The problem with that rCoder is that the countries you "isolate" who don't want to play fair in trade or other areas, usually wind up forming alliances of their own. Iran and China are good example to date. Unfortunately, IMHO, projecting force is a necessary part of collective defense. Look at some of our allies that are free and secure do to our force projection. Taiwan comes to mind. The Chinese for decades would have liked nothing better than to take that island back...by force if necessary.
It is our force projection that has kept China at bay in regards to Taiwan. Proof of that are the recent missiles China produced specifically to target our carriers and other war ships. Why would they waste time and resources to produce this type of weaponry if our Carriers didn't worry them?
There are many other examples besides Taiwan where our force projection has kept countries free and secure. Whether from Communism, extremist Islamic regimes etc.
Even keeping vital sea passages open for commercial trade has been a mission of our carriers and battle groups in the past.
I would like nothing more than to see world peace break out and countries become good and fair trading partners with each other. For this to happen though would require for human beings to change who they are. It would mean an end to people that believe or practice greed, that seek power for power's sake, that are not satisfied unless they get their way.....these are human traits, bad traits for sure, but they exist and until they cease to exist we will always need a strong military, we will always need to project force to keep those kinds of leaders and the countries they represent at bay.
- DRorchia
- 12-18-2010, 10:40 PM
- davidsmith0123
- 12-19-2010, 09:19 AM
Our carriers do worry China. And they are flattering us with their plans to build their own: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa7f5e6a-0...#axzz18ZhwwyHz
- theaustinescorts
- 12-20-2010, 03:32 PM
It's a big mistake to look at what investments a country is making in this or that weapon and assume they're being rational in the decisions they make.
Countries chose to have particular forces for a number of reasons, many of which are bureaucratic or political, and have nothing to do with "rational force planning."
There's no way the U.S. is going to go to war with China over Taiwan. No way. It's not like Berlin in 1948 when the U.S. sent atomic-armed bombers to fly there to warn Stalin that we might nuke him if he went to far with his blockade.
The carriers can be taken out in a matter of hours at the onset of war with either the Russians or the Chinese [assuming proper mobilization]. The carriers' missions have been relegated to sabre-rattling or actual bombing in third world conflicts where ground-based aircraft can be used. I think the last place we should ever send something as mighty as a carrier is to someplace as pathetic as haiti. That's absurd. IMHO they don't even warrant a destroyer. Maybe a canoe.
Both these functions [saber rattlin' and bombing] can be economically performed by other means.
The only reason why the carriers continue in our force is that it would gut the navy if they were retired, and the navy doesn't want that anymore than they wanted their former ships-of-the-line, the fleet battleships, to be done away with either. The reasons for this are bureaucratic and political - not rational.
An interesting example though is what happened to the British in 1982 when the Argentines occupied the Falklands. I think the British had only two small carriers to meet all their air superiority needs. Their tiny force of perhaps 20 sea harriers did a splendid job against the Argentine aircraft. Good show old boys!
Countries chose to have particular forces for a number of reasons, many of which are bureaucratic or political, and have nothing to do with "rational force planning."
There's no way the U.S. is going to go to war with China over Taiwan. No way. It's not like Berlin in 1948 when the U.S. sent atomic-armed bombers to fly there to warn Stalin that we might nuke him if he went to far with his blockade.
The carriers can be taken out in a matter of hours at the onset of war with either the Russians or the Chinese [assuming proper mobilization]. The carriers' missions have been relegated to sabre-rattling or actual bombing in third world conflicts where ground-based aircraft can be used. I think the last place we should ever send something as mighty as a carrier is to someplace as pathetic as haiti. That's absurd. IMHO they don't even warrant a destroyer. Maybe a canoe.
Both these functions [saber rattlin' and bombing] can be economically performed by other means.
The only reason why the carriers continue in our force is that it would gut the navy if they were retired, and the navy doesn't want that anymore than they wanted their former ships-of-the-line, the fleet battleships, to be done away with either. The reasons for this are bureaucratic and political - not rational.
