China building world’s largest navy as U.S. sea power is in 'absolute decline'

[Schmed]

Analyst: China building world’s largest navy as U.S. sea power is in 'absolute decline'
By Cliff Kincaid Did you know that China could become the world’s leading naval power by 2020? That’s the verdict of military analyst Tony Corn. This may help explain why the U.S. Navy thinks a piece of paper called the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty provides some sort of protection for American forces on the high seas. It offers no such protection, of course, but it creates the impression that Navy leaders are doing something about our increasing weakness and vulnerability. However, like so many other U.N. treaties, including the 19 anti-terrorism treaties in effect on 9/11, this one offers a false sense of security. It will mask a dramatic decline in our military power.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will be the subject of a September 27 hearing before Senator Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_china_09_19.asp#). All of the witnesses are pro-treaty. Another hearing is scheduled to follow and a quick Senate vote on the pact is then predicted. This process is better known as a railroad. Like the illegal alien amnesty bill, our Senate leaders, in cahoots with Bush Administration officials, are trying to rush it through. It remains to be seen whether the American people will wake up in time. Can we count on the media to blow the whistle? The betting here is that talk radio and the Internet will have to carry the load. Also In This Edition





Before the Senate rushes into an embrace of this treaty, it might be advisable for our media to tell the complete story of the decline of the U.S. Navy and attempt to explain how and why this has happened. But that would require that major news organizations pay less attention to O.J. and Britney. And that may be too much to ask. Corn explains what is happening right before our eyes. “Though globalization has increased the importance of maritime affairs, there has been both a relative and an absolute decline of U.S. sea power, with a U.S. Navy today at its lowest level in the post-World War II era,” he notes. “For the first time in 20 years, the U.S. is in the process of drafting a new maritime strategy, but with a considerably reduced force that went from 600 to fewer than 300 ships, and with new responsibilities in terms of nonmilitary maritime security. Hence the concept of the Thousand Ship Navy, which is meant to create a global maritime partnership with foreign navies.”
According to the Navy’s June 2007 Playbook, this 1,000-ship Navy is one that traverses the high seas under “hundreds of flags.” This plan depends on using foreign Navies, which are called “partner countries,” for our defense. Perhaps a U.N. Navy will even be involved. The Playbook declares, “A groundswell of support from military leaders around the world has allowed us to move forward with this concept and make it a reality.”
Military leaders around the world? They have “allowed” us to move forward with this concept. Since when did U.S. Navy officials look to foreign officials and leaders for guidance on what to do about U.S. national security? It apparently started sometime after the decline from 594 Navy ships under President Reagan (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_china_09_19.asp#), who rejected UNCLOS, to only 276 today. We are headed down to only 180 ships in 17 years.
Protecting U.S. national security (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_china_09_19.asp#) has given way, according to the Playbook, to securing the “global community.” That’s on page 8. It also declares that “Diversity is a strategic imperative for the U.S. Navy” so that it can be “more relevant.”
Our Navy has not only been infected with the disease we all know as political correctness but it has come under the influence of international lawyers who pay homage to the U.N. Asked why U.S. Navy officials were supporting UNCLOS, one Navy Commander, with an important position in the Department of the Navy, told me, “The political leaders don’t really understand the issue, and they all listen to the lawyers. And the lawyers are all liberal. It is absolutely the problem. The Navy JAGs and the OGC [Navy’s Office of General Counsel] are liberal. It is a tragedy.”
We should have had some inkling of the problem when, in 2001, a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane was brought down and the crew made hostages by the Chinese. The Chinese regime detained the crew for 11 days and the plane for more than three months. The crew was released after a U.S. statement that China interpreted as an apology.
The U.S. military response was to dispatch Admiral William J. Fallon, then-commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, to China to kiss the butts of Chinese officials. According to press reports, he got excited on a 2006 visit because the Chinese allowed him to sit in the cockpit of a Chinese warplane. Fallon, who has since been made the head of U.S. Central Command, said he wanted U.S.-China ties to be more “open and transparent.” This constituted nothing less than groveling to officials of an outlaw regime.
Although the U.S. said the Navy plane was in international airspace, the Chinese charged that the flight was a violation of UNCLOS, which its government had ratified. As one analyst noted, the U.S. and China interpreted the treaty text differently. But because the U.S. had not ratified the treaty, we were free to ignore it, as well as the Chinese interpretation. The U.S. didn’t have to grovel. But we chose to do so.
Meanwhile, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Mullen has just completed his own trip to China and has indicated he would improve ties with China when he takes over as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_china_09_19.asp#) next month.
Mullen is said to be the brain behind the 1,000-ship Navy concept. One story notes that Mullen’s concept is “to build on existing international security agreements to extend the global reach of sea power.” That power, he says, includes the ability to “share and unite” nations.
Sounding like a U.N. Secretary-General, rather than a U.S. military leader, Mullen says, “Our vision is to extend the peace through an interconnected community of maritime nations working together.” That includes UNCLOS.
There is one big problem with Mullen’s “vision.” What happens when a country like China violates the treaty? It is clear, based on the EP-3 incident, that the U.S. doesn’t have the political will or military capability to confront China. So what happens when the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea rules for China and against the U.S.? It can only mean further surrender by the U.S. in the face of Chinese military power.
This is just one of several questions that occur to those wondering why the U.S. is so eager to ratify a treaty that most certainly will be interpreted to go against American interests.
If anyone doubts that decisions of the tribunal or its subsidiary panels will go against America, one only has to note that the so-called Group of 77, which includes China, is now the largest intergovernmental organization of developing states in the U.N. Despite its name, it has increased to 130 countries. It not only dominates the U.N., it dominates the membership of UNCLOS.
The handwriting is on the wall. Or, rather, the treaty. The U.S. is walking into a trap. What’s worse, Navy officials should know it.

[THE FEZ MAN]

these treaty's are in effect to protect THEM not us, if some one fires on an american war ship they are in deep deep trouble, we dont use even 1/10 of our weapons.

[datsyukian deek]

So do the terrorists take a backseat when the chinks invade? Thats usually how these things work..

[stillbornstew]

i can atest to the validity of our surface force declining. a typical warship is manned w/ 300-400 sailor is going to be reduced to a crew of 75-100, whereas everyone does everyones job. the antiquated ships are going to be replaced w/ ships that have more automated sysytems thus reducing the need for a large crew (thats the theory at least). the only problem i see if being able to run effective damage control and maintaining ships operation in the process. if you have 15-20 people (your standard hose team and repairing locker manning), that leaves the other 80 or so to run the rest of the ship. i think it could be a dicey gamble and i'd not want to serve on a ship w/ that little manning. but china's made it perfectly clear that they mean to beef up their military while we continue to downsize ours.

