5 Years Ago America Was A Super Power, Today Who Will Fill The Vacancy ?

[APACHERAT]

The US is still a super power but it has come to realize that all power has limitations and the US is coming up to it's limitations. The US is still a super power because it has the ability to rally their allies to do important things but that the allies and the US are slowly becoming "tired" of saving the day because there are internal issues that just are almost impossible to solve. Country against country is relatively easy but conflicts inside countries are much harder to solve.

The US will be that super power for the foreseeable future because there are no new contenders to take over, not on economic power and certainly not on military power.

12 years of war and occupation have drained the finances and drained the willpower somewhat but the fire and the power is still there.

Actually France wants to return to the days of being a superpower.

All Putin and Russia wanted was respect. Russia didn't get it so Russia will return to a strong military to gain that respect.

The Peoples Republic of China, look at them today as you would look at Imperial Japan during the 1920's.

Pay extremely close attention to the Sino-Russian alliance that is forming today.

 

[APACHERAT]

The United States military could unstoppably destroy all human life on earth. .

So can the Russians.

 

[blackjack50]

Below is a commentary. Lets face it, we are no longer a super power. Our military has become a hollow military force. President Obama is an incompetent commander in chief and we don't have the influence in the word that we had five years ago.

Excerpts:

>" Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and prior to that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States..."<

>" What we are witnessing now in the United States, by contrast, is just the backwash of inept policy-making in Washington, and nothing that could not eventually be put right. But for this administration to redeem its credibility now would require a change of direction and method so radical it would be the national equivalent of the comeback of Lazarus:..."<

>" The country that could pick up the slack and lead is Germany, but it is psychologically incapable. A third of its voters are communists, eco-extremists or cyber-nihilists calling themselves “pirates.” They are still in attrition-therapy over the after-effects of Nazi and communist rule. And the European power that can’t take the lead, because it is almost bankrupt, over-centralized, suffocating in pettifogging regulations and governed by idiots, is France (though it yet has the superb, often misplaced, feline confidence of a Great Power, and admittedly has been magnificent on Libya, Mali and Syria).

Canada could play a role — but first it must acquire an aircraft carrier and the other equipment necessary to project power. For starters, we should buy one of these splendid aircraft carriers the United States is retiring because of the gridlock-fed deficit and the idiocy of sequestration,..."<

The entire article. -> Collapse of American Influence Recalls Disintegration of Soviet Union, Fall of France - The New York Sun

I reckon the bandwagon is the place I will be jumping on at. Are you kidding? Our military is still the strongest in the world. There is not a single nation in the world capable of doing what we can. China JUST advanced into the 1940s and got an aircraft carrier. Russia? Please.

Just because we have some retarded politicians doesn't mean our military is a "shell." We have technology that allows far greater effectiveness of small units. The firepower available per man is far beyond anything the world has seen. The access to technology and information at the hands of our generals is staggering. We are in an age of information overload. There is no "power vacuum." There is the United States coming out of the war with Iraq, winding down in Afghanistan, and retraining our troops using valuable lessons learned from a decade of combat in the Urban Middle East and mountainous open terrain combat. A nation trying to stand up against the United States would be foolish. Experienced and well funded troops are dangerous.

 

[poweRob]

Lol !!!

Well at least I know where you get some of your nonsense from.

Why do I feel like I need to bathe after going to that useless site ?

Please refrain from posting the resources of your cancer again.

Ok... I guess your gonna just turn a blind eye to the OP's crap site link. lol

 

[blackjack50]

So can the Russians.

In terms of conventional military and capabilities...the Russians are a collegiate team. Our military is All Star NFL.

 

[Peter King]

Actually France wants to return to the days of being a superpower.

All Putin and Russia wanted was respect. Russia didn't get it so Russia will return to a strong military to gain that respect.

The Peoples Republic of China, look at them today as you would look at Imperial Japan during the 1920's.

Pay extremely close attention to the Sino-Russian alliance that is forming today.

France has not been a superpower since the times of Napoleon.