An interesting example though is what happened to the British in 1982 when the Argentines occupied the Falklands. I think the British had only two small carriers to meet all their air superiority needs. Their tiny force of perhaps 20 sea harriers did a splendid job against the Argentine aircraft. Good show old boys!
- gnadfly
- 12-21-2010, 01:27 PM
It's a big mistake to look at what investments a country is making in this or that weapon and assume they're being rational in the decisions they make.Sure it does. You may not agree with how a country arranges its military might but almost every non dictatorship is involve in rational force planning.
Countries chose to have particular forces for a number of reasons, many of which are bureaucratic or political, and have nothing to do with "rational force planning." Originally Posted by theaustinescorts
There's no way the U.S. is going to go to war with China over Taiwan. No way. It's not like Berlin in 1948 when the U.S. sent atomic-armed bombers to fly there to warn Stalin that we might nuke him if he went to far with his blockade. Originally Posted by theaustinescortsI agree about Taiwan.
The carriers can be taken out in a matter of hours at the onset of war with either the Russians or the Chinese [assuming proper mobilization]. The carriers' missions have been relegated to sabre-rattling or actual bombing in third world conflicts where ground-based aircraft can be used. I think the last place we should ever send something as mighty as a carrier is to someplace as pathetic as haiti. That's absurd. IMHO they don't even warrant a destroyer. Maybe a canoe. Originally Posted by theaustinescortsThe carrier is a projection of US force and political will. It is not a first strike option against a superpower like Russia or China. Hasn't been since WWII. However it is a strike weapon against second and third world countries. I don't see why you don't understand this yet cite the Falkland's example.
Both these functions [saber rattlin' and bombing] can be economically performed by other means. Originally Posted by theaustinescortsReally? How? Please don't say Tomahawks. They're effective and economical but hardly are replacements for a carrier.
- theaustinescorts
- 12-22-2010, 07:17 AM
One reason why the Russians and Chinese target the carriers with strategic weapons is because the carriers possess nuclear weapons which can be used to strike those countries in the event of war. Another reason is that the navies of Russia and China have as their missions the destruction of our navy in the event of war, and using strategic weapons against the carriers is the most efficient way of doing that.
The reason why I brought up the Falklands is because it's an example of a war which never should have happened but did so because the capability remained permitting it. If the British had no carriers at all [as they should have] then they would have been left with more sensible options to deal with the Argentines' heavy-handedness instead of sailing to the other side of the globe and staging an invasion.
Regarding rational force planning I have to disagree that democracies conduct it more so than authoritarian states.
Democracies through history have actually been more warlike than non-democracies. I know that this runs counter to what people today are fond of thinking, but if you want I can show numerous examples going all the way back to the warlike nature of Sparta, Athens and Rome against their benign and weaker neighbors. The first thing that happened when the United States was formed in the early Nineteenth century was that the U.S. Congress sought to declare war on Britain or France over perceived slights. Democracies are full of press and so forth wipping up the public into furies over this and that. The press induced hysteria here after 9-11 is what created the conditions for our unnecessary invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for which we are paying dearly.*
Authoritarian governments are able to plan for their military threats without the excesses of bureaucrats or politicians lobbying for self-interested weapons or forces.
*One interesting fact is that when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 70,000 Poles were killed in the process. Best estimates for the number of Iraqis killed in the U.S. invasion in 2003 are 70,000.
The reason why I brought up the Falklands is because it's an example of a war which never should have happened but did so because the capability remained permitting it. If the British had no carriers at all [as they should have] then they would have been left with more sensible options to deal with the Argentines' heavy-handedness instead of sailing to the other side of the globe and staging an invasion.
Regarding rational force planning I have to disagree that democracies conduct it more so than authoritarian states.