[UCFGavin]

This is why we need to stop invading countries, pull our troops home, and build up a strong defensive force. Not only would we save money, but our military enrollment would definitely go up.

But we're so concerned about fighting terrorists that we forget how fucked we really are. It seems like the current government's plan is going perfectly :(

[Three Hole Puncher]

Bigger doesn't mean better... the Rooskies learned this lesson back during the cold war. Even though they had a much bigger navy, they wouldn't have dared fire a shot at a U.S. warship... we would have murdelized them.

Same with the chinks... a navy without carriers and effective submarines is no threat to the U.S. Navy at all... their ships are just a bunch of targets, sitting ducks, no matter how many they have.

Not that we shouldn't keep an eye on what those slippery slopes are up to... we most certainly should, but their navy doesn't pose any threat to us currently, or even in the immediately foreseeable future.

[sniper2323]

I would suggest reading a book that has a simular situation take place.

Ghost force by Patrick Robinson.

He is a great author, and in this book it is England, and not the U.S. but I see the same thing happening here.

Just a thought.

[sniper2323]

Bigger doesn't mean better... the Rooskies learned this lesson back during the cold war. Even though they had a much bigger navy, they wouldn't have dared fire a shot at a U.S. warship... we would have murdelized them.

Same with the chinks... a navy without carriers and effective submarines is no threat to the U.S. Navy at all... their ships are just a bunch of targets, sitting ducks, no matter how many they have.

Not that we shouldn't keep an eye on what those slippery slopes are up to... we most certainly should, but their navy doesn't pose any threat to us currently, or even in the immediately foreseeable future.

There is a quote that I will always remember.

"Yes, we have quality, but they have quantity, and that has a quality all it's own".

Lets make it simple. You have 10 missles that can hit and destroy what ever they are fired at. But I have 20 ships. Now what are you going to do?

[Three Hole Puncher]

There is a quote that I will always remember.

"Yes, we have quality, but they have quantity, and that has a quality all it's own".

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

It was Josef Stalin who said that, and that philosophy worked against the Nazis in WWII... just barely, but when the Russians tried to stick with it during the cold war... not so much.


Lets make it simple. You have 10 missles that can hit and destroy what ever they are fired at. But I have 20 ships. Now what are you going to do?

Take on an additional 100 missiles. It's not like there's a shortage.

The rope-a-dope strategy doesn't work in modern warfare.

We're talking a 1:100, or even higher, kill/loss ratio for any nation foolish enough to tangle with U.S. carriers and submarines with a non-carrier based surface fleet. It'd be like Ron and Fezzie's hypothetical, "How many second graders could you take?" The answer being... "How many you got?"

[fuckwit]

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5127/taiwanstrait98ts7.jpg


good luck bro

[sniper2323]

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

It was Josef Stalin who said that, and that philosophy worked against the Nazis in WWII... just barely, but when the Russians tried to stick with it during the cold war... not so much.




Take on an additional 100 missiles. It's not like there's a shortage.

The rope-a-dope strategy doesn't work in modern warfare.

We're talking a 1:100, or even higher, kill/loss ratio for any nation foolish enough to tangle with U.S. carriers and submarines with a non-carrier based surface fleet. It'd be like Ron and Fezzie's hypothetical, "How many second graders could you take?" The answer being... "How many you got?"

Ok, true. Now lets use that same logic.

China population, est as of July, 1,321,851,888 people (all)
U.S. Population, est as of July, 301,139,947 people (all)

So they have 4:1, now we are not even looking at anyone who joins the battle. Now granted, both sides have alot of allies, but with the whole world going, "NO MORE WAR!" and wanting everyone recalled to thier own nation, which sounds great, it doesn't work. What happeneds if one of our allies are attacked. Do we look the other way? Get the oh so effective U.N. to put sanctions on them? Wouldn't work very well concidering The Security Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.

If only we could solve all the worlds problems on Wackbag..

Really, I do enjoy the debates.

[Treat_Yourself]

Ok, true. Now lets use that same logic.

China population, est as of July, 1,321,851,888 people (all)
U.S. Population, est as of July, 301,139,947 people (all)

So they have 4:1, now we are not even looking at anyone who joins the battle. Now granted, both sides have alot of allies, but with the whole world going, "NO MORE WAR!" and wanting everyone recalled to thier own nation, which sounds great, it doesn't work. What happeneds if one of our allies are attacked. Do we look the other way? Get the oh so effective U.N. to put sanctions on them? Wouldn't work very well concidering The Security Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.

If only we could solve all the worlds problems on Wackbag..

Really, I do enjoy the debates.

The number of citizens makes no difference. The US military is pretty good at wiping out other conventional military forces even when outnumbered. After all, it was built to take on the Soviets, who had more tanks, planes and troops than us all through the cold war. And let's be realistic. If a war broke out between China and the US and either group put troops on the other's land it would go nuclear immediately.

[sniper2323]

The number of citizens makes no difference. The US military is pretty good at wiping out other conventional military forces even when outnumbered. After all, it was built to take on the Soviets, who had more tanks, planes and troops than us all through the cold war. And let's be realistic. If a war broke out between China and the US and either group put troops on the other's land it would go nuclear immediately.

Well that is true, but the problem, as I see it, the U.S. has been reducing the military, while China has been increasing.

As for nuclear... I honestly don't know, maybe after time.

[Three Hole Puncher]

Ok, true. Now lets use that same logic.

China population, est as of July, 1,321,851,888 people (all)
U.S. Population, est as of July, 301,139,947 people (all)

So they have 4:1, now we are not even looking at anyone who joins the battle. Now granted, both sides have alot of allies, but with the whole world going, "NO MORE WAR!" and wanting everyone recalled to thier own nation, which sounds great, it doesn't work. What happeneds if one of our allies are attacked. Do we look the other way? Get the oh so effective U.N. to put sanctions on them? Wouldn't work very well concidering The Security Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.

If only we could solve all the worlds problems on Wackbag..

Really, I do enjoy the debates.

Yeah... because China's huge population proved such a decisive advantage when the tiny island nation of Japan went about kicking 14 shades of shit out of them in WWII.

And just look at what a ferocious resistance those six millions Jews put up against the Nazis... their strategy of clogging up the ovens by lining up and diving in as fast as they could was incredibly effective.

