In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
to be the only real threat to us, but from what
I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
military has never been more overwhelming
than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
US military still had serious competition.
Not so today.
Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
On Jul 5, 8:57 am, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
> than both combined?
Given its mission- yes. Even bigger would be justified as well. It's
strength could even be called de minimus for its mission.
Now, if the only threat the Navy needed to worry about were other
ships, then no. The US navy is approximately the size of every other
navy in the world, combined, and even then most of the non-US fleet is
in extemely reliable US allies.
BUT... the major threat to shiping the free navigation of waterways is
in aircraft. And the entire US Navy would be hard pressed to take on
the Chinese or Russian Air Force on its own. A full carrier battle
group would be hard pressed to take on even a single air base.
>>In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>than both combined?
> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
We need ...more then 43 Los Angeles class attack submarines,
...more than 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers ...more than 22 cruisers
....more than 12 aircraft carriers...more than 8 amphibious
landing ships... not to mention the 15 or so new Virginia class attack
submarines coming online? Why do we need 14 Boomers with
some 96 warheads each? Who are we going to be launching
over1300 nukes at?
If you combine British and US naval forces, they account
for some 60% of the world combat tonnage, while
Russia is about 8% and China 3%.
What war do you envision needing such a large navy?
> Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
> fire protection and see how that works out for you?
Hardly a relevant analogy. Do you remember the old quote
about absolute power? Too much can be a liability in itself.
>>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>> than both combined?
>> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
> We need ...more then 43 Los Angeles class attack submarines,
> ...more than 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers ...more than 22 cruisers
To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
Consider that of those 43 SSN's in peace time conditions
you will have around 20 on patrol. Of the others some
will be in refit and others working or in transit to or
from patrol.
> ....more than 12 aircraft carriers...more than 8 amphibious
> landing ships... not to mention the 15 or so new Virginia class attack
> submarines coming online? Why do we need 14 Boomers with
> some 96 warheads each? Who are we going to be launching
> over1300 nukes at?
14 boomers gives you maybe 8 on patrol to coverin
potential threats in the Pacific, Middle East and the
North Atlantic. Thats actually stretching them rather thinly
> If you combine British and US naval forces, they account
> for some 60% of the world combat tonnage, while
> Russia is about 8% and China 3%.
> What war do you envision needing such a large navy?
The USN maintains the capability to project power
in the form of sea and ground forces anywhere in the
world. That requires a lot of sea lift capacity and the
ships to protect them.
In the modern world this means being able to react
to threats that arise as distant as Asia and the Middle
East.
Its no good having a dozen ships in harbour at
Newport News if the North Koreans and Iranians
both decided to kick off.
>> Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
>> fire protection and see how that works out for you?
> Hardly a relevant analogy. Do you remember the old quote
> about absolute power? Too much can be a liability in itself.
Recall the old Roman adage - Si vis pacem, para bellum
If you would have peace then prepare for war.
In the 1930's the US rather naively believed that if they
kept to themselves they would have no problems.
The result was that Germany and Japan decided they
would be a walkover. We all know how that worked out.
>>>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>>> than both combined?
>>> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
>> We need ...more then 43 Los Angeles class attack submarines,
>> ...more than 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers ...more than 22 cruisers
> To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
> the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
> Consider that of those 43 SSN's in peace time conditions
> you will have around 20 on patrol. Of the others some
> will be in refit and others working or in transit to or
> from patrol.
>> ....more than 12 aircraft carriers...more than 8 amphibious
>> landing ships... not to mention the 15 or so new Virginia class attack
>> submarines coming online? Why do we need 14 Boomers with
>> some 96 warheads each? Who are we going to be launching
>> over1300 nukes at?
> 14 boomers gives you maybe 8 on patrol to coverin
> potential threats in the Pacific, Middle East and the
> North Atlantic. Thats actually stretching them rather thinly
>> If you combine British and US naval forces, they account
>> for some 60% of the world combat tonnage, while
>> Russia is about 8% and China 3%.