Democracies through history have actually been more warlike than non-democracies. I know that this runs counter to what people today are fond of thinking, but if you want I can show numerous examples going all the way back to the warlike nature of Sparta, Athens and Rome against their benign and weaker neighbors. The first thing that happened when the United States was formed in the early Nineteenth century was that the U.S. Congress sought to declare war on Britain or France over perceived slights. Democracies are full of press and so forth wipping up the public into furies over this and that. The press induced hysteria here after 9-11 is what created the conditions for our unnecessary invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for which we are paying dearly.*
Authoritarian governments are able to plan for their military threats without the excesses of bureaucrats or politicians lobbying for self-interested weapons or forces.
*One interesting fact is that when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 70,000 Poles were killed in the process. Best estimates for the number of Iraqis killed in the U.S. invasion in 2003 are 70,000.
- DRorchia
- 12-23-2010, 10:23 AM
Regarding rational force planning I have to disagree that democracies conduct it more so than authoritarian states.
Democracies through history have actually been more warlike than non-democracies. I know that this runs counter to what people today are fond of thinking, but if you want I can show numerous examples going all the way back to the warlike nature of Sparta, Athens and Rome against their benign and weaker neighbors. The first thing that happened when the United States was formed in the early Nineteenth century was that the U.S. Congress sought to declare war on Britain or France over perceived slights. Democracies are full of press and so forth wipping up the public into furies over this and that. The press induced hysteria here after 9-11 is what created the conditions for our unnecessary invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for which we are paying dearly.*
Not sure about the "hysteria" part. I was watching GMA when they showed the planes hitting live, after that, I was pretty much ready to go to Afghanistan. No hysteria on the media's part was necessary to convince me to go.
Authoritarian governments are able to plan for their military threats without the excesses of bureaucrats or politicians lobbying for self-interested weapons or forces.
*One interesting fact is that when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 70,000 Poles were killed in the process. Best estimates for the number of Iraqis killed in the U.S. invasion in 2003 are 70,000.[/quote]
Interesting that you would compare casualty figures from WW II to Operation Iraqi Freedom? Not sure if the 70,000 you refer to were from the actual invasion in 2003? Seems to me that number would be substantially lower for 2003 considering what the numbers below show for a 3-6 year period total.
Source Iraqi casualties Time period Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 deaths March 2003 to June 2006 Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007 Associated Press 110,600 deaths March 2003 to April 2009 Iraq Body Count project 98,170 — 107,152 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths[1] March 2003 to October 2010 WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[2][3][4][5][1] 109,032 deaths January 2004 to December 2009
Democracies through history have actually been more warlike than non-democracies. I know that this runs counter to what people today are fond of thinking, but if you want I can show numerous examples going all the way back to the warlike nature of Sparta, Athens and Rome against their benign and weaker neighbors. The first thing that happened when the United States was formed in the early Nineteenth century was that the U.S. Congress sought to declare war on Britain or France over perceived slights. Democracies are full of press and so forth wipping up the public into furies over this and that. The press induced hysteria here after 9-11 is what created the conditions for our unnecessary invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for which we are paying dearly.*
Not sure about the "hysteria" part. I was watching GMA when they showed the planes hitting live, after that, I was pretty much ready to go to Afghanistan. No hysteria on the media's part was necessary to convince me to go.
Authoritarian governments are able to plan for their military threats without the excesses of bureaucrats or politicians lobbying for self-interested weapons or forces.
*One interesting fact is that when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 70,000 Poles were killed in the process. Best estimates for the number of Iraqis killed in the U.S. invasion in 2003 are 70,000.[/quote]
Interesting that you would compare casualty figures from WW II to Operation Iraqi Freedom? Not sure if the 70,000 you refer to were from the actual invasion in 2003? Seems to me that number would be substantially lower for 2003 considering what the numbers below show for a 3-6 year period total.
