Chiefgator
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 837
- Location
- Lake Jem, FL pop:35
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
We shouldn't have bases in Japan and Guam.
But we will invade in no more than 6 years because we're gonna need to keep the infinity war going to justify the gross expansion of government power and the rise of fascism.
Please enlighten me as to why we should pull our bases out of Guam.
Guam is a sovereign country and we have no right to take portions of it for ourselves. Should Germany, or Mexico, or Canada be allowed bases on US soil?
Guam is a US territory.
Yeah, we shouldn't hold those either. If they can't vote, they ain't part of the Republic.
Boy yur on a roll today Not.
We shouldn't have bases in Japan and Guam.
I respectfully disagree. America and Japan are close allies; our closest ally in East Asia. Japan wants us there; not just a dictator government but the people. If the people of Japan wanted us out, we'd leave with no hard feelings just like in the Philippines.
Guam is part of America. I'm learning a lot if people honestly don't understand that US territories are just as much a part of America as Texas and Wisconsin. The people born there are native born American citizens. Their head of state is the president of the United States. Their national guard gets called up to serve in Afghanistan. When theres been a draft in the past they get drafted into the us military. Their court cases can be appealed to the us Supreme Court. If their government official get caught up in a corruption case, they're arrested by the FBI, prosecuted in federal court and go federal prison. They have to file their 1040s on April 15th. They have a congressman in Washington. They carry US passports. If you mail a letter to someone there, you use a regular .46 postage stamp and it'll be delivered by the local US post office. Their radio and tv stations call letters start with W or K. All but 13 of the 50 states started out as US territories. The only difference is the constitution gives certain duties and privileges to state governments and territories aren't states but neither is Washington, D.C.
We still have no right, and it still ain't our business. America shouldn't pay for the defenses of others.
If we own them, and they have no vote in our government, they're just serfs.
My prediction?
There is no way the North does anything.
They are massively weaker in conventional weapons.
And their nuclear threat is mostly hollow as they know if they nuke Seoul that America will nuke Pyongyang...and possibly a few other places.
The North are broke, starving and militarily far weaker then the South.
They are TOTALLY BLUFFING.
Man, I feel sorry for their citizens.
We shouldn't have bases in Japan and Guam.
.
Oh c'mon. You should know that the biggest offender of Defense Industry waste above the Army is the Air Force. They deal in toys and to this day they are still trying to figure out their place in the "War on Terror." It wasn't that long ago that an investigation was launched by McCain into a refueling program in which many people were found guilty of embezzelment and fabricating reports of "needs of our troops" to Congress. If Congress is ignorant of military needs, its the fault of Generals and Admirals who lobby for the Defense Industry giants in exchange for future jobs upon military retirement. The fact that they had to alter the Program to imply the idea of troop ground support just to keep it alive should tell you the worth of the program. Maybe one day an F/A-22 will engage an enemy jet. But to this day no troop has been supported from this program. When troops entered Afghanistan with duct tape on their NBC suits and Democrats whined about body armor and upArmor in regards to Iraq, guess what was still getting billions in the name of "supporting the troop."
We have 288 F/A-22s. That's enough and so is the obsession with tinkering with designs. I guarantee that dog fights over North Korea will be few and far between in only the beginning of a war because airfields along with parked North Korean jets will be the first to be destroyed. Those that do make it to the sky will be dealt with by other aircraft. The F/A-22 is just too expensive to risk in combat when other aircrafts can do the job. That is the practical truth and that is what they created..."for the troop."
What it has come down to, the U.S. Air Force no longer guarantees air superiority for the next forty years. It was the Obama administration and Congress who made that decision, not the Air Force.
Aside from the most awesome A10, the Air Force's role in the "War on Terror" has been extremely limited. QUOTE]
Being a Marine you should know, there's always someone who didn't get the word.
Didn't you get the word ? Obama killed Osama. Obama said Al Qaeda is on the run and is being decimated.
I think he said that just to get reelected. Considering that when he first entered the White House Al Qaeda was confined to Yemen and the African Horn. Now Al Qaeda can be found operating in almost every country in the Middle East and North Africa. Why do you think Obama blamed Benghazi on a Youtube video ? He didn't want Americans to know that Al Qaeda has actually been on the run, running all over the Middle East and North Africa.
Now for your claim that the Air Force role being extremely limited on the "War on Terror", it seems the army, navy and Marines don't have any UAV's Predators or Reapers.
But I digress.
I've had more than a General tell me that the problem with Obama is he has his head buried in the sand. He's only concerned with the present and refuses to see the threats that America will be facing in the future.
The clouds are already darkening over the horizon. The Marine Corps is preparing by going back to their roots, amphibious warfare, light naval infantry. In about twenty years from now China is going to challenge the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea. That's one threat that we already see and know it's coming. We still don't see the other threats that are out there.
