Posted on 08/27/2025 5:11:08 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The current U.S. bomber force is a “hollowed-out sword,” dangerously antiquated and too small for modern great-power competition. With only 19 stealthy B-2s capable of penetrating advanced defenses, the fleet is ill-equipped for a potential conflict with China. The new B-21 Raider is the solution, but the planned fleet of 100 is a “dangerously inadequate half-measure.” To credibly deter and, if necessary, win a two-front war against both China and Russia, the United States must procure a fleet of at least 200 B-21s.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
Just make sure the nukes and their delivery systems work since we have already proved we will use WMDs to end war!!
The war for profit bull$hit must stop now. Can you even imagine how wealthy this country could be once it occurs.
The American military is a logistics company that dabbles in warfare.
Germany had also reached the point in the war where the country no longer had the benefit of being able to properly conduct research and development; the Germans were simply overcome by events, and forced to react to scenarios beyond their control.
Compared to that!
“It’s amazing you write more of this tripe every day.”
I continue to be amazed that Jim allows this blog pimp to continue.
The author of the article has no national security experience. No basis on which to assert jack.
In particular, the rise in "purchasing power" in the late thirties represents an enormous deflation that occurred despite FDR decreasing the value of the dollar vs. gold by more than 50%.
"Purchasing power" will rise dramatically when no one has dollars to buy anything.
Okay, we'll use a Forbes's graphic:
Forbes uses the term, because it's a "thing."
Another chart:
Rather than just your opinion, how about cite a source or two for that opinion?
But your last sentence is strange: " 'Purchasing power' will rise dramatically when no one has dollars to buy anything."
"... when no one has dollars to buy anything" is my definition of a national / civilizational collapse.
I don't need a source to cite something when you rely on an argument from authority that is obviously ambiguous about what "purchasing power" means.
The rise in purchasing power of average American wages from 1900 - 1970 is palpable, as is the fall from 1970 - 2025.
Similarly, in a period of strong deflation as in the second half of the 1930s, "purchasing power" in the abstract rises because prices fall due to the lack of demand. A large part of the population is unemployed and immiserated, however. The "purchasing power" of a pack of Lucky Strikes in Berlin in August 1945 was enormous for obvious reasons.
The phrase "purchasing power" usually refers to a basket of goods. So what basket of goods is being used to measure it in your sources? And how does that compare to the average hours of labor required to acquire it? The real purchasing power of labor is what is important. If it takes x amount of tokens to acquire y and the number of tokens rises but my labor in tokens rises faster, so what?
Then, most obviously, we are done with this discussion.
I'll merely post again that changing, rising number....
You only argue a conclusion from authority without explanation. It’s like just citing sacred text as though it were justified true belief.
Lucky you, a prophet without reference to any text except your own.
Closer than you think!
Starlink is getting used militarily in spite of Musk’s preferences. That’s why the Russians tried to jam it.
China has 120 to 130 H-6, derivatives of the TU-16 from the 1960s. They have the H-20 in development which has not had her maiden flight yet.
Russia bomber range from a low of 100 to 160 Tu-95s, Tu-22m, and Tu-160 (not counting the dozen bombers Ukraine destroyed in that surpise attack). The Tupolev PAK DA is in development, little is known and has not had a maiden flight.
The USAF plans to build 100 B-21 raiders. It is intended to replace the B-1 and B-2, eventually the B-52 which keeps soldiering on. The U.S. does not need 200 more bombers when compared to Russia or China, U.S. strategic bombers have no near pear adversaries to compete. China and Russia compete with us is politically and economically, not militarily.
We do not need and cannot afford 200 B-21s. Which is all moot, since the USAF does not want, has not asked for, and will not get 200 B-21s anyway.
Once again, reality is demonstrating the National Security Journal is full of experts whose expertise is in getting called experts by other experts.
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.