Source Iraqi casualties Time period Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 deaths March 2003 to June 2006 Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007 Associated Press 110,600 deaths March 2003 to April 2009 Iraq Body Count project 98,170 — 107,152 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths[1] March 2003 to October 2010 WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[2][3][4][5][1] 109,032 deaths January 2004 to December 2009
- gnadfly
- 12-23-2010, 04:51 PM
One reason why the Russians and Chinese target the carriers with strategic weapons is because the carriers possess nuclear weapons which can be used to strike those countries in the event of war. Another reason is that the navies of Russia and China have as their missions the destruction of our navy in the event of war, and using strategic weapons against the carriers is the most efficient way of doing that. Originally Posted by theaustinescortsYour counterargument is weak. The US MAD strategy is land based ICBMs, Trident Subs missiles and long range heavy bombers carrying big nukes. True, the carriers have nukes but attacking Russia or China with them isn't their purpose. The carriers are for attacking Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Syria, N Korea, etc. You aren't addressing the assertion that its a projection of power mainly to 2nd and 3rd world countries.
The reason why I brought up the Falklands is because it's an example of a war which never should have happened but did so because the capability remained permitting it. If the British had no carriers at all [as they should have] then they would have been left with more sensible options to deal with the Argentines' heavy-handedness instead of sailing to the other side of the globe and staging an invasion. Originally Posted by theaustinescortsReally? What sensible options are those? You didn't answer my previous request for specifics either.
Regarding rational force planning I have to disagree that democracies conduct it more so than authoritarian states.Is your supporting material numerology? Really? You may want to research 'rational force planning.' Its a big word for budgeting. Most large democracies have an extensive budgeting process were they determine what depts are going to get how much and what it is to be spent on. Totalitarian regimes, not so much.
Democracies through history have actually been more warlike than non-democracies. I know that this runs counter to what people today are fond of thinking, but if you want I can show numerous examples going all the way back to the warlike nature of Sparta, Athens and Rome against their benign and weaker neighbors. The first thing that happened when the United States was formed in the early Nineteenth century was that the U.S. Congress sought to declare war on Britain or France over perceived slights. Democracies are full of press and so forth wipping up the public into furies over this and that. The press induced hysteria here after 9-11 is what created the conditions for our unnecessary invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for which we are paying dearly.*
Authoritarian governments are able to plan for their military threats without the excesses of bureaucrats or politicians lobbying for self-interested weapons or forces.
*One interesting fact is that when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939 70,000 Poles were killed in the process. Best estimates for the number of Iraqis killed in the U.S. invasion in 2003 are 70,000. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts
- theaustinescorts
- 12-24-2010, 09:46 AM
I think you have an idealized view of how defense planning actually takes place.
In democracies there are a host of different people, including the armed forces themselves, who are able to lobby for their pet projects. In addition it's very difficult to rationally plan for threats when they are constantly being exaggerated by profit-making, fear-mongering media.
Authoritarian governments have their own shortcomings when it comes to force planning, but the budgeting and selection processes that democracies have are very flawed.
In ancient democracies the voters used to regularly vote to attack and invade their weaker neighbors. This is how the Spartans came to rule over the Helots, the Roman Senate came to vote time and again to destroy Carthage, and Athens' neighbors came time and again to be attacked for no reason at all other than the Athenians coveted their properties.
In modern times the wars of expansion that Israel [a democracy] has undertaken are also relevant. Surely history will record that our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were forms of aggressive war undertaken by a democracy against weaker, authoritarian states.
Regarding the strategic threat of carriers...in time of war the Soviets and Chinese planned to attack any nuclear weapons which may be re-targeted for strategic rather than tactical use. This is the reason why the intermediate nuclear forces assigned to NATO were first priority targets. In the 1980s the biggest concern the Russians had was that the Pershing IIs and cruise missiles would be used in a strategic first strike against their strategic forces and C3.
In democracies there are a host of different people, including the armed forces themselves, who are able to lobby for their pet projects. In addition it's very difficult to rationally plan for threats when they are constantly being exaggerated by profit-making, fear-mongering media.
Authoritarian governments have their own shortcomings when it comes to force planning, but the budgeting and selection processes that democracies have are very flawed.
In ancient democracies the voters used to regularly vote to attack and invade their weaker neighbors. This is how the Spartans came to rule over the Helots, the Roman Senate came to vote time and again to destroy Carthage, and Athens' neighbors came time and again to be attacked for no reason at all other than the Athenians coveted their properties.