[Balogny Tits]

The US is rushing to ratify this treaty not because of china, but because of Canada, Russia and Greenland. The North will provide a passage across the oceans in the coming years due to global warming. Further, 20% of all energy reserves are in the artic. The US wants to lay claim to the energy and shipping routes, but needs to rely on the treaty to do so.

[Sprite]

The Chinese are coming!

[stillbornstew]

what get's me, and maybe sniper can confirm to this, we have RULES when confronting an enemy (unless you are operating in specop warfare). it's telling to see division (grunts, ground pounders) marines being tried for murder when they are operating in a warzone. if our soldiers can't operate w/o scrutiny in combat, what chance do we have in a real confrontation. war is messy and the children doing the job that BMW/MERCEDES driving politicians dictate as necessary yet are so ready to string up is an insult. get the media out of warzone's and let our fighters do their job.

[JimsInfectedEye]

I read a lot of Tom Clancy novels. Our Navy is the best in the world.

[datsyukian deek]

what get's me, and maybe sniper can confirm to this, we have RULES when confronting an enemy (unless you are operating in specop warfare). it's telling to see division (grunts, ground pounders) marines being tried for murder when they are operating in a warzone. if our soldiers can't operate w/o scrutiny in combat, what chance do we have in a real confrontation. war is messy and the children doing the job that BMW/MERCEDES driving politicians dictate as necessary yet are so ready to string up is an insult. get the media out of warzone's and let our fighters do their job.


You're comparing an unnecessary occupation to a country(Iraq) with an all out war with a nation that has nuclear capability and one billion citizens(China). If the US, its Allies and China go to war then we're looking at WW3, not like our current playtime in the sandbox.

[Glenn Dandy]

We have about 20 years before we are diggin ditches for the slopes.... Enjoy yourself while yacan.

[Furtherman]

We're gonna be under a red moon soon too.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin says he believes China will return to the moon with human explorers before the U.S. accomplishes that goal with its Constellation Program, as the economic competition fueled by spaceflight activities intensifies. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/china091807.xml&headline=China%20To%20Explore%20Moon%20Sooner:%20G riffin&channel=space)

[stillbornstew]

You're comparing an unnecessary occupation to a country(Iraq) with an all out war with a nation that has nuclear capability and one billion citizens(China). If the US, its Allies and China go to war then we're looking at WW3, not like our current playtime in the sandbox.

no, i touched on china briefly (to say they are beefing up their military). i was merely commenting on what our fighting forces are facing in the middle east...............based on friends that have been there or are in there have experienced.

EDIT: have you ever been shot at or targeted in combat? if not, please refrain from posting.

[datsyukian deek]

what get's me, and maybe sniper can confirm to this, we have RULES when confronting an enemy (unless you are operating in specop warfare). it's telling to see division (grunts, ground pounders) marines being tried for murder when they are operating in a warzone. if our soldiers can't operate w/o scrutiny in combat, what chance do we have in a real confrontation. war is messy and the children doing the job that BMW/MERCEDES driving politicians dictate as necessary yet are so ready to string up is an insult. get the media out of warzone's and let our fighters do their job.

no, i touched on china briefly (to say they are beefing up their military). i was merely commenting on what our fighting forces are facing in the middle east...............based on friends that have been there or are in there have experienced.

I understand but people always seem to complain about press scrutiny along with politicizing war. Im just bringing up that I believe a full fledged war, for instance a war with China WW3, would probably allow more leeway with our military. Im comparing that to Iraq an arguably unnecessary unprovoked war, similar to Nam.

A conventional war (WW2/3) is a little different then an occupation with a side of peacekeeping(Nam/Iraq2)

[stillbornstew]

A conventional war (WW2/3) is a little different then an occupation with a side of peacekeeping(Nam/Iraq2)
granted, but the similarites of nam and iraq is that we're facing an enemy that hides among it's civilian populace. iraqi's know exactly who and what we are there, we aren't sure who the enemy is. it's doesn't give us the authority to terrorize, **** and pillage at will while we're there. but those serving have had their time extended, and are mentally drained from the combat stress. killing innocent people is hard to justify but in war, and against an enemy that may/may not be you can't condemn our marines/soldiers. my friends have seen children punch in the code on a cell phone to detonate on IED.

[VMS]

The Kitner Boy (among others) is right. The Chinese Navy (or, officially, the People Liberation Army's Navy, I shit you not), is a shitload of cruisers and some shore patrol vessels. They're very much a brown water navy, with minimal force projection in "blue" water.

That means they're something of a threat to South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. If they got really nuts about the Spratley's, they could get ugly with the Phillipines. But they're not going a whole lot outside of their "home" territory.

The Chinese Navy doesn't have aircraft carriers. They don't even have decent helicopters. Translation: no OTH targeting. If their radar mast is 30 feet in the air, that means their effective distance to the horizon is about 6.5 nautical miles. Since a US Navy ship is higher than wave-height, they can spot a USN ship from maybe 10 NM away (and that's a pretty big fudge factor).

At 10 NM, an Arleigh Burke destroyer will have already sunk a dozen surface ships from any Navy stupid enough to be at war with the US. A Zumwalt destroyer will have taken out 2-3 dozen, and don't even get me started on what an aircraft carrier would do.

For the nautically challenged, a destroyer is about as small a ship as the US Navy will put onto the ocean (the Zumwalts are replacing the old FFG frigates, which were smaller, but even an FFG could take out about 8 ChiCom ships out to 100 miles away).

And UCFGavin, if you're already out of college you need to go back to Orlando and demand a return on any tuition you spent in a history class. Isolationalism, or even isolationalism disguised as a citadel "strategy" is the consistently the dumbest fucking choice made by major powers throughout history. You give up the strategic offense, and you give your enemies the power to decide when and how to attack you.

Like it or not, and most American are too damn ignorant to understand it let alone like it, strategic offense/tactical defense is consistently the best disposition of military forces when you decide to fight.

The problem with Americans these days, of course, is that we don't decide to fight. We want our frappachinos without having to worry about that shit.

[stillbornstew]

Like it or not, and most American are too damn ignorant to understand it let alone like it, strategic offense/tactical defense is consistently the best disposition of military forces when you decide to fight.

The problem with Americans these days, of course, is that we don't decide to fight. We want our frappachinos without having to worry about that shit.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[UCFGavin]

And UCFGavin, if you're already out of college you need to go back to Orlando and demand a return on any tuition you spent in a history class. Isolationalism, or even isolationalism disguised as a citadel "strategy" is the consistently the dumbest fucking choice made by major powers throughout history. You give up the strategic offense, and you give your enemies the power to decide when and how to attack you.