>> What war do you envision needing such a large navy?
> The USN maintains the capability to project power
> in the form of sea and ground forces anywhere in the
> world. That requires a lot of sea lift capacity and the
> ships to protect them.
> In the modern world this means being able to react
> to threats that arise as distant as Asia and the Middle
> East.
> Its no good having a dozen ships in harbour at
> Newport News if the North Koreans and Iranians
> both decided to kick off.
>>> Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
>>> fire protection and see how that works out for you?
>> Hardly a relevant analogy. Do you remember the old quote
>> about absolute power? Too much can be a liability in itself.
> Recall the old Roman adage - Si vis pacem, para bellum
> If you would have peace then prepare for war.
> In the 1930's the US rather naively believed that if they
> kept to themselves they would have no problems.
> The result was that Germany and Japan decided they
> would be a walkover. We all know how that worked out.
I see your point about our commitments, it just seems
we're keeping a cold war level while the threats have
reduced to a few rogue states. I just feel that once the
remaining threats, like Iran, N Korea and China end
up falling to democracy, we can begin to think about
a much different level of military spending.
Before long high energy lasers will be everywhere, we'll
have things like X-37C's or UAV's buzzing about able
to see and strike anything at a moments notice.
Add all that post 9/11 technology coming along to our
current levels of conventional forces, and the US could
become more than the only superpower, but a monster
with a life of it's own no one can control.
Do we want our future to be like the strikes in Pakistan?
Bolts from above?
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
>to be the only real threat to us, but from what
>I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
>With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
>advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
>military has never been more overwhelming
>than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
>US military still had serious competition.
>Not so today.
>Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
> >>>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
> >>>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
> >>>> than both combined?
> >>> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
> >> We need ...more then 43 Los Angeles class attack submarines,
> >> ...more than 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers ...more than 22 cruisers
> > To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
> > the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
> > Consider that of those 43 SSN's in peace time conditions
> > you will have around 20 on patrol. Of the others some
> > will be in refit and others working or in transit to or
> > from patrol.
> >> ....more than 12 aircraft carriers...more than 8 amphibious
> >> landing ships... not to mention the 15 or so new Virginia class attack
> >> submarines coming online? Why do we need 14 Boomers with
> >> some 96 warheads each? Who are we going to be launching
> >> over1300 nukes at?
> > 14 boomers gives you maybe 8 on patrol to coverin
> > potential threats in the Pacific, Middle East and the
> > North Atlantic. Thats actually stretching them rather thinly
> >> If you combine British and US naval forces, they account
> >> for some 60% of the world combat tonnage, while
> >> Russia is about 8% and China 3%.
> >> What war do you envision needing such a large navy?
> > The USN maintains the capability to project power
> > in the form of sea and ground forces anywhere in the
> > world. That requires a lot of sea lift capacity and the
> > ships to protect them.
> > In the modern world this means being able to react
> > to threats that arise as distant as Asia and the Middle
> > East.
> > Its no good having a dozen ships in harbour at
> > Newport News if the North Koreans and Iranians
> > both decided to kick off.
> >>> Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
> >>> fire protection and see how that works out for you?
> >> Hardly a relevant analogy. Do you remember the old quote
> >> about absolute power? Too much can be a liability in itself.
> > Recall the old Roman adage - Si vis pacem, para bellum
> > If you would have peace then prepare for war.
> > In the 1930's the US rather naively believed that if they
> > kept to themselves they would have no problems.
> > The result was that Germany and Japan decided they
> > would be a walkover. We all know how that worked out.
> I see your point about our commitments, it just seems
> we're keeping a cold war level while the threats have
> reduced to a few rogue states. I just feel that once the
> remaining threats, like Iran, N Korea and China end
> up falling to democracy, we can begin to think about
> a much different level of military spending.
