Posted on 10/05/2017 6:44:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Tocsin is in the air. The North Korean representative to the U.N. said President Trump’s recent speech was tantamount to a declaration of war. While this kind of verbal saber-rattling has occurred in the past, it is worth asking whether U.S. forces have the technological superiority to thwart any potential foe and the nuclear superiority to deter a “first strike.”
While the U.S. still enjoys some technological advantages over potential adversaries, that advantage is declining at a rapid rate. A 2014 study noted that “The diffusion of advanced military technology and the means to manufacture it have accelerated. Capabilities in which the United States once enjoyed a monopoly (e.g. precision munitions and unmanned systems) have now proliferated … to virtually all U.S. adversaries in short order; Nations such as China and Russia have made concerted efforts to out pace and counter the military — technological advancements of the United States.”
While some military officials have criticized that conclusion, no one disputes the fact that U.S. superiority is being challenged. Similarly, the once dominant nuclear arsenal of the U.S. is in descent. At the 2010 new Start Treaty meeting, President Barack Obama
traded away U.S. nuclear superiority in what was a high-risk experiment in unilateral disarmament. This decision was in keeping with his adolescent dream of a world without nuclear weapons.
However, President Obama made his decision prior to the consent of the Senate and without any consultation with the American public.
Since then, Russia has tested several new intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the RS-26, in violation of our treaties. Moreover, the Chinese buildup of its Theater Strategic Rocket Force is a matter of concern, but the magnitude of the problem is concealed by the secrecy of stockpiling. Added to this equation is the growing nuclear arsenal of North Korea and Iran, both basically allied in targeting the U.S. with its fledgling nuclear weapons.
Despite the fact military assessments invariably refer to the strength of U.S. armed forces, training budgets are at alarmingly low levels. One plausible explanation for the naval accidents in Asia is congestion in the Straits of Malacca and the lack of adequate training for naval officers in the region. Moreover, conventional war may be a condition of the past. It is conceivable that cyber warfare is in our future which could lead to a breakdown of the American economy.
The national security strategy for the U.S. has a range of capabilities including being militarily equipped to fight a two-front war. But the alliance between China and Russia militates against this strategic position. According to the U.S. National Intelligence Council, “By 2030, Asia will have surpassed North America and Europe combined in terms of global power based upon GDP, population size, military spending and technological investment.” That statement alone should alarm Americans.
Our capabilities are sliding, while potential adversaries are ascending. President Trump said as much and seemingly understands this issue. Yet all the bluster about military affairs cannot undo the damage of a previous administration devoted to stasis or diminishing U.S. capability. An increased defense budget may be necessary, but it will be years before U.S. gains unequivocal superiority on the military front it once had.
There isn’t any substitution for a hard-headed assessment of our assets based on facts as they are, not as what we would like them to be. So far, we are still captivated by illusions and these illusions have created a precarious military profile for a world in disarray.
Amen.
Rab.
China and Russia are doing to the United States what Reagan did to the Soviet Union. Throw in rouge nations and America no longer has the will and means for an arms race.
Interestingly, the article doesn’t match the headline.
Sure, we have some issues that must be addressed. But they are acknowledged and are in process.
Does anyone really believe that if an axis of countries thought they could beat us, they would not have already launched?
Really?
It’s naive to think otherwise.
“Amen.”
Yup. To many egos without experience!
Thank you for posting this!
Founded
You have experience in strategic forces?
We’re not defeating the islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re just marking time while our forces there are being killed.
We don’t have the will to wipe them out. And now this article’s suggesting that we’re lacking the method as well.
So we’ll take out the norks, eh?
We’re being played for patsies, more so all around.
“We’re being played for patsies”
How so, and by whom?
I’ve noted how so. And military failures ultimately fall to the CIC.
Where did you note it?
Certainly not on this thread.
I’m genuinely interested in hearing your argument.
Well, that was some downright captivating drama for some, but it did omit mentions of many other politically and economically influential traitors of the past 40+ years on both fake sides of the aisle.
Our military forces are what they are. The situation is what it is. We have to deal with it either way without whining or or feebly trying to abandon our nation and our freedoms relative to the slavery and more absolute heartlessness of our enemies.
We must do what Daddy tells us to do, just like in the old days. Mommy lib is about to need us to do that, even if she divorced Daddy a long time ago. Otherwise, when the foreign enemy attacks our country and people, we will all die or also be enslaved by him.
#8 seems forthright enough to me.
What’s the patsy part?
IMO, there are plenty of good reasons not to launch.
Imagine you are a communist dictator. Would you rather have the US bombed to rubble or would you rather take over and expand your empire by annexing the US.
I believe the latter is preferable (and is happening). Bombing to rubble is a last resort, a desperate move that you would make if you felt it was your only option to protect yourself. That said, there is no guarantee that the various dictators of the world are capable of thinking logically. Illogical and irrational people make stupid decisions all the time. (This is why we need to keep democrats who are purely emotion-driven out of office and away from any sort of power.)
It is not possible to “take over and annex” the US.
Nobody even dreams of such nonsense.
... because we have the 2d Amendment!
It is not possible to “take over and annex” the US.
Nobody even dreams of such nonsense.
___________________________________________________
You’re right. It’s not possible from that point of view. Nobody actively plans an invasion with tanks and guns blazing, but I think even that would get farther than we might think. That was never in the plan, but it can, and may well succeed, by slowly tightening the noose of creeping “progressive” government, and conditioning the people to believe all is well and the government is here for your benefit. Boil a frog slowly enough, and he will never realize he’s been boiled. When the populace finally awakens from its NFL, American Idol and “medical” marijuana stupor, it will be far too late, and many if not most will blindly accept because they will actually believe it’s for their own good.
This is not the America of 1940...
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.