Like it or not, and most American are too damn ignorant to understand it let alone like it, strategic offense/tactical defense is consistently the best disposition of military forces when you decide to fight.

The problem with Americans these days, of course, is that we don't decide to fight. We want our frappachinos without having to worry about that shit.

you can say what we're doing right now is a "strategic offense" and guess what, we're out of money. you want a "strategic offense"? how about being on the offense somewhere where it matters instead of locking our men and women in uniform in a shit hole sandbox in the middle east playing police and getting shot at. am i saying the chinese navy is a huge threat? no. but what i am saying is that we need to be careful and use our military in situations where military action is the only course of action.

people have no problem fighting when the cause is just and the sovereignty of our country and our borders are threatened.

[VMS]

you can say what we're doing right now is a "strategic offense" and guess what, we're out of money. you want a "strategic offense"? how about being on the offense somewhere where it matters instead of locking our men and women in uniform in a shit hole sandbox in the middle east playing police and getting shot at. am i saying the chinese navy is a huge threat? no. but what i am saying is that we need to be careful and use our military in situations where military action is the only course of action.

people have no problem fighting when the cause is just and the sovereignty of our country and our borders are threatened.

Ummmm... yeah. There's nothing in the Middle East we need at all.

So. How'd you get to work today? Your purple unicorn that runs on fairy dust and dreams?

"No blood for oil!" is a nice, catchy little tag line. And if you can figure out a way to fix the Middle East without putting a few bodies in the ground, I'd be glad to hear it.

Again, go demand a refund for any tuition you spent on history courses in Orlando. When you get right down to it, EVERY war in the history of mankind has been over resources. Oil, land, agriculture, gold, fucking NUTMEG, every war has been about resources. Oh, sometimes they gloss it over with religion or some other excuse, but in the end it's about resources. There's nothing inherently good about that, but there's nothing inherently evil about it either: it's REALITY. It's like women bitching "why do we have to carry fucking babies for 9 months?" Get over it: it's the way things are, and ain't none of us gonna ever manage to change it.

We need oil. The Middle East has the most oil. Therefore, we need the Middle East to be as stable, productive, and friendly as possible. Well run democracies don't go to war with each other, and tend to have pretty good trade relations, which is all we really want out of the Middle East. Iraq, as big a fucking shithole as it is, was and is the most modern non-Israel country in the Middle East and the "readiest" for democracy.

Granted, that ain't saying a whole lot. But even if you hate the war, crack open a history book and read up a little: once you've got your dick stuck in, the consequences of pulling out before SHE'S done (as opposed to when YOU'RE done) is a hell of a lot worse than fucking her with a limp cock.

http://www.brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files%2FCambodia%2Ejpg

[abudabit]

Ummmm... yeah. There's nothing in the Middle East we need at all.

So. How'd you get to work today? Your purple unicorn that runs on fairy dust and dreams?

We live in a market economy, not a mercantile economy. :hamm: :hamm: If we simply allowed Saddam to sell the oil in the market there would have been no need for some sort of invasion. Now step in a time machine and go back to 1800's Britain where you belong. :action-sm

[sniper2323]

We live in a market economy, not a mercantile economy. :hamm: :hamm: If we simply allowed Saddam to sell the oil in the market there would have been no need for some sort of invasion. Now step in a time machine and go back to 1800's Britain where you belong. :action-sm

Right, if I read that correctly, if we just mind our business and pay no attention to what is going on around the world, and simply run our little store, everything will be ok....

Now that you have read that post, stick you head back into the sand, and say to yourself, "there is no place like home".:action-sm

[abudabit]

Who is the one with their head in the sand? You think Iraq 2003 is a good case for interventionism? :haha7: People like you have been humiliated, you must have your head in the sand to still repeat the same old mantra. :action-sm

$90 billion a year sure could have been put to better military use than playing nanny to Iraq. Don't you have any interest in our national security? Why do you enjoy allowing Al Qaeda to enter Iraq? Why do you enjoy only seeing 1/10th of those resources being put into Afghanistan where Al Qaeda really had a presence? Why do you think it's a good thing that the oil supply from Iraq was interrupted? Nice strategy, deek.

$90 billion a year extra in our navy sure would have been nice.... there wouldn't have been a need for this thread. Oh well.

[sniper2323]

Who is the one with their head in the sand? You think Iraq 2003 is a good case for interventionism? :haha7: People like you have been humiliated, you must have your head in the sand to still repeat the same old mantra. :action-sm

$90 billion a year sure could have been put to better military use than playing nanny to Iraq. Don't you have any interest in our national security?

As a matter of fact, I have had my head in the sand. But that is a diffrent story.

How about using that 90 billion to help the poor...

How about we take all our forein aid we give out, and use that for the war effort.. I bet our debt would be reduced at the same time... Maybe if, during the late 90's, we were not closing every fucking base we could and downsize the military, to save money, you think that may help???

[abudabit]

Or we could have just avoided this moronic war. Would have been much easier.


The only positive part of it is it has removed the neocons from power and soon hopefully they will be removed from the Republican party. One more election full of ass rapings is all that is needed.

[Treat_Yourself]

As a matter of fact, I have had my head in the sand. But that is a diffrent story.

How about using that 90 billion to help the poor...

How about we take all our forein aid we give out, and use that for the war effort.. I bet our debt would be reduced at the same time... Maybe if, during the late 90's, we were not closing every fucking base we could and downsize the military, to save money, you think that may help???

A lot of the foreign aid we give out keeps regions of the world more stable eliminating the need for much more expensive wars. The Iraq war was a useless exercise in waste. Every soldier who died there died for no good reason. It has not helped the US in the least. It has not made the US more secure. It has not resulted in cheaper oil. Face facts. The Iraq war was a waste of money and lives and a monumental fuckup. Saddam may have killed his own people, but he kept the oil flowing and kept a check on Iran. Iran actually is a state sponosr of terrorism.

[sniper2323]

Or we could have just avoided this moronic war. Would have been much easier.


The only positive part of it is it has removed the neocons from power and soon hopefully they will be removed from the Republican party. One more election full of ass rapings is all that is needed.

:clap:
Thats right, lets get a bunch of political morons that want to spend more money, and piss down thier leg when things happen, then they will tell the military how to do thier job. That works oh so well.

I agree, Both the republicans, and the democrats are morons. Let the military do thier job, give them the support they need, and don't have some college idiot, that has never held a real job, never served in the military, and has been on the public payroll most of thier life, tell them how to do thier job.

