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

To: east1234; tyke
Reminds me of the armuements taht we didn't need a large military when facing the USSR. Of course said arguement quickly leads to appeasement. Fortunately, we did not follow that strategy before.
Moreover, it ignores the proxy wars and limited wars. We fought the Korean conflict without nukes despite fighting China and Soviet air units.
412 posted on 04/06/2009 6:39:51 PM PDT by rmlew ( The SAVE and GIVE acts are institutioning Corvee. Where's the outtrage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]


To: rmlew; tyke
Precisely, furthermore a war with China would most likely be a sea and air war. We're not putting troops in China. Might we fight them on land elsewhere? Sure, but we aren't going to “win” and occupy. We would, hopefully, sink their blue water navy, shrink their air force, and things would go quiet. I'll say again, neither the Chinese nor the Russians want to rule over nuclear debris. Of course we need a Navy and Air Force to do this, something Obama seems intent on destroying.
448 posted on 04/07/2009 5:54:50 AM PDT by east1234 (It's the borders stupid! My new enviromentalist inspired tagline: cut, kill, dig and drill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | 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