> Before long high energy lasers will be everywhere, we'll
> have things like X-37C's or UAV's buzzing about able
> to see and strike anything at a moments notice.
> Add all that post 9/11 technology coming along to our
> current levels of conventional forces, and the US could
> become more than the only superpower, but a monster
> with a life of it's own no one can control.
> Do we want our future to be like the strikes in Pakistan?
> Bolts from above?
> Jonathan
> s
> > Keith
I like the idea of Crowbar satellites myself.... but as neat as a
weapons system is, it has to be a component of a whole system. Drones
aren't able to do everything by themselves just yet.
One example from Yemen recently was a US Drone finding a terrorist
camp in the desert. There was a battery of Yemeni artillery nearby and
the two units cooperated to drop shells on the camp. It was old school
but it did a lot more damage than a Hellfire missile or two would
have. Since it was the middle of the desert, collateral damage was
probably considered a non-factor.
Drones need air superiority to be really effective as deep penetrators
right now, so the Air Force, plus Naval, Marine and Army Aviation
probably will be sticking around a long time.
"jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> writes:
> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
> than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
> to be the only real threat to us, but from what
> I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
> With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
> advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
> military has never been more overwhelming
> than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
> US military still had serious competition.
> Not so today.
> Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
> East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
> allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
The spread of empire has never resulted in downsizing, at least not until the final disintegration.
-- Gernot Hassenpflug
>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>> than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
>> to be the only real threat to us, but from what
>> I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
>> With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
>> advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
>> military has never been more overwhelming
>> than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
>> US military still had serious competition.
>> Not so today.
>> Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>> East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>> allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
>The spread of empire has never resulted in downsizing, at least not until the final disintegration.
I could be wrong, but I think that the more accurate word in this
case is desolation, in the WWIII sense meaning total destruction.
>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>> than both combined?
> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
I guess that jonathan don't have a clue on the issues of an global Navy instead of an regional one, and the weight of logistics and strategic movement... in other words, I guess that instead of insulting him, perhaps was better elucidating him the meaning of the proverbial "where are the carriers"
I have haved some hell of days and on top of it, this end-week I have guest here, so I don't have much time to do a patient explanation of the above..
>>>>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>>>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>>>> than both combined?
>>>> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
>>> We need ...more then 43 Los Angeles class attack submarines,
>>> ...more than 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers ...more than 22 cruisers
>> To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
>> the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
>> Consider that of those 43 SSN's in peace time conditions
>> you will have around 20 on patrol. Of the others some
>> will be in refit and others working or in transit to or
>> from patrol.
>>> ....more than 12 aircraft carriers...more than 8 amphibious
>>> landing ships... not to mention the 15 or so new Virginia class
>>> attack submarines coming online? Why do we need 14 Boomers with
>>> some 96 warheads each? Who are we going to be launching
>>> over1300 nukes at?
>> 14 boomers gives you maybe 8 on patrol to coverin
>> potential threats in the Pacific, Middle East and the
>> North Atlantic. Thats actually stretching them rather thinly
>>> If you combine British and US naval forces, they account
>>> for some 60% of the world combat tonnage, while
>>> Russia is about 8% and China 3%.
>>> What war do you envision needing such a large navy?
>> The USN maintains the capability to project power
>> in the form of sea and ground forces anywhere in the
>> world. That requires a lot of sea lift capacity and the
>> ships to protect them.
>> In the modern world this means being able to react
>> to threats that arise as distant as Asia and the Middle
>> East.
>> Its no good having a dozen ships in harbour at
>> Newport News if the North Koreans and Iranians
>> both decided to kick off.
>>>> Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
>>>> fire protection and see how that works out for you?
>>> Hardly a relevant analogy. Do you remember the old quote
>>> about absolute power? Too much can be a liability in itself.
>> Recall the old Roman adage - Si vis pacem, para bellum
>> If you would have peace then prepare for war.