That Russian/India stealth fighter version of the F-22 is going to be exported to every rouge third world country. Likely Iran but they may go for the Chinese version of the F-22, the Chengdu J-20.
How many Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA's do you think they will manufacture in the next twenty years ? I bet more than 187.
Now for your claim that the Air Force role being extremely limited on the "War on Terror", it seems the army, navy and Marines don't have any UAV's Predators or Reapers.
How many Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA's do you think they will manufacture in the next twenty years ? I bet more than 187.
Marines have UAV squadrons. But this distracts from my point. If the Air Force was created to dog fight and now exist in a world where dog fighting has been made obsolete and unnecessary, what has the Air Force been doing for the last two decades tinkering around with a weapon system that needs the past? Tactics change as tecnology introduces better ways to kill. Dogfighting is an old tactic that was necessary in wars of old. It no longer is.
It doesn't matter. They can have 1,000. If they get destroyed on the tarmac what does that number do for them, but show how they wasted their money? As it is we have sunk a ridiculous amount of money purchasing F/A-22s and we are afraid to use them. This means they are unnecessarily waiting around for a war that is somehow going to pull the past forward.
Besides, just because the F/A-22 Program was shelved doesn't mean technology is stopped dead in its tracks.
What can I say, except in the 1950's some idiots said that the day of air to air combat where aircraft got up close and personal were over. So they manufactured the F-4 Phantom without a gun.
The idea behind the F-22 is that it doesn't have to get close to it's adversary, that it sees the enemy before he sees him.
A Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is likely to see a F-15 before the F-15 sees the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA.
That would have been premature and dangerous. It would have actually been a gamble considering that our Soviet enemy was capable of participating in an air war. As it was, there were dog fights over Vietnam. But history shows that such a prediction was merely before its time. Fortunately we did not have an engagement with the Soviets. After Vietnam, our technology became such that dogfights were made largely obsolete. Our technology has allowed us to direct primary targetting from bombers, rockets, and naval precision to airfields, infrastructure, and large enemy ground mechs from very far distances.
When we left our battleships in history we said goodbye to a naval tradition of ship-to-ship combat. The argument for naval gunfire was legit, but it disregarded the fact that we were not losing naval gunfire. The technology merely changed and so did the nare of warfare. We still have naval gunfire capabilities, but we have added UAV strikes to our arsenol.
Battleship warfare is history. So is the dogfight. They both themed around the duel. In a word where we maintain absolute superiority in technology, maneuver warfare, and combined arms, the duel is an ancient tradition.
It also relies on an enemy that is allowed to exist. With airfields destroyed before the ground war even begins, the troop already has the benefit of air superiority. The enemy jets that do manage to escape the initial onslought will not survive beyond 12 hours. They will have nowhere to land and no way to refuel. Look at North Korea. Do you think that country will have a single airfield in operation after a few days of bombing? What is the role of the F/A-22 after that occurs? The troop needs the A-10, not the F/A-22.
I know it's the same post, but it allows me to try to make the point again... This would have been an issue in the past. The nature of air superiority has changed. With every war since World War II, we have seen less and less dogfighting as a means to air superiority. From the Gulf War on, it has been non-existent. War with Russia is not going to happen for a very black/white reason and war with China would be economically stupid on both sides. Since most things revolve around economic issues, even China has decided to extend a capitalist hand towards America rather than risk conflict over an international nuisance like North Korea. Our present and future wars will be against people and nations who can't compete technologically or economically. Therefore, our conflicts are only made hard by politicians and a military clinging to past archaic warfare doctrines, not an actual enemy.
Afghanistan - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy and military arrogance. Later problems revolved around political idiocy and a military lack of mission.
Iraq - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy. Later problems revolved around politicial idiocy.
Neither conflict was extended due to the enemy's ability other than the ability to sustain itself under our politician's cowardice and lack of commitment.
Arguing to extend the ability to dogfight against a non-existent enemy is like preparing ourselves for the great naval battles that aren't coming. Our technology now allows us to deal with the improbable dogfight and the sea battle without invoking past themes and future unnecessary toys. Like I've stated before, we live in an age where we are buying Ferraris despite our troops only needing SUVs.
<snip>
Now there was a seminar and a debate back in the 90's when their was a movement to reactivate all of the Iowa's before Clinton turned them in to museums. Can the keel of an Iowa be broken by exploding torpedos under the keel ? And how many torpedos would it take ? You had naval archietect, structural engineers, naval engineers, weapons experts all engaged in the debate. Conclusion, some believed that the keel couldn't be broken while other believed if enough torpedos could be detanated under the keel. the keel would break.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?