America is no longer guaranteed military victory. These weapons could change that.

The Washington Post ^ | August 16, 2016 | David Ignatius

[2ndDivisionVet]

The fight against the Islamic State may get the headlines. But it’s the military threats from Russia and China that most worry top Pentagon officials — and are driving a new arms race to deter these great-power rivals.

This question of how to deal with Russian and Chinese military advances has gotten almost no attention in the 2016 presidential campaign. But it deserves a careful look. The programs begun in the waning days of the Obama administration could potentially change the face of warfare, in the United States’ favor, but they would require political support and new spending by the next president.

A drive to build exotic versions of conventional weapons may sound crazy in a world that already has too much military conflict. But advocates argue that strengthening U.S. conventional forces might be the only way to avoid escalation to nuclear weapons if war with Moscow or Beijing began....

[noiseman]

"Wasn’t the same sort of thing said before we were dragged into WWI and WWII?"

I took an aviation history class in college. One of the topics discussed was how each time we entered a major war we were completely unprepared, and then when those wars ended we forgot that lesson and neglected our military, thinking we would never have to do that again.

Going into WWI, our pilots had to fly French airplanes for a while. Entering WWII, we were still flying biplanes while the Germans had already developed monoplanes and laminar flow airfoils. Incidentally, they advanced their aeronautical knowledge by flying gliders during the interwar years, as the Treaty of Versailles severely limited their ability to produce and fly powered aircraft. No one seemed to notice that what was thought to be just recreational flying was actually the perfect test bed for refining wing designs to be used later in fighter aircraft.

Each time we managed to belatedly gather the necessary resolve and catch up, but in today's world the consequences of being caught yet again with our pants down would be "unacceptable." If ("when", please God) Trump is elected, he must press Congress hard to launch a serious military rebuilding effort, including resumption of nuclear testing (the only way to know for sure if existing weapons are still reliable) and modernization of the nuclear arsenal.

[central_va]

Entering WWII, we were still flying biplanes

Our aircraft were on a par with the AXIS countries in 1941.

[servantboy777]

Folks in America need to wake up to the fact that a war with China and or Russia will not be only on their turf. If the U.S. attacks territory China considers their own, we could see attacks on the U.S. mainland, killing Americans on our soil.

This would put our nation in shock. We are not prepared for something like this.

[nathanbedford]

Did it "show a paranoid and unrealistic understanding of the international issues in the real world" to "lump" Germany and Russia together on the eve of the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact which triggered World War II?

The duty of those who are charged with keeping America safe is not to listen to the bland assurances from those who have no skin in the game but to plan against even remote but threatening possibilities. In doing this they, of course, must make threat assessments and in doing that they are responsible for knowing history. Anyone who studies the history of the Russian Empire, the history of the Soviet Union, and the history of Vladimir Putin's regime must understand the inherent aggressive nature of these regimes.

Anyone today who discounts the danger of China as it muscles into the South China Sea certainly cannot be said to be planning to keep America safe in the face of threatening possibilities. Again, a quick reference to prewar Japan provides a historical model that is most "threatening."

As to the alleged "vilification" of Vladimir Putin, my neighbors here in Germany who have escaped from Ukraine do not share that view. The Poles do not share it, nor the Georgians, nor do many people in the Baltic countries. I suspect the victims of Russian hacking and cyber warfare do not share that view. The only safe attitude for a defense planner to take about Vladimir Putin is to assume an aggressive character

[noiseman]

"Killing a bunch of folks isn't a victory."

Killing a bunch of folks certainly can lead to victory (see: Hiroshima, Nagasaki). One talking point I wish Trump would start hammering is that in order to win the war against Islamic terrorists, we have to DESTROY THEIR WILL TO FIGHT. That's what's been lacking in our efforts to date, but was at the very heart of our fighting in WWII. This war will go on forever if we only launch periodic tactical strikes intended to destroy some equipment here, or take out a leader or two there. What is needed, just as with imperial Japan, is to so shock and devastate the enemy that they simply don't want to fight any longer.

