Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndyJackson; neutronsgalore
Translation, go gread some of the other things William R. Hawkins has written. He is a paid shill for the big armor industry, and it is the big armor industry that is making the most noise about China, as if we are ever going to use heavily armed ground forces against China. To the extent China is a threat it will be dealt with by 6000 miles of pacific ocean backed up by a Navy and Air Force. If all of that is insufficient, then we have large nuclear arsenal at our disposal.

From the article he writes "...Thus the QDR states, "the vast distances of the Asian theater, China's continental depth, and the challenge of en route and in-theater U.S. basing place a premium on forces capable of sustained operations at great distances into denied areas." The QDR goes on to talk about the development of a new "land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability to be fielded by 2018" and of a new unmanned strike aircraft for the Navy; but it will take a greater industrial effort to prepare for the challenges of an emerging China than the QDR envisions..."

The new "land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability to be fielded by 2018" is a bomber, not a new army force. He is correct in that maintaining the current level of 170 bombers is inadequate in view of the threat. We should be planning to buy several hundred of the new bomber, not a few dozen, and their tankers should be American, not French.

Any new bomber should be both conventional and nuclear capable. It would also have more uses than China and would fit into a policy of "disproportionate response" when we decide to take off the gloves in dealing with the Islamderthals.
13 posted on 02/12/2006 11:12:36 AM PST by fallujah-nuker (America needs more SAC and less empty sacs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: fallujah-nuker; JasonC

"Any new bomber should be both conventional and nuclear capable. It would also have more uses than China and would fit into a policy of "disproportionate response" when we decide to take off the gloves in dealing with the Islamderthals."

I think we should back out of the INF Treaty as well. It'll give us maximum flexibility in neutron-weapons use. Besides, Russia will need them too once China stabs them in the back and goes after all of those natural resources.


14 posted on 02/12/2006 8:11:55 PM PST by neutronsgalore (Why are free-traders so blind to the assistance they’re providing our enemies?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson