Ask not for whom the booth tolls...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
You said "We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... ". From the context it seems you meant the US overcoming embarrassment but now you say the nation does not but some in the nation do. I get it now...no, I don't.
Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...
Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.
Quote:
Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land.
Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns. ;)
Quote:
They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too.
For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere. I doubt that will change in the next twenty to thirty years.
Quote:
I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital. The various history books I read superficially make that clear.
Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...
Et Tu? :D
Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?
Quote:
Everybody had better support them, or they will hear that midnight knock. We will have to disagree again.
Works for me...
Quote:
Now that is some rhetorical technique. Just argue that the world is going to go the way you say, fairly rapidly, and when it does boy will the ground be cut out from under me.
Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF. :wry:
Quote:
... I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree....
Noted. We often disagree. Time will tell.
The Department of Lakes, Rivers and Oceans knows where there are none...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Yes Ken and the Chinese will have realised that they must not provoke the US until they have reached the military level to back it up.
Quite astute of you and the esteemed Asian gentlemen...:D
Quote:
I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to...
I'm sure your advice for them is as well received as it by us here...
Quote:
The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.
Mmmm. Loser? Quite doubtful. Self destruct -- almost certainly.
Quote:
I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).
Heh. Not likely. They do need to learn Spanish, though. You need a map refresher...:D
Late reply due to minor modem problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Korea ended in a stalemate.
Yes, it did. Need not have but it did because the Politicians wanted it that way. Your'e familiar with that...
You might also look at the relative numbers of troops involved and relative degree of effort and expense to include reported casualties by the nominal combatants.
Quote:
But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.
We'll never know about then but there was and is now no question that the numerical superiority would have to be countered by something. The nuclear option is certainly one but there are others.
It had and has been a long held tenet of US military (not foreign...) policy to avoid getting sucked into a land war in Asia -- that in spite of the fact that we helped the British with their mid-19th Century endeavors there, made several minor incursion during that century then went to Peking during the Boxer Rebellion kept a couple of Army and a Marine Regiment in China for many years. Then came Korea, Viet Nam -- all counter to that military policy and as a result of the US foreign policy of the moment; All dictated by US politicians who commit forces and then tie the hands of those forces. Hard to win wars when you're on a leash...
Quote:
For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.
In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.
Both political decisions based on US domestic politics, as you know -- and I would expect you to be smarter than Osama Bin Laden who foolishly cited the same things and built an er, 'strategy' on that house of cards. That hasn't worked out as he and his crowd expected...
Quote:
...the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.
Fiendishly cunning? You're reading too much Graham Greene. :D
Defeated? Heh. There was NEVER any question but that we would stay (when we should not have) and leave with yet another politically determined stalemate / defeat -- call it what you will. There was never going to be a win in any of our post WW II foolishness...
However, I suggest you need to rearrange your Goat entrails or tea leaves. The fact that we are still in Afghanistan at this late date, no matter we should not be, totally negates the premise of Lebanon and Mogadishu as defining -- and makes 'defeat' borderline arguable :wry:
Quote:
Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.
Heh. Speaking of fiendishly cunning -- fooled you, there is no standard US game plan.
That changes with the wind, as we change Coaches...
Many things are past -- however, the US penchant for not making a big effort or getting things done right unless there's an overarching need to do so has not changed. We, the people; the troops; will avoid doing the hard things unless pushed. Hedonistic I know but there you are. We tend to accept barely adequate most of the time, rising to good enough to get the job done only with the correct impetus and never reach excellence -- no need for it. We're lazy and way too introspective. The Saturday game is more important than anyplace from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. We'd really rather not be bothered. Unless...
Excessive bother of the wrong kind will not invoke a sleeping giant scenario -- you're as dated as Carl and those pundits and think tanks I warned him to eschew. That was then, this is now. No sleeping giant, no fire up the industrial base. Those days are indeed gone. What is not gone is the ability to simply remove the leash IF and when warranted. Not a lot of Troops on the ground required, very few in fact. ;)
We don't do the war among the people thing very well, never have (too selfish and hedonistic...) so insurgencies and the like are to be avoided. OTOH, if one has an infrastructure of any kind and wishes to keep it reasonably intact; if one has population centers, one is well advised to not try to get too cute. We may not be sophisticated or do nuances well but when pushed we can break things far further away and more rapidly and completely than anyone. I do not see that changing significantly in the next 30-40 years.
It should be noted that the "if and when" determination is a US unilateral decision which may come at any time and is somewhat unpredictable as is all US foreign and military policy. All, that is, except for a low to zero tolerance for SIGNIFICANT threats (the degree of significance also being a unilateral US determination...). Your or anyone else's definition of what constitutes such a threat is essentially irrelevant.
It should also be recalled that sometimes the Frog turns over the pot, spilling smelly hot water all over everything and everybody and forcing them to deal with a really pissed off Frog. Same deal with the cutting. Scalpel wielder slips, inadvertently cuts too deep in a sensitive area and then gets cold cocked and the OR gets thoroughly trashed. :D
Not capaitalist, just different than today...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
You got my vote. All this talk about China becoming Capitalist is nothing but propaganda put out by the American RPI ... Just wait till they land on the moon in a few years.
Uh, okay. How long will that be after we did that? :confused:
Seem like we have some time and don't need to go into the China panic mode... :D