I know, that assertion would lead to some uncomfortable questions from the media about what such an effort would entail, but it is the one key point that is not being discussed, but which is absolutely essential to victory.

[Former Proud Canadian]

This might seem odd to you but a lot of people from other countries would not have the same reaction to the O’Reilly monkey story.

[RedWulf]

>Entering WWII, we were still flying biplanes while the Germans had already developed monoplanes and laminar flow airfoils. Incidentally, they advanced their aeronautical knowledge by flying gliders during the interwar years, as the Treaty of Versailles severely limited their ability to produce and fly powered aircraft. No one seemed to notice that what was thought to be just recreational flying was actually the perfect test bed for refining wing designs to be used later in fighter aircraft.

You’re quite wrong. The US was the leader in military aviation before WW2 started and we extended our lead during the war. We were flying excellent single engine monoplanes with good top speeds and armament. We had the only working long range every bomber in the world (B17) and we moved quickly to modern designed like the B29 while everyone else was just trying to get their heavy bombers flying. Our CAS planes out classed the Germans stucka in their ability to fight back against fighters and even our carrier planes started ripping up the the excellent Japanese zero after we worked out the right tactics.

The only biplanes we were still flying were torpedo bombers.

The P51 was our crowning achievement. Designed in 1940 before we entered the war.

>The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang is an American long-range, single-seat fighter and fighter-bomber used during World War II, the Korean War and other conflicts. The Mustang was designed in 1940 by North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a requirement of the British Purchasing Commission for license-built Curtiss P-40 fighters. The prototype NA-73X airframe was rolled out on 9 September 1940, 102 days after the contract was signed and first flew on 26 October.[5][6]

That’s right, we built the P51 in 102 days. America was rocking aviation before we got into WW2.

[Trailerpark Badass]

They will politicize any military action, no matter how necessary and justified. We’ve already seen that. Any military action that doesn’t include Democrats as the enemy is a waste of time.

[ClearCase_guy]

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
— William Tecumseh Sherman

[CorporateStepsister]

I have no idea why we even need a war with Russia or China.

[RedWulf]

>As to the alleged “vilification” of Vladimir Putin, my neighbors here in Germany who have escaped from Ukraine do not share that view. The Poles do not share it, nor the Georgians, nor do many people in the Baltic countries. I suspect the victims of Russian hacking and cyber warfare do not share that view. The only safe attitude for a defense planner to take about Vladimir Putin is to assume an aggressive character

I keep getting told that no one wants to live under Russia again. Of course none of these nations appear to building Militaries strong enough to stop Russia. If Russia was such a threat, why does everyone try to pawn off their defense on the US?

[servantboy777]

I'm pretty sure it won't be the U.S. starting a war with either. China and Russia have become pretty aggressive as of late. Hopefully this scenario will never take place, but just keep your eyes on the East/South China seas. Keep your eyes on the Baltics, Ukraine.

[Mariner]

"Killing a bunch of folks isn't a victory."

It can be. And some would argue that it's the only REAL victory.

To kill so many of your enemy that they lose the will to fight and surrender without conditions.

As for insurgency, the same method can be applied.

Kill them until they tire of dying.

[AndyJackson]

DESTROY THEIR WILL TO FIGHT

But we did that in Iraq. It got us nothing.

[Hardastarboard]

the Democrats will eventual gain power and stab our allies in the back.

+1,000,000,000,000.

I would have added more zeros, but to add as many as required JimRob would have to add storage.

[Rebelbase]

[Roman_War_Criminal]

[coloradan]

Putin is not a nice guy. But what he is, is predictable. His first priority...Russia.

Unlike most democRATS in the USA.

How can you be so sure their first priority isn't Russia, also? You seem overconfident.

[mrsmith]

Related:

http://fedscoop.com/darpa-wants-info-on-systems-that-protect-against-small-drone-threats

[Lazamataz]

Trump will save America and Populism is the answer.