• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the U.S. could lose the next big war

The U.S. outspends the next 8 countries combined on defense innovations. Even then, Russia and China are UN security councilors, along with France, US, Britain. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The U.S. is fine. Now, domestically-speaking, no... not at all.

Which does not at all address the changing geopolitical dynamics. We outspent everybody by a zillion dollars when we only had one Tier 1 adversary. Now just looking at specific resources of our two Tier 1 potential adversaries it is a whole new ballgame. Geopolitical power is not about actually fighting a war. It is about projecting power to such a degree that you don't have to fight one.
 
Which does not at all address the changing geopolitical dynamics. We outspent everybody by a zillion dollars when we only had one Tier 1 adversary. Now just looking at specific resources of our two Tier 1 potential adversaries it is a whole new ballgame. Geopolitical power is not about actually fighting a war. It is about projecting power to such a degree that you don't have to fight one.

...

Dude

Its not just spending, the US Navy tonnage is actually bigger than the next 13 Navies – combined! Money is the root of it all, if you don't spend, you don't get. If you do spend ...you do get. Its that simple!

(Unless you're the peasantry, of course. Wherein you have to spend whether you get or not. Ifs a ****ed up world.)
 
Well, maybe if you'd learn Arabic you could talk to Her too.

Obama's Middle Eastern god? I have no interest in talking to that incompetent powerless cross-dressing pansy of a man-made deity.
 
...

Dude

Its not just spending, the US Navy tonnage is actually bigger than the next 13 Navies – combined! Money is the root of it all, if you don't spend, you don't get. If you do spend ...you do get. Its that simple!

(Unless you're the peasantry, of course. Wherein you have to spend whether you get or not. Ifs a ****ed up world.)

And ill prepared for a circumstance described by adversaries with entirely different aspirations and entirely different assets only similar in scope. That is in part what the report is speaking to, a world now described not by a single Tier 1 adversary and a bunch of also rans but by multiple Tier 1 and Tier 2 adversaries only really similar in scope but dissimilar in aspirations and assets.

That it is a basic vulnerability for us is described as much by military strategists shifting gears to strategizing from our basic strategic premise since the 1980's. The ability to fight at least two conflicts in two fronts no matter who those adversaries happen to be was the order of the day since at least the 1980's and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is not at all comforting to see Military strategy reverting to "the single great war" premise because that is not the deck of cards we are being handed. That sounds more to me like the Military's oft referred to in this thread tendency to strategize around what they think they can pull off as opposed to the actual strategic environment they are most likely to face. That is a political exigency as opposed to a military one and a trap we so often fall into in this country.

The actual logistical target if you want to discuss the Navy for example is one in port, one on station and one in transit. I can think of at least 4 regions of the globe where that logistical target is relevant to the goal of adequate power projection in the form of control of sea lanes just for our own national security. So that is 4x those three vessels for a total of 12 before you even begin to think about logistical support and training and that just for one Navy mission, control of sea lanes critical to our own national security!

Somehow we have proponents of the laughable assertion that Sequestration was a good thing.
 
Obama's Middle Eastern god? I have no interest in talking to that incompetent powerless cross-dressing pansy of a man-made deity.

You know that’s all the same being right
 
Obama's Middle Eastern god?

Really?

Did you know that Jesus Christ was born in the Middle East?

Did you know that "Christianity" is one of the "Abrahamic" religions and that Abraham was from the Middle East?

Or are you one of those people who still believe that Mr. Obama is an Islamic Kenyan Communist?

I have no interest in talking to that incompetent powerless cross-dressing pansy of a man-made deity.

That's OK because God is always willing to talk to you. The trick is that you have to learn to listen.
 
... It is not at all comforting to see Military strategy reverting to "the single great war" premise because that is not the deck of cards we are being handed. That sounds more to me like the Military's oft referred to in this thread tendency to strategize around what they think they can pull off as opposed to the actual strategic environment they are most likely to face. ...

Don't forget that the last time that the US was unquestionably "on the winning side" in a(n actual) war was against an industrialized nation fighting a conventional ground (essentially) war. The US military establishment KNOW how to win one of those and it doesn't make any sense to prepare for a war that you don't know how to win. The fact that it DOES make sense to learn how to win the type of wars that you don't (currently) know how to win is a totally different subject.
 
Really?

Did you know that Jesus Christ was born in the Middle East?

Did you know that "Christianity" is one of the "Abrahamic" religions and that Abraham was from the Middle East?

Or are you one of those people who still believe that Mr. Obama is an Islamic Kenyan Communist?



That's OK because God is always willing to talk to you. The trick is that you have to learn to listen.

Obama has shown open disrespect for God's chosen people the Jews but he has shown mixed approval of beliefs in Christianity as well as in Muslim beliefs.
 

Yes, the U.S. Military Is In Decline. And There Is No Need to Panic

The idea that this level of dominance might wane was hardly alien to the conversation on U.S. foreign policy in the early 1990s. Liberal internationalists suggested that this represented a moment, not unlike the immediate wake of World War II, in which the United States could establish a rule-based system that would endure beyond the dwindling advantage enjoyed by American military power.