[abudabit]

Let the military do what they want? Well, since Ron Paul and Barrack Obama are getting the most campaign donations from military personnel so far I think the military has spoken.

Personally I would consider forcing the soldiers to go to Iraq is tying thier hands though... especially since they are there way beyond their original duties dictated.

The hands of the military will never be untied as long as the current administration is in power.

Even the military has turned thier backs on the neocon agenda. A minority of military support, a minority of American public support. Time to say good bye.

[sniper2323]

A lot of the foreign aid we give out keeps regions of the world more stable eliminating the need for much more expensive wars. The Iraq war was a useless exercise in waste. Every soldier who died there died for no good reason. It has not helped the US in the least. It has not made the US more secure. It has not resulted in cheaper oil. Face facts. The Iraq war was a waste of money and lives and a monumental fuckup. Saddam may have killed his own people, but he kept the oil flowing and kept a check on Iran. Iran actually is a state sponosr of terrorism.

Every dollar we spend of foreign aid is a waste, we should keep the money here and use it for our own country.

Oh wait, that sound real close to having our men and women oversea's fighting.

Further, I agree, that Iraq has been a cluster, but mostly because the military has not been allowed to do thier job.

[sniper2323]

Let the military do what they want? Well, since Ron Paul and Barrack Obama are getting the most campaign donations from military personnel so far I think the military has spoken.

Personally I would consider forcing the soldiers to go to Iraq is tying thier hands though...

Even the military has turned thier backs on the neocon agenda. A minority of military support, a minority of American public support. Time to say good bye.

And look at our military levels during the Clinton years, and if Hitlery Cunton becomes the C in C, We wont have a military, because most will not re-enlist.

Also, the race is still early, shit it shouldn't have even started. Further, I know I haven't dontated a dime, because, I don't know who I am going to vote for yet. All I know is who I am not going to vote for. I'm sure many in the military are in the same boat.

[Treat_Yourself]

Every dollar we spend of foreign aid is a waste, we should keep the money here and use it for our own country.

Oh wait, that sound real close to having our men and women oversea's fighting.

Further, I agree, that Iraq has been a cluster, but mostly because the military has not been allowed to do thier job.

What job could the military have done? Couldn't have gotten rid of Al Qaeda because while Saddam was running Iraq Al Qaeda had no presence there. Establish democracy? In a country where the majority are Shi'ite fundies with ties to Iran that's not a good idea. Sending the military into Iraq in the first place was the mistake.

[abudabit]

Iraq is gonna put Hillary in office. Congratulations, another victory for you. Let's list your accomplishments:

3000 US soldiers dead for no gain
Underfunded Afghanistan mission
China's navy to surpass our navy
Hillary on road to victory
Soldiers doing more tours than they were told they would have to
US Discredited
$90 billion down the drain EACH year
Al Qaeda now roaming Iraq
Frequent oil supply cut offs
Living conditions of Iraq in shitter
Kurdish allies on verge of Turkish invasion
North Korea acting cocky
US military capacity declining
No one wants to enlist anymore
Massive fuel consumption transporting military equipment helps inflation of fuel prices

You're right, my appologies. Iraq was a WONDERFUL idea. :clap:

[VMS]

Further, I agree, that Iraq has been a cluster, but mostly because the military has not been allowed to do thier job.

I think that is a LARGE part of it. I also think the pinstripe suit brigade has fucked up pretty badly themselves. The State Department has done a pretty piss-poor job of handling things, IMO.

Frankly, I think a 5 year period with a military governorship after we invaded would have been the way to go. It would have been politically impossible, of course: American have pussied out too much and we don't have a Douglas MacArthur type to be the military governor (yeah, he was an ass, but he had the stature to basically be an American-sanctioned military dictator of a foreign country). Schwarzkopf might have had the stature and the bombast, but he was seriously on the outs with the administration: more political BS.

An American military governorship for 5 years or so, while the pinstripe assholes worked in Iraq under the governor's orders, and then a slow transition into a stable Middle Eastern democracy, leaving the US with basing rights throughout so we could keep an eye on the motherfuckers after we handed over power. The critical error, IMO, was confusing "Arab country most ready for democracy" with "Arab country fully ready for democracy". The people there wanted and needed a strong hand at the rudder and THEN transition them into more freedoms.

Edit: make that a 7 year military governorship. Early 2003 + 5 years would mean the military governorship would end right before the 2008 elections. The entire point of having a military governor would be to keep the actual rebuilding job as non-political here in the States as possible, so the job could actually get done.

[VMS]

3000 US soldiers dead for no gain

Only if we pull out. Which kind of makes this one what's called a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Underfunded Afghanistan mission

Bullshit. That's like the retards saying the Iraq Invasion took troops away from Afghanistan. Hint: the invasion was done with Mechanized Infantry and Armored Divisions. Look up the 10 Mountain Infantry, the 82nd Rangers and the 101st Airborne (the ones doing most of the job in Afghanistan), and tell me what's different about those guys than the MechInf and Armored units.

Arguably, the US should have formed up more light infantry units for Afghanistan, but Light Infantry units take a looooooooong time to form up. The institutional training, the noncom cadre, and the junior officers suitable to the task take years to form up.

China's navy to surpass our navy

Dude, seriously. This "sell it to the rubes" line has already been shot down, hard. I don't give a fuck if the Fei Long missiles the Chinese cruisers mount have a range of 100 miles: the Chinese navy doesn't have any fucking way of targeting US Navy ships beyond 15 miles unless they put up recon aircraft that get shot down before they can transmit the data back to their commanders.

The Chinese Navy isn't a serious threat until they build a carrier fleet. They've been trying for several decades, actually (it's no coincidence that some of the world's largest shipbreakers are Chinese...), but aircraft carrier operations require INSANE attention to detail. That's exactly what China's military lacks.

Hillary on road to victory

It's 2007. This time of year in 2003, Howard Dean looked unstoppable. And Hillary is at least as divisive as Bush is, if not more.

Soldiers doing more tours than they were told they would have to

Uhhhhhh... right. Have you actually read enlistment papers? It doesn't matter what you're told: you are 100% owned property of the US military when you sign those papers. They can assign you to spend your 5 year tour cleaning shit out of porta-potties in the middle of IED alley. That's kind of the nature of the job.

US Discredited

Only if you listen to others.

$90 billion down the drain EACH year

In a $13.3 trillion economy? Not great, but not exactly a death knell, either.

Al Qaeda now roaming Iraq

Yup. Look up strategic offense/tactical defense again. In many ways, that's kind of the idea. Especially since there isn't a country called "al Qaedia" that we could invade.

