What we support and defend

[carl]

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."

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.

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.

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."

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.)

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."

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.

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.

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.