The Ruskies have lost their superpower when the Warsaw pact fell to pieces and the Commies went belly up in Russia.

The Chinese will loose their race for world domination when their communists loose their hold on their country.

Russia will not form an alliance with China because Putin is a megalomaniac who is incapable of being a trustworthy ally.

 

[APACHERAT]

France has not been a superpower since the times of Napoleon.

Russia will not form an alliance with China because Putin is a megalomaniac who is incapable of being a trustworthy ally.

A Russia-China Alliance Brewing?

A Russia-China Alliance Brewing? | RAND


China and Russia, in a Display of Unity, Hold Naval Exercises

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/w...splay-of-unity-hold-naval-exercises.html?_r=0


The Russia-China Axis Grows

The Russia-China Axis Grows | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Wiseone]

A Russia-China Alliance Brewing?

A Russia-China Alliance Brewing? | RAND


China and Russia, in a Display of Unity, Hold Naval Exercises

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/w...splay-of-unity-hold-naval-exercises.html?_r=0


The Russia-China Axis Grows

The Russia-China Axis Grows | FrontPage Magazine

The US and China engage in Naval Exercises together, in fact one is going on right now. Also from your first source:

In conclusion, it is not clear whether Xi Jinping's visit to Moscow resulted in any strategically significant new agreements. Chinese officials and the Chinese press during the summit issued a number of statements that indicated major agreements had been signed in the areas of energy and arms sales. However, according to the Russian press, these initial reports were premature with a great deal of hard bargaining still to come.

If Moscow and Beijing are able to consummate the major deals begun at the summit we are likely witnessing the start of a more robust Sino-Russian relationship. On the other hand, as we have seen in the recent past, historical suspicions, mutual mistrust, and divergent strategic interests may once again prevent the development of a deeper and more coordinated Sino-Russian relationship.

Personally I hate headlines that end in a question mark, because often the article concludes that the answer to that question is "no"

 

[APACHERAT]

The US and China engage in Naval Exercises together, in fact one is going on right now. Also from your first source:



Personally I hate headlines that end in a question mark, because often the article concludes that the answer to that question is "no"

Journalism 101: The headline or title of any news story only have one purpose, to attract the attention of an individual so they read the article.

Unfortunately with the dumbing down of our schools, journalism is no longer taught. The first paragraph of any news story or article should have the five "W's" in the paragraph. Who, What, When, Why and Where.

All questions should be covered in the first paragraph so there are no questions.

 

[Wiseone]

Journalism 101: The headline or title of any news story only have one purpose, to attract the attention of an individual so they read the article.

Unfortunately with the dumbing down of our schools, journalism is no longer taught. The first paragraph of any news story or article should have the five "W's" in the paragraph. Who, What, When, Why and Where.

All questions should be covered in the first paragraph so there are no questions.

You missed the point of my post, which was to point out the lack of serious progress or indictation of a Russian-Chinese alliance

 

[APACHERAT]

You missed the point of my post, which was to point out the lack of serious progress or indictation of a Russian-Chinese alliance

Well they just don't happen overnight.

I don't see another Richard Nixon over the horizon to to cause a rift between Sino-Russian relations.

I'm paying a close attention just like many in the naval community throughout the world of what Russias new navy will look like. It seems they have come up with a new maritime policy and strategy. Three different fleets with different new class of ships that will be designed to operate in specific areas of the worlds oceans.

The Soviets/Russians over the past fifty years have come out with some interesting ship designs over the decades that have raised eyebrows. Most seem to have worked.

The Russians started rebuilding it's forward naval base in Tartus, Syria before this religious civil war even started. I believe the Ruskies decided to become the big boy in the Mediterranean as soon they saw the results of all of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East.

 

[Wiseone]

Well they just don't happen overnight.

I don't see another Richard Nixon over the horizon to to cause a rift between Sino-Russian relations.

I'm paying a close attention just like many in the naval community throughout the world of what Russias new navy will look like. It seems they have come up with a new maritime policy and strategy. Three different fleets with different new class of ships that will be designed to operate in specific areas of the worlds oceans.