Frequent oil supply cut offs

That's funny. I run a warehouse, with 2 diesel-guzzling trucks that run out every day. I don't seem to recall them running out of gas any time recently.

Living conditions of Iraq in shitter

That's kind of funny, actually. I mean, you do realize things were worse through all of Iraq under the old UN sanctions, right? Things in Baghdad are probably worse now, as well as in the Sunni Triangle, but overall things are actually better.

The worst guesstimates I've seen for Iraqi civilian deaths due to the invasion number somewhere around 30k/year. And that sucks, and it's horrible. But before the invasion, Amnesty International deliberately removed the stats on their website on the number of Iraqis dying each year under Saddam and under the UN sanctions. They didn't want to be seen supporting the war, you know.

AI's stats were for as much as 100k Iraqi civilians dying each year because of Saddam and the UN sanctions.

We bomb the shit out of their country, they bomb the shit out of their own country, and al Qaeda bombs the shit out of their country, and FEWER people die. Whoda thunk it?

Kurdish allies on verge of Turkish invasion

They're not going to invade Turkey. That said, if you're okay with the way Turkey treats the Kurds within their own borders, you've got a stronger stomach than I do.

North Korea acting cocky

You didn't pay much attention to the PRK at any time past 1950, did you? North Korea isn't acting any differently now than they have at any point in the last 54 years since the cease-fire. Shit, the only reason they were quiet in the 90s was because Clinton bought them off with shiploads of oil, food, and medical supplies, and even then the PRK kept building their nuclear program.

US military capacity declining

That's funny. A single M1A2 battalion today is probably worth an entire M1 (uparmored) brigade from Gulf War 1. That M1 (uparmored) brigade from GW1 is probably worth George Patton's 3rd Army Group from WWII, if not a whole lot more.

Capacity is consistently increasing. Total numbers are down, but a single 5.56mm round in an M16 today is considerably more effective than the exact same 5.56mm round in an M16 20 years ago.

No one wants to enlist anymore

Actually, those numbers are from a couple of years ago. You know, when the economy was running away like a freight train? You never want the economy to be hurting, of course, but the reality is that enlistment numbers are inversely proportional to the economic health of the country. Graph those numbers, and after taking away WWII and adjusting for the draft the wars the US is actually fighting have relatively little effect on enlistment. The economy is a MUCH greater factor on enlistment numbers than whatever war those kids are expected to fight in and possibly die in.

Doesn't say much for how bright people might be, but economic desperation does a much better job of creating courage than a war you might actually be expected to fight in.

Massive fuel consumption transporting military equipment helps inflation of fuel prices

So your solution is.... neo-isolationalism?

[Treat_Yourself]

Only if we pull out. Which kind of makes this one what's called a self-fulfilling prophesy. What do we gain if Iraq ends up being a stable democracy, which is rather unlikely? The majority of them still identify more with Iran than with the US. We hand Iraq over to Iran as an ally. We were better off with Saddam.



Bullshit. That's like the retards saying the Iraq Invasion took troops away from Afghanistan. Hint: the invasion was done with Mechanized Infantry and Armored Divisions. Look up the 10 Mountain Infantry, the 82nd Rangers and the 101st Airborne (the ones doing most of the job in Afghanistan), and tell me what's different about those guys than the MechInf and Armored units. So no attack helicopters, blackhawks for transporting troops, and other assets were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq? I find that kind of hard to believe.

Arguably, the US should have formed up more light infantry units for Afghanistan, but Light Infantry units take a looooooooong time to form up. The institutional training, the noncom cadre, and the junior officers suitable to the task take years to form up.



Dude, seriously. This "sell it to the rubes" line has already been shot down, hard. I don't give a fuck if the Fei Long missiles the Chinese cruisers mount have a range of 100 miles: the Chinese navy doesn't have any fucking way of targeting US Navy ships beyond 15 miles unless they put up recon aircraft that get shot down before they can transmit the data back to their commanders.

The Chinese Navy isn't a serious threat until they build a carrier fleet. They've been trying for several decades, actually (it's no coincidence that some of the world's largest shipbreakers are Chinese...), but aircraft carrier operations require INSANE attention to detail. That's exactly what China's military lacks.



It's 2007. This time of year in 2003, Howard Dean looked unstoppable. And Hillary is at least as divisive as Bush is, if not more.



Uhhhhhh... right. Have you actually read enlistment papers? It doesn't matter what you're told: you are 100% owned property of the US military when you sign those papers. They can assign you to spend your 5 year tour cleaning shit out of porta-potties in the middle of IED alley. That's kind of the nature of the job.



Only if you listen to others. One of the reasons I've heard for continuing the Iraq mess is that pulling out will make us look weak to others. Both sides are guilty of listening to others and worrying about their opinions.



In a $13.3 trillion economy? Not great, but not exactly a death knell, either. still too much waste to tolerate.



Yup. Look up strategic offense/tactical defense again. In many ways, that's kind of the idea. Especially since there isn't a country called "al Qaedia" that we could invade. No, there isn't a country called Al Qaeda, but it pulls recruits from pissed off Muslims all over the world. Invading Iraq pissed off and radicalized a lot of Muslims. It boosted Al Qaeda recruiting. Before Iraq the Al Qaedas who were serious about commiting terrorist acts were far fewer in number. Many people in the Muslim world are convinced that the US is waging a war on Islam and have become Al Qaeda sympathizers and immitators. The net effect of the Iraq invasion has been to create more terrorists.




That's funny. I run a warehouse, with 2 diesel-guzzling trucks that run out every day. I don't seem to recall them running out of gas any time recently. Not sure here, but I think he's refering to the frequent oil production shut downs in Iraqi oil fields.



That's kind of funny, actually. I mean, you do realize things were worse through all of Iraq under the old UN sanctions, right? Things in Baghdad are probably worse now, as well as in the Sunni Triangle, but overall things are actually better.

The worst guesstimates I've seen for Iraqi civilian deaths due to the invasion number somewhere around 30k/year. And that sucks, and it's horrible. But before the invasion, Amnesty International deliberately removed the stats on their website on the number of Iraqis dying each year under Saddam and under the UN sanctions. They didn't want to be seen supporting the war, you know.

AI's stats were for as much as 100k Iraqi civilians dying each year because of Saddam and the UN sanctions.

