No. My position was that concerns about domestic war production are irrelevant because modern warfare will occur too fast to produce anything. Your arguments against a smaller military are well placed, but they do not counter my point about production.
And so you should be more skeptical of the smug what-me-worry types.
The what-me-worry types have been right so far in my 50 years. And the doom-and-gloom arguments are the same year after year, so why would I consider them any more correct this year than any of the last 50?
First define "doom mongers".
Paul Ross.
And measured by your lifetime? How long has that been? Fifteen or twenty years?
Lame attempt at insult. Answered above.
Let me point out some "hawks", people who the Left and their tame MSM smeared as "Doom-Sayers" and "War Mongers"...who were proved RIGHT!
The left has more than it's share of incorrect doom mongers. For example, all environmentalists. The population bomb promoters. Plus the anti-nukers, anti-gene modified food people, anti-urban sprawl people, the "we're running out of land fill" people, etc. etc. All those doom mongers, all wrong.
About predictions that were correct: people never remember incorrect predictions, only the correct ones, which is why fortune tellers are able to make a living.
And every single policy pertaining to our industrial preparedness, and explicitly military strategic preparedness for major Great Power war... reeks of appeasement-type thinking.
You've covered two issues, industrial capacity, and military capacity. As I explained above, domestic industrial capacity is irrelevant in modern warfare, even while you are correct that military capacity is necessary.
It wouldn't matter one iota if we bought 100% of our military capacity from overseas, as long as when the shooting starts we had more than our enemey does, because it will all be over in hours.
"My position was that concerns about domestic war production are irrelevant because modern warfare will occur too fast to produce anything. "
BS. 25 years ago some enlightened war planners said that future conflicts would all be hi-tech and there would be no "boots" on the ground.
I guess the 130k troops that we have in Iraq the last 4 years disproves that doesn't it?
If you told planners at the Pentagon there could never be another war like WWII they would laugh in your face. A future conflict could grow incrementally over a period of several years into a major war.
"as long as when the shooting starts we had more than our enemey does, because it will all be over in hours."
Are you basing your argument that just because we beat those camel humpers in a few days all other enemies will be as easy to defeat? Do you think a Chinese army of 10 or 15 years in the future will be so easy to beat?
Have you read the reports on our current army stockpiles of supplies? They are depleated. They are robbing bombed out humvees in Iraq for spare parts.