The Soviets/Russians over the past fifty years have come out with some interesting ship designs over the decades that have raised eyebrows. Most seem to have worked.

The Russians started rebuilding it's forward naval base in Tartus, Syria before this religious civil war even started. I believe the Ruskies decided to become the big boy in the Mediterranean as soon they saw the results of all of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East.

You never answered my question about who's number 1 now if the United States isn't. Also, while Tartus is a valueable post for Russia, it is an extremely small naval base that can only support basic resupply requirements. Its not even big enough to hold Russia's aircraft carrier or larger cruisers.

 

[blackjack50]

You never answered my question about who's number 1 now if the United States isn't. Also, while Tartus is a valueable post for Russia, it is an extremely small naval base that can only support basic resupply requirements. Its not even big enough to hold Russia's aircraft carrier or larger cruisers.

Note you said "carrier" not "carriers." Yet another important factor in world power

 

[APACHERAT]

You never answered my question about who's number 1 now if the United States isn't. Also, while Tartus is a valueable post for Russia, it is an extremely small naval base that can only support basic resupply requirements. Its not even big enough to hold Russia's aircraft carrier or larger cruisers.

What I have read, the renovations and expansion of the Russian forward naval base at Tartus is so it's can support larger and more ships. Aircraft carriers were mentioned even though I don't see where aircraft carriers fit in to the Russians Black Sea fleet.

Have you ever been to Guam ? The U.S. naval facilities aren't much there. More like a forward sub base than anything else. I suppose the Democrats are scared if we expanded the naval base on Guam that the island would flip over. :lol:

 

[Wiseone]

What I have read, the renovations and expansion of the Russian forward naval base at Tartus is so it's can support larger and more ships. Aircraft carriers were mentioned even though I don't see where aircraft carriers fit in to the Russians Black Sea fleet.

Have you ever been to Guam ? The U.S. naval facilities aren't much there. More like a forward sub base than anything else. I suppose the Democrats are scared if we expanded the naval base on Guam that the island would flip over. :lol:

Tartus doesn't have the room to expand to host aircraft carriers unless Syria gives them more land on shore and they basically build an entire new facility. That would be a risky investment though considering the unknown future of the Assad regime.

Also what does Guam have to do with anything, stay on topic.

And who's number 1 if the US isn't, you still haven't answered! Probably because there is no answer that's not obviously wrong.

 

[APACHERAT]

Tartus doesn't have the room to expand to host aircraft carriers unless Syria gives them more land on shore and they basically build an entire new facility. That would be a risky investment though considering the unknown future of the Assad regime.

Also what does Guam have to do with anything, stay on topic.

And who's number 1 if the US isn't, you still haven't answered! Probably because there is no answer that's not obviously wrong.

It kinda looks like that the Ruskies are getting out of the aircraft carrier business and expanding on sinking aircraft carriers.

Which reminds me, need to do an update on the Russian ships that are entering the Mediterranean Sea right now. The cruiser Moscow will soon be off of Syria. It was designed to sink Nimitz carriers and it's escorts. An Arleigh Burke destroyer would have a chance against these Russian cruisers.

Who were the idiots who turned our Iowa class BB's into museums ?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Defense Budget is Being Cut: By Any Way You Look at It


■Defense spending, on the other hand, under the Obama Administration will remain at historic lows, especially when compared to other times of war, yet this is where Democrats continue to cut.
■Defense spending will decline every year as a percentage of GDP. At the same time, spending across the federal government is projected to be higher than its 40-year average.
■Defense spending was 4.2 percent of GDP in 2012, down from 4.5 percent in 2011.
■As a historical comparison, using OMB tables, defense spending was 37.5 percent of GDP in 1945 (WWII), in 1953 (Korea) it was 14.2 percent, and at the peak of Vietnam (1968) it was 9.4 percent.
■OMB projects defense spending will be 3.5 percent of GDP in 2014; 3.1 percent in 2015; 3.0 percent in 2016; and 2.9 percent in 2017.
■As the CBO director testified in October 2011, defense spending is “well below the average for defense spending since World War II.”
Defense spending should naturally be subject to the same scrutiny as all other federal programs. Any claim that defense spending is recklessly out of control, however, and that cutting it will solve our fiscal crisis, simply does not hold up to the facts.