>> In the 1930's the US rather naively believed that if they
>> kept to themselves they would have no problems.
>> The result was that Germany and Japan decided they
>> would be a walkover. We all know how that worked out.
> I see your point about our commitments, it just seems
> we're keeping a cold war level while the threats have
> reduced to a few rogue states. I just feel that once the
> remaining threats, like Iran, N Korea and China end
> up falling to democracy, we can begin to think about
> a much different level of military spending.
They have not done so at this point
> Before long high energy lasers will be everywhere, we'll
> have things like X-37C's or UAV's buzzing about able
> to see and strike anything at a moments notice.
They cant stop an artilery barrage of the sort the DPRK
can unleash on Seoul nor can they prevent the Iranians
closing the straits of Hormuz with mines and they
sure as hell cant escort merchant ships.
> Add all that post 9/11 technology coming along to our
> current levels of conventional forces, and the US could
> become more than the only superpower, but a monster
> with a life of it's own no one can control.
> Do we want our future to be like the strikes in Pakistan?
> Bolts from above?
Actually what causes most casualties in Pakistan and Afghanistan
is the good old fashioned bomb left at the roadside to kill
passers by. It would be familiar to a 19th century anarchist.
>In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>than both combined?
Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
>The Chinese sub fleet appears
>to be the only real threat to us,
Reality seems reluctant to conform to how things seem to you.
>but from what
>I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
Reality is also apparently reluctant to conform to what you read.
>With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
>advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
>military has never been more overwhelming
>than right now.
Your myopia is a personal problem, I expect.
>Even at the height of WW2, the
>US military still had serious competition.
>Not so today.
Whatever you're smoking, you should probably stop.
>Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>East,
The spread of WHAT WHERE, again?
>and democracy in China someday soon,
For a definition of 'soon' that corresponds to 'probably never'.
>will allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
fire protection and see how that works out for you?
Keith W wrote:
> They cant stop an artilery barrage of the sort the DPRK
> can unleash on Seoul nor can they prevent the Iranians
> closing the straits of Hormuz with mines and they
> sure as hell cant escort merchant ships.
No-one has to stop such attacks
Either of those actions will be a declaration of war and neither of the nutters who lead those countries want that.
That's why all those Navies are out there.
If you want peace prepare for war.....
>> They cant stop an artilery barrage of the sort the DPRK
>> can unleash on Seoul nor can they prevent the Iranians
>> closing the straits of Hormuz with mines and they
>> sure as hell cant escort merchant ships.
> No-one has to stop such attacks
The South Koreans can be expected to disagree
and the USN has been rather keen to keep the
straits open on previous occasions.
> Either of those actions will be a declaration of war and neither of
> the nutters who lead those countries want that.
> That's why all those Navies are out there.
> If you want peace prepare for war.....
The trouble with that theory is that the Iranians HAVE
used mines in the straits before without the US declaring
war on them. As for the DPRK their leadership is
so unpredictable there is no telling what they will do.
> Il 05/07/2012 18:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>> than both combined?
>> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
> I guess that jonathan don't have a clue on the issues of an global Navy
> instead of an regional one,
Of course I do, what bugs me is why the US has to shoulder
so much of the burden of defending the world. The EU has
a total economy roughly the size of the US, yet the US spends
some 4.7% of gdp on military spending, almost 20% of our
federal budget. While the EU spends 1.6%....1/3 the amount
of the US.
Sooner or later the rest of the world has to start taking
responsibility for their own waters and their own problems.
While we spend like crazy, the Europeans sit back and
point the finger at ...us for all the world's problems.
I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
the US and Israel. European xenophobia and apathy is
a large part of the mess the US has had to clean up by itself
for the last 20 years. Not to mention the ...European world
wars.
It's getting old, Europe needs to start stop blaming others
and start stepping up their military budgets. Right now the
Iranians want to build the bomb and shut down the Gulf.