We bomb the shit out of their country, they bomb the shit out of their own country, and al Qaeda bombs the shit out of their country, and FEWER people die. Whoda thunk it? Are we now going to intervene everywhere civilians are being killed? Should we invade Sudan next? It's just not worth militry involvement if it doesn't protect our country and our interests.



They're not going to invade Turkey. That said, if you're okay with the way Turkey treats the Kurds within their own borders, you've got a stronger stomach than I do. Actually Turkey has been threatening military action agaisnt Kurds across the border in Iraq, not the other way around. Imagine what a pickle we'll be in when one of four NATO allies invades a country we're occupying?



You didn't pay much attention to the PRK at any time past 1950, did you? North Korea isn't acting any differently now than they have at any point in the last 54 years since the cease-fire. Shit, the only reason they were quiet in the 90s was because Clinton bought them off with shiploads of oil, food, and medical supplies, and even then the PRK kept building their nuclear program.



That's funny. A single M1A2 battalion today is probably worth an entire M1 (uparmored) brigade from Gulf War 1. That M1 (uparmored) brigade from GW1 is probably worth George Patton's 3rd Army Group from WWII, if not a whole lot more.

Capacity is consistently increasing. Total numbers are down, but a single 5.56mm round in an M16 today is considerably more effective than the exact same 5.56mm round in an M16 20 years ago.



Actually, those numbers are from a couple of years ago. You know, when the economy was running away like a freight train? You never want the economy to be hurting, of course, but the reality is that enlistment numbers are inversely proportional to the economic health of the country. Graph those numbers, and after taking away WWII and adjusting for the draft the wars the US is actually fighting have relatively little effect on enlistment. The economy is a MUCH greater factor on enlistment numbers than whatever war those kids are expected to fight in and possibly die in.

Doesn't say much for how bright people might be, but economic desperation does a much better job of creating courage than a war you might actually be expected to fight in.



So your solution is.... neo-isolationalism?Just because you don't start wars for no reason doesn't make you an isolationist.

[sniper2323]

Just did some digging and found this little nugget.

19 December 2006Dragon's teeth - Chinese missiles raise their game

By Robert Hewson

China now builds and supplies missiles that can be used in combat from the beach, across the coastal/littoral environment, and out to extended-range engagements far over the horizon. This has largely been achieved through an evolutionary process of staged improvement.

At the same time, China has shown that it can embrace entirely new concepts to serve the essential operational requirements of the People's Liberation Army, the navy and naval air force, and the air force.

The potential use of tactical ballistic missiles against targets at sea is the best example of this and the intent that drives the process is clear: China has spent a great deal of time analysing how best to neutralise US naval forces in the Pacific - in particular the carrier strike groups.

C-602

The C-602 stands apart from the rest of China's anti-ship missiles because it is such a radical departure in terms of range and accuracy. It is effectively a cruise missile, repackaged for the maritime attack role. Its basic design is clearly scalable and the C-602's performance today is probably at the lower end of this configuration's theoretical capabilities. It has been offered on the export market since 2005.

At first sight the C-602 export designation would suggest a linkage to the much older C-601 missile (YJ-6/YJ-61 family), a 1960s-era Chinese design based on the Soviet SS-N-2 'Styx'. However, the turbojet-powered C-602 is a completely new, very modern design with a maximum range of 280 km.

Going ballistic

Most of what China has accomplished in the development of its anti-ship missile -capabilities parallels that of Europe, the US and elsewhere. But one element of China's ship-killing strategy stands out as a remarkable application of technology, and an unprecedented threat.

In Chinese terms, this is a Shashaojian - the assassin's mace - a 'silver bullet' weapon that would, literally, drop from the clear blue sky.

A 2004 report by the US Office of Naval Intelligence made it plain that China was developing the capability to use its DF-21 tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) against targets at sea. The DF-21 carries a single warhead of about 500/600 kg over a distance of 1,500 km to 2,000 km, or more.

Designed as a nuclear delivery system, the DF-21 can also be fitted with a conventional payload. If made to work, such a weapon would be a 'carrier killer' without equal.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061219_1_n.shtml

And look here about thier blue water navy, or what is in the works...

hmmm.
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/security/2007/08/17/analysis_chinas_navy_developing_carriers_and_subma rines/

[Budyzir]

The Kitner Boy (among others) is right. The Chinese Navy (or, officially, the People Liberation Army's Navy, I shit you not), is a shitload of cruisers and some shore patrol vessels. They're very much a brown water navy, with minimal force projection in "blue" water.

That means they're something of a threat to South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. If they got really nuts about the Spratley's, they could get ugly with the Phillipines. But they're not going a whole lot outside of their "home" territory.

The Chinese Navy doesn't have aircraft carriers. They don't even have decent helicopters. Translation: no OTH targeting. If their radar mast is 30 feet in the air, that means their effective distance to the horizon is about 6.5 nautical miles. Since a US Navy ship is higher than wave-height, they can spot a USN ship from maybe 10 NM away (and that's a pretty big fudge factor).

At 10 NM, an Arleigh Burke destroyer will have already sunk a dozen surface ships from any Navy stupid enough to be at war with the US. A Zumwalt destroyer will have taken out 2-3 dozen, and don't even get me started on what an aircraft carrier would do.

For the nautically challenged, a destroyer is about as small a ship as the US Navy will put onto the ocean (the Zumwalts are replacing the old FFG frigates, which were smaller, but even an FFG could take out about 8 ChiCom ships out to 100 miles away).

And UCFGavin, if you're already out of college you need to go back to Orlando and demand a return on any tuition you spent in a history class. Isolationalism, or even isolationalism disguised as a citadel "strategy" is the consistently the dumbest fucking choice made by major powers throughout history. You give up the strategic offense, and you give your enemies the power to decide when and how to attack you.

Like it or not, and most American are too damn ignorant to understand it let alone like it, strategic offense/tactical defense is consistently the best disposition of military forces when you decide to fight.

The problem with Americans these days, of course, is that we don't decide to fight. We want our frappachinos without having to worry about that shit.

Well said sir, well said.

My concern is that the Chinese military is focused on our Achilles heal, technology.

As Stillborn posted ship manning is being reduced, bodied replaced by computers. The bulk of our weapon systems rely on GPS for accurate targeting. All the cool wiz bang tech our troops are being equipped with rely heavily on satellite communications. And what did the ChiCom military test earlier this year, a anti-satellite missile system. There are constant reports of Pentagon computers under hacking attacks, traced back to China. And I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on some kind of EMP weapon system.

The scenario I see, any kind of battle or war with them will start with some form of a coordinated attack to cripple or heavily damage all those black boxes that now make up our advantage in the battle sphere. Even if only partially successful, it'll give them a keen weakness to exploit.