In modern times the wars of expansion that Israel [a democracy] has undertaken are also relevant. Surely history will record that our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were forms of aggressive war undertaken by a democracy against weaker, authoritarian states.
Regarding the strategic threat of carriers...in time of war the Soviets and Chinese planned to attack any nuclear weapons which may be re-targeted for strategic rather than tactical use. This is the reason why the intermediate nuclear forces assigned to NATO were first priority targets. In the 1980s the biggest concern the Russians had was that the Pershing IIs and cruise missiles would be used in a strategic first strike against their strategic forces and C3.
- rCoder
- 12-24-2010, 12:06 PM
TAE, you may want to revisit your terminology. I guessing that when you keep referring to democracy, you mean the USA. We have NEVER had a democracy. Our Constitution established a republic. Good ol' Abe then morphed the republic into a national government where the feds rule. Then FDR demonstrated that ignoring the Constitution has no repercussions. Since then each regime have been one upping on converting the USA into a de facto authoritarian regime.
A democracy requires a few items that we are lacking. First an educated and informed public (yea, right); true transparency of government (by definition, the people ARE the government); then a cultural of being involved (can you spell responsibility?); every member must have equal rights (single class society); finally open and rapid communication.
The later is why the only "successful" democracies have been limited to city-states (keep in mind that only the ruling class were allowed to vote). Now with the internet this issue can be solved, unless we allow the fed gang to "regulate" (read as control) the net.
Also looking at how our federal gang has reacted to WikiLeaks gives a good hint on our transparency level.
Just because we can "vote" for candidates selected by the ruling class and vetted by the affluent class, does not make us a democracy.
A democracy requires a few items that we are lacking. First an educated and informed public (yea, right); true transparency of government (by definition, the people ARE the government); then a cultural of being involved (can you spell responsibility?); every member must have equal rights (single class society); finally open and rapid communication.
The later is why the only "successful" democracies have been limited to city-states (keep in mind that only the ruling class were allowed to vote). Now with the internet this issue can be solved, unless we allow the fed gang to "regulate" (read as control) the net.
Also looking at how our federal gang has reacted to WikiLeaks gives a good hint on our transparency level.
Just because we can "vote" for candidates selected by the ruling class and vetted by the affluent class, does not make us a democracy.
- theaustinescorts
- 12-24-2010, 03:05 PM
Yes I am using the term "democracy" to mean any representative form of government as opposed to "authoritarian" meaning in which only one or a handful of people control the state.
In this country the people have no memory, and greet each new situation as though it's a circumstance encountered for the first time.
Long before WikiLeaks, the "Pentagon Papers," or even the Pentagon itself, this country had a "War Department," in which the Navy and Marines were sent out on wars of conquest against puny enemies all in the name of "protecting our freedoms" or "saving us from terror!"
The Commander of the Marines and every soldier's most beloved General, Marine Commandant Smedley Butler, blew the whistle on all this. Butler won the Congressional Medal of Honor TWICE, as well as distinguishing himself in innumerable other ways. He began speaking out regarding the actual reasons for these wars, and condensed his accusations in the book "War is a Racket."
The lessons from General Butler are as true today as one hundred years ago.
Merry Christmas.
In this country the people have no memory, and greet each new situation as though it's a circumstance encountered for the first time.
Long before WikiLeaks, the "Pentagon Papers," or even the Pentagon itself, this country had a "War Department," in which the Navy and Marines were sent out on wars of conquest against puny enemies all in the name of "protecting our freedoms" or "saving us from terror!"
The Commander of the Marines and every soldier's most beloved General, Marine Commandant Smedley Butler, blew the whistle on all this. Butler won the Congressional Medal of Honor TWICE, as well as distinguishing himself in innumerable other ways. He began speaking out regarding the actual reasons for these wars, and condensed his accusations in the book "War is a Racket."
The lessons from General Butler are as true today as one hundred years ago.
Merry Christmas.