And what are the Euros doing about it? Buying oil elsewhere
is about it, since that doesn't really cost them a dime.
I don't see the EU moving aircraft and ships into the
area preparing for war.
And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
start behaving like a civilized nation. All the while the US
allows China to rig their currency so we send massive
trade deficits over there, sending our national wealth
overseas to help the poor Chinese lift themselves out
of poverty.
If the Chinese people had a backbone they'd
toss the communists out long ago and the US wouldn't
have to keep sacrificing it's wealth, it's troops and
national reputation. Same thing for the Russians, how
much of US wealth went to outspending the communists
until they went broke over the last 50 years.
People need to understand that democracy and freedom
can't wait for the US to establish, they need to get some
courage and do what is needed. We're giving many of
these Middle East nations a chance for democracy, but
they have to make it work, and Europe needs to do
more then point fingers.
> movement... in other words, I guess that instead of insulting him, perhaps
> was better elucidating him the meaning of the proverbial "where are the
> carriers"
> I have haved some hell of days and on top of it, this end-week I have
> guest here, so I don't have much time to do a patient explanation of the
> above..
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Of course I do, what bugs me is why the US has to shoulder
>so much of the burden of defending the world. The EU has
>a total economy roughly the size of the US, yet the US spends
>some 4.7% of gdp on military spending, almost 20% of our
>federal budget. While the EU spends 1.6%....1/3 the amount
>of the US.
The people of Europe prefer free healthcare and decent welfare systems
to guns.
That's a free choice both parties can enter into.
We all live in free societies and elect governments that decide what
to spend the money on.
>Sooner or later the rest of the world has to start taking
>responsibility for their own waters and their own problems.
>While we spend like crazy, the Europeans sit back and
>point the finger at ...us for all the world's problems.
As a rule we don't.
As a rule we back you up, even when we're pretty certain it'll all
end in tears, like in Afghanistan...
>I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>the US and Israel.
I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
blow up British soldiers.
Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
>It's getting old, Europe needs to start stop blaming others
>and start stepping up their military budgets.
We don't blame anyone much.
>And what are the Euros doing about it? Buying oil elsewhere
>is about it, since that doesn't really cost them a dime.
>I don't see the EU moving aircraft and ships into the
>area preparing for war.
Well no.
What are you suggesting exactly?
If you'd like to invade Iran then go ahead.
I imagine you'll get the usual European states to send their young men
to die alongside yours.
The problem is that it won't work.
>And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>start behaving like a civilized nation.
Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
Hitler.
As a general rule that ends in tears as well...
All the while the US
>allows China to rig their currency so we send massive
>trade deficits over there, sending our national wealth
>overseas to help the poor Chinese lift themselves out
>of poverty.
>If the Chinese people had a backbone they'd
>toss the communists out long ago and the US wouldn't
>have to keep sacrificing it's wealth, it's troops and
>national reputation.
OK, convince them.
Same thing for the Russians, how
>much of US wealth went to outspending the communists
>until they went broke over the last 50 years.
That really was a choice the US made on their own.
Everyone else had worked out that they weren't actually a serious
treat as long as they were not provoked years ago.
>People need to understand that democracy and freedom
>can't wait for the US to establish, they need to get some
>courage and do what is needed. We're giving many of
>these Middle East nations a chance for democracy, but
>they have to make it work, and Europe needs to do
>more then point fingers.
I think you'll probably find that the British and Italians were well
in front of you in Libya and the French are well in front of you in
Syria
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>> terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>> the US and Israel.
> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
> blow up British soldiers.
> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
Freedom fighters, Bill, heroic freedom fighters, battling against the tyranny of an elected democracy, one murdered civilian at a time. (Going after soldiers turned out to be too difficult and dangerous by the 1980s)
Mind you, the Protestant terrorists managed to be as bad or worse. Talk about "a plague on both your houses"...
>> And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>> needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>> start behaving like a civilized nation.
> Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
> Hitler.
And us in the 1850s and again in 1919.
> As a general rule that ends in tears as well...
Ah, but our experience is ancient and historical and no longer relevant, so should be ignored. The US have a splendid master plan for success that they've copied from "South Park".
1. Start kicking the Russians.
2. ...er...not sure about this part
3. VICTORY!!!!!!
It's the same plan they used for the quick, clean, tidy conquest of Iraq and the painless, straightforward pacification of Afghanistan that we've enjoyed watching - or in some cases participating in - over the last decade. How can any rational being expect any problems at all?
<Cue the 'Crelm Toothpaste / American Defence' animation from Monty Python>
>>Of course I do, what bugs me is why the US has to shoulder
>>so much of the burden of defending the world. The EU has
>>a total economy roughly the size of the US, yet the US spends
>>some 4.7% of gdp on military spending, almost 20% of our
>>federal budget. While the EU spends 1.6%....1/3 the amount
>>of the US.
> The people of Europe prefer free healthcare and decent welfare systems
> to guns.
Which is a luxury they can afford since they don't have
to defend themselves.
> That's a free choice both parties can enter into.
> We all live in free societies and elect governments that decide what
> to spend the money on.
And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
and living under a fascist or communist government?
Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
would be.
>>Sooner or later the rest of the world has to start taking
>>responsibility for their own waters and their own problems.
>>While we spend like crazy, the Europeans sit back and
>>point the finger at ...us for all the world's problems.
> As a rule we don't.
> As a rule we back you up, even when we're pretty certain it'll all
> end in tears, like in Afghanistan...
But then you go and point fingers at Afghanistan and say
it's our fault. Thanks for proving my point.
>>I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>>terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>>the US and Israel.
> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
> blow up British soldiers.
> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
Those terrorists were created by the British police state.
But of course, like everyone around the world, it's
the fault of the US. Either by action or inaction, doesn't
matter, it's our fault no matter what.
>>It's getting old, Europe needs to start stop blaming others
>>and start stepping up their military budgets.
> We don't blame anyone much.
Europe doesn't do anything much except produce
Kings and dictators that have created the horrors
of the last century. Then sit back and let others
clean up their messes.
>>And what are the Euros doing about it? Buying oil elsewhere
>>is about it, since that doesn't really cost them a dime.
>>I don't see the EU moving aircraft and ships into the
>>area preparing for war.
> Well no.
> What are you suggesting exactly?
That Europe start taking a more aggressive stance
on spreading democracy, and start spending their
fair share on defense.
> If you'd like to invade Iran then go ahead.
Typical European attitude, sit back and help the
tyrants build the bomb, then expect the US
to take care of the problem.
> I imagine you'll get the usual European states to send their young men
> to die alongside yours.
> The problem is that it won't work.
>>And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>>needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>>start behaving like a civilized nation.
> Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
> Hitler.
Dictatorships aren't civilized, but are systems which are
doomed to disaster, your European history is
chock full of dictators and the massive wars and
horrors they cause.
> As a general rule that ends in tears as well..
Ended pretty well in Europe and Japan when
we left behind democracies.
> All the while the US
>>allows China to rig their currency so we send massive
>>trade deficits over there, sending our national wealth
>>overseas to help the poor Chinese lift themselves out
>>of poverty.
>>If the Chinese people had a backbone they'd
>>toss the communists out long ago and the US wouldn't
>>have to keep sacrificing it's wealth, it's troops and
>>national reputation.
> OK, convince them.
> Same thing for the Russians, how
>>much of US wealth went to outspending the communists
>>until they went broke over the last 50 years.
> That really was a choice the US made on their own.
Right, Europe wasn't threatened by the Soviets, do you
have your head in the sand all the time?
> Everyone else had worked out that they weren't actually a serious
> treat as long as they were not provoked years ago.
Stalin would have kept on rolling right through Germany
all the way to the channel if not for US troops and US nukes.
>>People need to understand that democracy and freedom
>>can't wait for the US to establish, they need to get some
>>courage and do what is needed. We're giving many of
>>these Middle East nations a chance for democracy, but
>>they have to make it work, and Europe needs to do
>>more then point fingers.
> I think you'll probably find that the British and Italians were well
> in front of you in Libya and the French are well in front of you in
> Syria
You don't read history much?
Libya was under Italian rule during Mussolini, and then
the British, French and Russians bickered over Libya leaving
behind a mess and a rogue state for the last 40 years.
Nice job Europe.
And Syria was a French and British colony, another European
mess that ended up with Assad. Nice job again Europe.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are British and Russian messes
they left behind for the US to deal with, as usual.
Not to mention the infamous European apathy during the
ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Another German and Russian
mess we had to clean up.
>>Whew....that felt good~
> You're an idiot son.
And you're a typical European <g>
(pardon my language)
>And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
and living under a fascist or communist government?
Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
would be.
OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly militaristic.
> To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
> the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
Then the US needs to rethink those committments, or start raising a
tax on the nations who's interests coincide with ours.
This policeman for the world thing has gotten old. Need a new
paradigm.
..................
My feelings exactly. I'm tired of seeing $700 billion dollar
defense budgets, and seeing the US in a nearly constant
state of war for some 20 years now.
We have troops in 150 countries, so many military bases
around the world no one seems to know exactly
how many there are.
Military mystery: How many bases does the US have, anyway?
By Gloria Shur Bilchik
Published: January 24, 2011Posted in: International, War
"Going straight to the source [of course, of course] doesn't
help, either.According to the Department of Defense's 2010
Base Structure Report, as of 2009, the US military maintained
662 foreign sites in 38 countries around the world. But that
number represents a reduction from numbers reported by
DOD just a few years ago.
Military spokespersons regularly add to the confusion.
Turse notes that:
Speaking before the senate appropriations committee's
sub-committee on military construction, veterans and related
agencies early last year, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
Dorothy Robyn referenced the Pentagon's "507 permanent
installations". The Pentagon's 2010 Base Structure Report,
on the other hand, lists 4,999 total sites in the US, its
territories, and overseas.
Worse yet are the apparently deliberate omissions from
the tally. "Scan the Department of Defense's 2010 Base
Structure Report for sites in Afghanistan," writes Turse.
"Go ahead, read through all 206 pages. You won't
find a mention of them, not a citation, not a single reference,
not an inkling that the United States has even one base
in Afghanistan, let alone more than 400."
Incredibly, the same blackout applies to Iraq, where published
reports in mainstream media outlets put the number of bases
in the 80s. So, even the official US military tally underreports
our presence by nearly 500 bases. And that's before you add in
other blacked-out sites in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Also conveniently "forgotten" in the base count are facilities
run by other countries on behalf of the US, sites operated
covertly by the CIA, and de facto "bases" that float on
America's fleet of aircraft carriers, says Turse.
>>And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
> and living under a fascist or communist government?
> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
> would be.
> OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly > militaristic.
Between wars, let's see, since 1939 that would be the period
between WW2 and Korea, maybe 3 years. The Cold War
cost plenty up to 1991, when Desert Storm was already
under way. Since then it's been non-stop spending and fighting
in the Middle East, Bosnia and so on. Twenty years of nearly
constant wars with one still in progress, and a couple more
on the horizon.
> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
> would be.
In 1939, even Venezuela had a larger and better-equipped army than the US.
We'd been rearming and then fighting for years, while the US was still piously hoping that "someone else" would take care of Hitler, Stalin and Hirohito for them.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
>>to be the only real threat to us, but from what
>>I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
>>With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
>>advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
>>military has never been more overwhelming
>>than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
>>US military still had serious competition.
>>Not so today.
>>Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>>East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>>allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