Surprisingly, many of these things worked out. Germany and Japan remain (relatively) docile and harmless. India is feeling its way to closer alignment with the United States. Russia is struggling to maintain control over borderlands that it had ruled for centuries prior to 1990. Even China, which has enjoyed nearly uninterrupted high economic growth (at least until a few weeks ago), and which has engaged in a remarkable military buildup, has only begun to probe the political and military weaknesses of the existing order in the East and South China Seas. As a variety of theorists pointed out in the early 2000s, some kind of US unipolarity might endure for a while.

But the appropriate question should be “will the offset (and various other policy initiatives) help maintain U.S. military superiority?” not “will it help ensure U.S. military supremacy?” Moving forward, the U.S. military will need to navigate a world in which it enjoys advantages that are merely large, but not overwhelming. That’s not such a bad place to be. For better and worse, the 1990s are gone.

I'm fully convinced you are intentionally missing my point at this juncture. The U.S. would never lose a hot war with someone, particularly fighting in a third party country, now or in the near future. Furthermore, Russia and China are UN SECURITY COUNCILORS WITH THE US. Stop regurgitating and vomiting corporate media and military-industrial complex propaganda and fearmongering. Its ****ing stupid and lacks all common sense.





So quit with your fearmongering. The U.S. is not about to be imminently destroyed by "ebul Comeez n Rooskies". Just, stop. Stop it.

Edit: Also, a post you seem to have missed that covers the other bases you want to talk about that is divergent from the subject matter I'm discussing:

The defense budget is up to 715 BILLION a year. If that won't do the trick, the problem isn't a lack of money. It's in the leadership and their decision-making.

Of course.... having a less-than-perfect military is a good reason to maintain meaningful ties with allies and not pointlessly provoke potential enemies instead of running around waving our dicks in everyone's faces, which seems to be the Trump strategy.


No kidding. That's pretty much always the case, for everyone, everywhere. That's why the best strategy involves avoiding trying to fight multiple major powers simultaneously and alone.
 
Last edited:
Obama has shown open disrespect for God's chosen people the Jews but he has shown mixed approval of beliefs in Christianity as well as in Muslim beliefs.

My apologies for asking questions which were too difficult for you to answer.

Thank you for your canned rant.
 
Some people have, indeed, questioned whether the United States armed forces could win a big war.

They are NOT referring to equipment.


*****


They are referring to the morale and character of our volunteer or even conscripted armed forces.


They question whether today's youth would have the stomach for savage fighting (e.g., the battle of Okinawa).


There are also other issues: the role of women in combat; the reported incidents of rape of females (and males) in the armed forces; and certain other controversial issues.
 
Yes, the U.S. Military Is In Decline. And There Is No Need to Panic







I'm fully convinced you are intentionally missing my point at this juncture. The U.S. would never lose a hot war with someone, particularly fighting in a third party country, now or in the near future. Furthermore, Russia and China are UN SECURITY COUNCILORS WITH THE US. Stop regurgitating and vomiting corporate media and military-industrial complex propaganda and fearmongering. Its ****ing stupid and lacks all common sense.





So quit with your fearmongering. The U.S. is not about to be imminently destroyed by "ebul Comeez n Rooskies". Just, stop. Stop it.

Edit: Also, a post you seem to have missed that covers the other bases you want to talk about that is divergent from the subject matter I'm discussing:


You continue to avoid the purpose of military power projection. It is not to fight a war. Its purpose is to avoid fighting a war.

In addition, I do not think either the report itself or any of the comments on it in this thread are particularly hyperbolic which is the case YOU appear to be trying to make.

It is for example, entirely logical to pose that years of sequestration have had an effect on our military readiness and our ability to project power in the places where we have a strategic interest. We can't have it both ways. We can't "yammer" on about the evils of sequestration and then claim that they had no ill effects. Now that is illogical.

The warning sign in the road to me was the part of the report that speaks to this shift away from military resourcing based on having to fight on two fronts against two adversaries to a military posture based on having to fight one big war. That appears to me to be entirely self serving in that it should be entirely clear that if anything the chances of having to face two adversaries having completely different assets and intentions but that are similar in scope are if anything greater than they have been in close to a century!

The single big war approach would appear on the surface to be predicated on what our military has become and an unwillingness to tailor it to be the military we need. We have an all volunteer force in manpower very much now dependent on technology. Fine as far as it goes. However that appears to be bending us toward a military posture that is out of step with the threats we face. That is a mistake we have made before in this country.

In addition, we only speak to a willingness to bring the troops home when in fact we can't. Certainly we won't even if we could. We are pinned down in a war in Afghanistan that can't be won...won't be won. But we won't leave. You want to talk about wars we can't lose. How about the wars that we can't win!

Having LOST in Syria in all but the war against ISIS, we will now be compelled apparently to block Russia/Syria/Iran from taking advantage of their obvious victory there. So we can't leave. In the meantime we offer utter and complete nonsense with regard to our support of Saudi in Yemen.

For all Trump's meaningless words about bringing troops home, he doesn't bring any home nor does he even do anything that would suggest the means to bring them home and he is clearly pushing Saudi to start a direct shooting war with Iran so that we and the Israelis can join to bail Saudi out. Yet we have an all volunteer military that we keep sending into deployment after deployment as if one day they will not just wear out.
 
Back
Top Bottom