- gnadfly
- 12-24-2010, 08:41 PM
And you still aren't providing specifics about your so called 'sensible options...'
You still aren't addressing the primary purpose of the carriers, still insisting somehow that China and Russia potential nuking of them offsets their day to day use.
My 'idealized' view of the budgeting process is exactly how every major bureaucracy budgets - including the US govt. There are black and white box projects but for the most part, depts have a bottom line albeit flexible. The top level military, cabinet and congressional committee members input of this budget. The process is similar in the major democracies on the planet.
My guess is all of this is immaterial to you which is why you are trying to avoid addressing it. You simply don't like the situations the US military are in across the world and are grasping at false arguments. Why don't you simply address what is really bugging you?
Merry Christmas.
You still aren't addressing the primary purpose of the carriers, still insisting somehow that China and Russia potential nuking of them offsets their day to day use.
My 'idealized' view of the budgeting process is exactly how every major bureaucracy budgets - including the US govt. There are black and white box projects but for the most part, depts have a bottom line albeit flexible. The top level military, cabinet and congressional committee members input of this budget. The process is similar in the major democracies on the planet.
My guess is all of this is immaterial to you which is why you are trying to avoid addressing it. You simply don't like the situations the US military are in across the world and are grasping at false arguments. Why don't you simply address what is really bugging you?
Merry Christmas.
- theaustinescorts
- 12-28-2010, 09:35 AM
Sensible Options the British had for the Falklands Crisis would have included such things as the way the UN dealt with themselves in 1956 when they attacked Suez. On that occassion the British, French and Israelis fabricated a pretext [we have the conspiratorial document they all signed in Paris so please don't claim otherwise] to attack Egypt. It was clearly aggression, and the UN with the US in support forced the aggressors out. The same thing could have been done in 1982 with the Argentine Junta, but Margaret Thatcher wanted to give war a chance as her first option. No other options were explored. You can read Max Hastings book and Al Haig's autobiography.
In 1989 when the Berlin wall came down the US's most admired authority on force planning and budgeting, William Kaufmann, announced that the US should immediately cut it's defense budget by 50% and begin enjoying a "peace dividend."
It never happened.
The past twenty years have seen continued service and domestic political pressures for a massive and unnecessary force structure containing mostly forces and weapons for WHICH THERE IS NO PARTICULAR MILITARY PLAN CALLING FOR THEIR USE.
Force planning used to be determined by the requirements of a defense of Europe from Warsaw Pact attack, plus additional forces to cover a second theater such as Korea or the Persian Gulf. But since the fall of the USSR there is no particular threats or scenarios - just the maintenance of very large, mechanized, slow-to-deploy forces for non-existent threats.
Iraq was a war of "choice," meaning it was optional, or in traditional terms "unnecessary" or more properly termed "a preventative [as opposed to pre-emptive] war." This is of course aggressive.
Afghanistan was also an example of aggressive war. I'm not saying aggression cannot be defended, but for my money it cannot be included within the realm of rational force planning.
In 1989 when the Berlin wall came down the US's most admired authority on force planning and budgeting, William Kaufmann, announced that the US should immediately cut it's defense budget by 50% and begin enjoying a "peace dividend."
It never happened.
The past twenty years have seen continued service and domestic political pressures for a massive and unnecessary force structure containing mostly forces and weapons for WHICH THERE IS NO PARTICULAR MILITARY PLAN CALLING FOR THEIR USE.
Force planning used to be determined by the requirements of a defense of Europe from Warsaw Pact attack, plus additional forces to cover a second theater such as Korea or the Persian Gulf. But since the fall of the USSR there is no particular threats or scenarios - just the maintenance of very large, mechanized, slow-to-deploy forces for non-existent threats.
Iraq was a war of "choice," meaning it was optional, or in traditional terms "unnecessary" or more properly termed "a preventative [as opposed to pre-emptive] war." This is of course aggressive.
Afghanistan was also an example of aggressive war. I'm not saying aggression cannot be defended, but for my money it cannot be included within the realm of rational force planning.