[MrBogey]

FWIW... I don't think any top-sde naval force could defend itself against us once we get our rail gun technology downpat. The firing rate or artillery with the range and brutality of a cruise missile. they could launch a few missiles to take out our ships, but I don't think they'd get past the Aegis system.

They'd need a lot of subs. And as such our destroyers would easily pick them off in the blue under the safety of our fleet.

They're navy could cause discomfort in the region, but I don't see them getting the possiblity of blue-water dominance for a couple decades. Our navy could pound them relentlessly from a couple hundred miles away as their 2nd generation fighter jets try in vain to even get within missile range.

Their best bet is just getting Russia to give them the hardware they need.

[MrBogey]

The Chinese Navy isn't a serious threat until they build a carrier fleet. They've been trying for several decades, actually (it's no coincidence that some of the world's largest shipbreakers are Chinese...), but aircraft carrier operations require INSANE attention to detail. That's exactly what China's military lacks.

Also, the French, who aren't exactly technologically backwards, couldn't build a decent carrier as recently as the 90s.


Charles de Gaulle entered sea trials in 1999. These identified the need to extend the flight deck to safely operate the E-2C Hawkeye. This operation sparked negative publicity, however, as the same tests had been conducted on both Foch and Clemenceau when the F-8E(FN) Crusader fighter had been introduced. The 5 million francs for the extension was 0.025% of the total budget for Charles de Gaulle project.

On February 28, 2000, a nuclear reactor trial triggered the combustion of additional isolation elements, producing a smoke incident.

During the night of 9 November–10 November 2000, in the Western Atlantic, en route toward Norfolk, Virginia, the port propeller broke and the ship had to return to Toulon to replace the faulty element. The investigations that followed showed similar structural faults in the other propeller and in the spare propellers: bubbles in the one-piece copper-aluminium alloy propellers near the center. The fault was blamed on the supplier, Atlantic Industries, which had already gone bankrupt. To make matters worse, all documents relating to the design and fabrication of the propellers had been lost in a fire. As a temporary solution, the less advanced spare propellers of Clemenceau and Foch were used, limiting the maximum speed to 24 knots (44 km/h) instead of the contractual 27 knots (50 km/h). This did not affect air operations.

On March 5, 2001, Charles de Gaulle went back to sea with two older propellers and sailed 25.2 knots (47 km/h) on her trials. Between July and October, Charles de Gaulle had to be refitted once more due to abnormal noises, as loud as 100 dB, near the starboard propeller, which had rendered the aft part of the ship uninhabitable.

On November 8, 2001, a sailor performing a routine maintenance task lost consciousness due to a toxic gas leak. A non-commissioned officer attempted to rescue him and collapsed as well. They were immediately rescued by the on-board medical team and sent to Toulon Hospital. Both survived.

And, I heard that the blastproof glass they used in the observation deck was so think and so poorly made that it was hard to see out of it with good clarity. Leading to the joke that the DeGaulle would be able to secure any port she's dry-docked in.

[Budyzir]

FWIW... I don't think any top-sde naval force could defend itself against us once we get our rail gun technology downpat......

Rail guns rock!

A projected naval rail gun with a 2.5km/sec muzzle velocity could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles, at a rate greater than 6 rounds per minute.

A test demonstrated that a rail gun projectile's kinetic energy could create a 10-foot diameter crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet - 3 to 5 times more effective than current guns.

Rail gun projectiles are smaller and easier to store: a standard AGS magazine holds 1,500 rounds; a rail gun magazine could hold 10,000 rounds in the same amount of space.

[MrBogey]

Rail guns rock!

Not to mention that during times of war we'd be able to crank out rounds a lot faster at a much safer rate.

[Budyzir]

You have to keep in mind, while a rail gun would be an advantage in a future naval engagement, deck guns in general are dated, and are only used to support troops on the beach. The standard gun (during my time in the Navy) is a 5 " 54 with a range of about 15 miles. Cruise missiles, in a vertical launch system, firing seconds apart will decimate the enemy well before the guns come into range.

[MrBogey]

You have to keep in mind, while a rail gun would be an advantage in a future naval engagement, deck guns in general are dated, and are only used to support troops on the beach. The standard gun (during my time in the Navy) is a 5 " 54 with a range of about 15 miles. Cruise missiles, in a vertical launch system, firing seconds apart will decimate the enemy well before the guns come into range.

Yea, but cruise missiles are costly and time consuming to produce. Having the ability to shell a beach 200 miles out for a hundred or two a round is a great boost in ability.

China would get shredded easily by our current naval ability and we'd decimate their agricultural coast. Leaving them only hardened mountanous soil to feed their billion plus population. We'd probably see more chinese die from starvation than actual warfare.

It's a really huge scenario to run but for the next 10-20 years the military has no worry about chinese naval forces.

[Jerry1]

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

It was Josef Stalin who said that, and that philosophy worked against the Nazis in WWII... just barely, but when the Russians tried to stick with it during the cold war... not so much.


But it worked so well for the Soviet Union. Oh that's right, that thinking made them fold in the Cold War.

US Navy power is not what is was in the 80's. They just retired the F-14 with its long range, which was first flown in 1970 and already retired the A-6 which first flew in the 50's. So the only real effective naval attack/fighter in the inventory is the F-18 Hornet which first flew in the late 70's. The newer F-18s are very good but it is a sign of the decline of US naval airpower because there is no scheduled replacement for them anytime soon(Depends on when the F-35 will be operational). And airpower is the big gun of the US Navy that replaced the battleships of WWII.
On the submarine front, we are the best in the world and will be for some time. The only ones that came close was the Russians and they gave up years ago. There's even pictures of the vaunted Russian sub fleet tied up and rusting cause they can't afford to operate them. I know the Chinese have subs but theirs are much noisier then US or Brit subs which makes them much more easier to detect and destroy. Add in the fact the US has the experience with sub hunting from the Cold War years.

If the Chinese navy picked a fight with the US Navy, the US Navy would wipe the floor with them. They would not be that effective until they were able to build an effective fixed-wing carrier force. They could roll out a hundreds of ships and we could take them out before they knew we were in the neighborhood. And even then they would have to build many carriers which is hugely expensive. We got about 10 carriers operating around the world(I think not too sure of that). Plus add in the fact that fixed-wing carrier aviation is the most dangerous aviation in the world. The US invented it in the 30's and the Russians weren't even able to do it until the 80's with the carrier Kuznetov. And by that time the Cold War was over.