Obama Sequester Exacerbates Obama Defense Cuts | Policy Paper | Senate Republican Policy Committee




< Pentagon's Carter: Choices Made Under Sequestration Are 'Dumb' | USNI News >

>" The money is there to pay for forward-deployed ships and aircraft, he said, but that has meant cutting back on people and ships ready to surge forward when world events require naval action.

"People say, 'Well, I don't understand this impact of sequestration. I don't see anything,' " Greenert said. The spending cuts are in areas away from deployment, he said.

The Navy has two aircraft carrier groups deployed - one in the Pacific and a second in the Persian Gulf region - and two amphibious assault ship groups deployed in each of the regions. But it has only one other carrier group and amphibious group with enough training time to be in ready reserve, Greenert said, and it needs three of each type of group prepared to surge.

"That's the part that concerns me," he said, noting, for example, that Virginia Beach residents aren't hearing as much jet noise from Oceana these days. "We don't have enough of our airplanes operating," he said..."<



>" Personnel expenses account for half of all defense spending, he said. "If we keep growing at the rate we're growing on entitlements - and this includes health care and a whole host of things that we have to put in - that's going to get up to 70 or 80 percent of our budget when you get up into 2022-23," he said. "That's extraordinary." "< Admiral: Brace for similar sequester impact in 2014 | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

AR -

Did you see what you did? You looked at defense spending as a percentage of GDP...and called it defense cuts. Defense spending was NOT cut - it's simply that our GDP grew faster than our defense budget did, and I have no idea how you can somehow see that as a bad thing.

And when it comes to sequestration, that was very much BIPARTISAN, and now both sides are blaming the other side for not giving in.

 

[Wiseone]

It kinda looks like that the Ruskies are getting out of the aircraft carrier business and expanding on sinking aircraft carriers.

Which reminds me, need to do an update on the Russian ships that are entering the Mediterranean Sea right now. The cruiser Moscow will soon be off of Syria. It was designed to sink Nimitz carriers and it's escorts. An Arleigh Burke destroyer would have a chance against these Russian cruisers.

Who were the idiots who turned our Iowa class BB's into museums ?

If you're suggesting one cruiser is going to be sinking a Carrier group you've really gone off the deep end, especially a fairly small ship like the Moscow.

 

[APACHERAT]

If you're suggesting one cruiser is going to be sinking a Carrier group you've really gone off the deep end, especially a fairly small ship like the Moscow.

SS-N-12 Sandbox

SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt/V-1000 Vulkan | Russian Military Analysis

 

[APACHERAT]

SS-N-12 Sandbox



>"It was to be a surface-launched missile for both submarines and surface ships. To avoid any counterattack from a carrier group, the missile's range
was to be 500 km, outside the usual operational radius of carrier-protection forces. At the same time, the guidance system and missile survivability were to be greatly improved and in line with evolving tactics. For the first time, it was assumed that any attack on a carrier group would be of a massive character. The tactics of such an attack is described later, but it is worth describing some P-500 Bazalt features beforehand.
The P-500 missile is similar in appearance to the P-6/35 and was powered by a liquid-fuel sustainer and solid-rocket booster. It has a speed of Mach 2 at high altitude and Mach 1.5-1.6 at low altitude. The flight profile of the missile varies from 30 to 7,000 m (low-low or low-high). Guidance is based on a digital INS on a gyro- stabilized platform and an active-radar seeker, which periodically switches to passive mode. For the first time, the missile was equipped with a digital computer (Tsifrova Vichislenna Mashina, "digital computing device"). The guidance system was also equipped with a datalink to communicate between missiles in a salvo, with a salvo consisting of eight missiles launched at short intervals. Usually, one of the missiles flies high (5,000-7,000 m) to pick up the target, while the rest remain at medium to low altitude with their radar seekers switched to passive mode. The leading missile then transmits targeting data to the others and allocates individual targets, with half of the salvo directed at the aircraft carrier and half at other ships in the area, one apiece. The onboard radar seekers are turned on at the last moment, just before reaching the target. If the lead missile is shot down, another one (in a programmed sequence) takes over and climbs to a higher altitude to continue directing the salvo. All the missiles have active radar jamming to disrupt any defensive action from fighters and shipboard air-defense systems. In addition, vital parts of the P-500 missile are armored to increase survivability. "<


SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt/V-1000 Vulkan | Russian Military Analysis

 

[Wiseone]

SS-N-12 Sandbox

SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt/V-1000 Vulkan | Russian Military Analysis

Assuming the mutli levels of defense don't defeat it, and assuming that Russia is willing to basically throw away a cruiser as it won't survive long after taking a shot at the US, and assuming Russia is willing to escalate things to that level for what exactly?

 

[shrubnose]

SS-N-12 Sandbox



>"It was to be a surface-launched missile for both submarines and surface ships. To avoid any counterattack from a carrier group, the missile's range
was to be 500 km, outside the usual operational radius of carrier-protection forces. At the same time, the guidance system and missile survivability were to be greatly improved and in line with evolving tactics. For the first time, it was assumed that any attack on a carrier group would be of a massive character. The tactics of such an attack is described later, but it is worth describing some P-500 Bazalt features beforehand.
The P-500 missile is similar in appearance to the P-6/35 and was powered by a liquid-fuel sustainer and solid-rocket booster. It has a speed of Mach 2 at high altitude and Mach 1.5-1.6 at low altitude. The flight profile of the missile varies from 30 to 7,000 m (low-low or low-high). Guidance is based on a digital INS on a gyro- stabilized platform and an active-radar seeker, which periodically switches to passive mode. For the first time, the missile was equipped with a digital computer (Tsifrova Vichislenna Mashina, "digital computing device"). The guidance system was also equipped with a datalink to communicate between missiles in a salvo, with a salvo consisting of eight missiles launched at short intervals. Usually, one of the missiles flies high (5,000-7,000 m) to pick up the target, while the rest remain at medium to low altitude with their radar seekers switched to passive mode. The leading missile then transmits targeting data to the others and allocates individual targets, with half of the salvo directed at the aircraft carrier and half at other ships in the area, one apiece. The onboard radar seekers are turned on at the last moment, just before reaching the target. If the lead missile is shot down, another one (in a programmed sequence) takes over and climbs to a higher altitude to continue directing the salvo. All the missiles have active radar jamming to disrupt any defensive action from fighters and shipboard air-defense systems. In addition, vital parts of the P-500 missile are armored to increase survivability. "<


SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt/V-1000 Vulkan | Russian Military Analysis

It's nice to have stuff like this, but when will Russia ever use it?

I don't believe that anyone in Russia wants to see Russia destroyed by a massive nuclear strike from the USA.

The balance of terror still works.

I don't believe that Russia will be starting a world-wide nuclear war anytime soon.

 

[APACHERAT]

Assuming the mutli levels of defense don't defeat it, and assuming that Russia is willing to basically throw away a cruiser as it won't survive long after taking a shot at the US, and assuming Russia is willing to escalate things to that level for what exactly?

I believe that Obama blinked.

 

[Wiseone]

I believe that Obama blinked.

If Assad turns over his chemical weapons under the supervision of say the UN, and without military strikes by the US, that would be a major foreign policy victory.

 

[APACHERAT]

If Assad turns over his chemical weapons under the supervision of say the UN, and without military strikes by the US, that would be a major foreign policy victory.

For Putin.

But I'm sure the Obama White House and MSNBC will spin it.

Obama picked sides a long time before who ever used gas warfare. Obama got robbed from using the U.S. military to support Al Qaeda and the rebels.

All you have to do is look at who has prosper from Obama's failed foreign policies during the past four years, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and radical islamist. The same Muslims that Obama has sided with in Syria.