategic ambiguity is a useful thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Oh, okay. Well can't do much about that. Mach numbers are mach numbers and height capability is what it is.

---

The article previously referenced made the point that the performance of individual aircraft is only one part of what makes something effective: we don't do WW2-style dogfights any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Go back and read all that I've written on this thread and the South China Sea one for an answer. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

---

I have seen nothing there about what we might do. I've seen a few references to things we might say, which looked to me unlikely to achieve any positive outcome. Saying isn't doing. In any event, making bold declarations about what we will or won't tolerate is not going to change any particular balance of force, except for the worse: belligerent talk on our side is likely to lead them to spend more faster, and it won't give us the capacity or the will to do the same.

While the discussion of weapon bore's is fascinating, I noticed that no one answered these questions from a few pages back (though several took shots at each in the posts pror to my request):

Quote:

---

What I find myself very frustrated with, however, are the following questions for my fellow Americans:

1. When did the Constitution become irrelevant?

2. When did the Declaration of Independence become inconvenient?

3. When did the thinking of our historic leaders, such as Washington and Lincoln become "illegitimate"?

---

To discount these things has become a ready arguement by those who seek to rationalize why America must engage the world in the manner it has adopted in recent years. I personally believe we are better served by tuning our current approaches to our former national doctrine than we are by tuning our former national doctrine to our current approaches, but I can't believe I am alone in that position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Turning points of European WW2:

El Alamein for Commonwealth guys.
D-Day for Americans.
Stalingrad for everyone else.


The war was lost by Germany by late '41, though.
Almost nobody is going to discuss the loss of motor vehicles and quality horses in fall '41 as the final failure that made defeat inevitable, that's too complicated. Most people prefer simple battles (symptoms) as turning point markers.

---

WWII was lost for all intents and purposes when Public Law 77-11, the Lend-Lease Act, was signed on 11 Mar 1941. After that, it was just a matter of time before the limited access to the natural resources need to fuel German industrial capability was swamped by the, for all practical purposes, unlimited access available to the US industrial base, which, BTW, was impervious to attack by the Axis powers. A second milestone in the path to victory was the establishment of the Persian Corridor and the deposing of the Shah in 1942 to ensure the path stayed open. The Arctic route to Murmansk/Archangel was open to attack by Germany naval forces and land-based aircraft. Even though the route Vladivostok accounted for over 50% of lendlease shipments to Russia, it was realitively open to interdiction by Japan (had Germany and Japan chosen to cooperate in the war against Russia). The route through Iran was out of the reach of both Japan and Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

I still like my idea but yours would be much better for protecting the tanker orbits, specific spots. The ocean is rather large so it may be to big to establish a really long BAR-CAP kind of thing. I like my idea for protecting the cargo airplanes though because you could fly them in groups, convoys sort of, and change the routing around to make it harder for the bad guys. A big missileer kind of plane could stay with them and only fly when escort was needed. That would complicate the enemy's task a lot.

The British did the sort of thing you suggest in the Falklands I believe and more recently the Malaysian Navy bought some container ships and armed them for anti-piracy work. 20,000 to 40 or 50,000 tons container ships with reasonable speed might be just the ticket. My displacement estimate was just a guess. What kind of speed would be useful, around 20 knots?

---

Not sure that speed is all that important as I viewed the ships as being relatively fixed. You might want to consider the following map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-1916-1942.jpg with regard to AIR LOC. The physical geography hasn't changed much since the 1940s so these are probably the same routes to be used in a future West Pacific centered conflict.

BTW, I think your approach would require an AWACS or equivalent to provide your 787 with early warning and targeting vectors. Mine might be able to benefit from OTHR sites or something like the Cobra Judy to provide the early warning for targeting air threats. Costs a bunch to fly/maintain those AWACS, not so much for land or sea-based long range detection systems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Fig leaf for on-topic-ness:

The U.S. military expanded, and I see a couple main reasons for why it's not going to shrink to anything similar as envisioned 200+ years anytime soon:
(1) A childish belief that you can go to a war of choice and be better off afterwards than you would be without

(2) An exaggerated intolerance for distant phenomenons (no matter what size; only a handful distant phenomenons have the attention, and it's about the same attention no matter Red Army or a bunch of guys with fertiliser bombs)

(3) Bureaucratic self-preservation instinct

(4) Congressional corruption of the system (exploitation of budgets as a means to funnel money to the own district/state and donors)

(5) True conservatism that prefers the status quo over the experiment of not getting involved in so much (coupled with wild fantasies about the indispensability of U.S. military power)

---

3 and 4 are the ones that are on-target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

3 and 4 are the ones that are on-target.

---

Sadly...