Posted on 12/31/2006 6:25:30 AM PST by A. Pole
The original comment was about the time it took for an ICBM to get here. How does that relate to a war-of-attrition? Stay on the subject.
Actually, your remarks are empically invalid
You mean "empirical"?
Definition: 1. 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
We were talking about total war against a major nation state, not car bombing. The original subject was keeping heavy manufacturing for war preparation within the US, remember? How does a number of car bombs make it necessary to do that? We could purchase weapons to fight such an enemy anywhere in the world, and that enemy could not prevent it, thus such a war does not justify trade protectionism to retain that heavy industry.
Those car-bombs are being freshly manufactured right under our noses, evidently...
Demonstrating that car bombers don't require trade protected industrial production. We don't either.
I was on subject. Your thesis that we would ever actually use nuclear weapons again with the PC lobby ruling the roost...was denied.
Anyways, we are not alone in having ICBMs, you know. China has a secret mutual defense pact with Russia. They also have their most advanced missile designs...and stole our solid-rocket fuel technology. Hence their DF-31, and the new SLBMs with very advanced range, and payload capability.
How does a number of car bombs make it necessary to do that? We could purchase weapons to fight such an enemy anywhere in the world, and that enemy could not prevent it, thus such a war does not justify trade protectionism to retain that heavy industry.
You don't know any of those points. And empirically, they are dubious. We learned throughout our history, from the War for Independence forward...how critical it was to have industrial autonomy. Ready domestic supplies for what we need. Preached over and over again by George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and eventually...even the agricultural idealist Thomas Jefferson got the message...after his disastrous War of 1812.
And as GWB should have learned when the Swiss withheld componentry at the last minute from our cruise missiles in the Iraq invasion. And other elements for British hand grenades.
And the Swiss are likely the least of our worries...as we are now outsourcing key stuff to China.
So you want to wind up like Iraq?
You're kidding, right?
You have trouble staying with the discussion. This was about trade protectionism, remember. Iraq didn't get the way it was because of trade protectionism or a lack thereof.
WWII style military production is not required to deal with car bombers, and it is not required to deal with nation states (because of my earlier point that modern warfare of that type is too rapid to ramp up production).
You have not provided any argument contrary to my points. Smart remarks about me "wanting to wind up like Iraq" are not an argument in favor of trade restrictions.
duh, I dunno, duh, U da smart one.
If you don't your want your ignorance pointed out, you should refrain from making stupid comments.
Yes, it is, because of the lack of an adequate technological base to keep ahead of the "engineers" amongst the Iranian/Syrian-backed remote-detonation device-builders. That has been the conclusion of more than one commentator proficient in electronics.
... and it is not required to deal with nation states (because of my earlier point that modern warfare of that type is too rapid to ramp up production).
This point was especially egregious, and was replied to directly. I would say conclusively. Iraq and Afghanistan were wars against nation states. They required massive buildups and replacements of arsenals before the actions could commence. Clinton had drained away most of our cruise missiles and a lot of our JDAMS. Which unfortunately needed components which had been allowed to be outsourced, although formerly invented and produced here. The Swiss example destroyed your claims. The continued erosions we are witnessing make this even more forceful as a future issue.
And I would add that you fail to acknowledge the elements of politics short of war in having capacity. I.e., if you have a reasonable capacity, that will also add to the deterrence factor. Because the enemy will know we actually can respond to an arms race with a prompt "ramp-up"...which if the industrial infrastructure is lost due to neglect such as you advocate it will not be reconstitutable in any reasonable way. The Defense industry is now alleging it would take ten years to reconstitute the U.S. machine tool industry to even get back to 65% of U.S. content. You are on a slippery slope and falling fast...approaching supersonic as you are about to plow into the ground on this one.
Your failure to reply to the substance, except to be annoyed by the occasional smart remarks, is not persuasive. Real deterrence requires capacity in depth, across the board, and without smug over-confidence, and narrow reliance on a slim technical advantages which are thinly-deployed can be easily countered by being either politically-checkmated or asymmetrically neutralized, or overwhelmed the old-fashioned way: Surprise and numbers.
Not a single real defense expert believes in your notion that the retention of a real U.S. "hot assembly" capability is irrelevant in warfare. The Mideast wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved not to be a "knockout" but merely a "first round", and a major reason they have dragged on is because of the permitted survival of the other terror-sponsor states such as Iran and Syria being allowed to wage a proxy war against the U.S. Draining us of treasure, manpower, and existing military capital which is being seriously eroded in harsh conditions.
Meanwhile the US military is being retooled for guerilla warfare..short-shrifting its ability to handle a major conventional attack (just as was South Vietnam's ARVN who were then overwhelmed by North Vietnam's direct tank invasion) while the Chinese and Russians are gearing up for Great Power War. The Reds are coming. It's easily seen. The Pentagon analysts have more or less said so, but are politically muzzled. But you think outsourcing to China is just dandy.
I remember you arrogant A$$e$ from a previous post, you and your buddy toddsterpatriot.
You guys think your so bright, but in reality, your a bunch of losers hiding behind your computer screen throwing out pathetic insults all the while pretending to be some sort of scholar..........laughable, very much so.
Instead of sitting up late at night in front of that computer screen waiting for a chance to "get the last word", how bout get out and have a beer somewhere and enjoy life.
With all your anecdotes, no one will confuse you for a scholar. You've got the feelings down. Now get back to Oprah, I'm sure you'll enjoy today's show.
Hmmm. Why don't you look at the time stamp on your post, and then the time stamp on my post, and try again.
I still have to point out that an $800 billion dollar trade deficit translates into a loss of between $1.6 and $3.0 trillion dollars in economic activity inside the U.S. each year. Literally tens of thousands of communities are losing out on tens of millions of dollars in economic activity and the revenues that activity would support.
Why don't we have money for new roads, school bands, sports programs...
Yes, we can point to a good life. I still ask, how much better it could have been with all that money circulating inside our nation.
So if we raise tariffs to 100%, our economy will actually improve? Maybe you have some real world examples where a nation has cut imports to zero and saw their economy suddenly experience much higher growth? 3 or 4 examples should be enough, but if you have more than that, feel free to post more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.