tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3446757436224892823..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: The Death of Military StrategyComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62495368685278844232015-08-11T11:26:13.758-07:002015-08-11T11:26:13.758-07:00I said the US should not start WWIII over them.
I...I said the US should not start WWIII over them.<br /><br />I did not say the US would recognize the claims. There's a huge difference. <br /><br />As far as who the islands belong too, I think that there are going to have be negotiations. Probably a third party should mediate them. I'm not appeasing, at all. Appeasement means recognizing the islands as theirs (which the UK did in the case of Austria and parts of then Czechoslovakia in 1939), which I oppose doing. It's a dispute. The other is I do support a moderate build up.<br /><br />The thing is, both sides should try as best as they can to avoid a war - especially considering both sides have nuclear weapons. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10554347268557792542015-08-10T13:41:57.259-07:002015-08-10T13:41:57.259-07:00OK, you say that you wouldn't contest the disp...OK, you say that you wouldn't contest the disputed islands. That means that you're simply ceding them to China on whatever time frame they want. That's a big concession as it grants China ownership of the South and East China Seas. Of course, they'll then extend their aviation exclusion zone (which we also haven't contested) beyond the first chain and begin making claims on second chain lands.<br /><br />What will you do when they "claim" the Philippines are really theirs? The claim will have just as much legitimacy as the disputed first chain islands, which is to say none, but you didn't dispute those. Will you contest a disputed claim to the Philippines?<br /><br />Are you willing to grant China not just control and influence but actual territorial ownership of so many of the major waterways of that region?<br /><br />By not challenging them, you're conceding an awful lot! The line between appeasement and diplomacy is thin and you're leaning well towards the appeasement side!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90367763147536921132015-08-10T12:50:58.883-07:002015-08-10T12:50:58.883-07:00Landing troops on core territory like the Phillipi...Landing troops on core territory like the Phillipines would constitute an act of war. That's a clear act of aggression. <br /><br />How big an attack? If it comes down to something like a Pearl Harbor attack or landing troops, it will likely quickly escalate to war. <br /><br />As far as the Senkakus and similar disputes go, I'd stick to diplomacy. I wouldn't recommend recognizing such claims (nor should the US recognize the "9 dash line"), but it would not constitute WW III. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25891662594878953702015-08-10T10:07:04.176-07:002015-08-10T10:07:04.176-07:00Alt, so you're OK with China unilaterally seiz...Alt, so you're OK with China unilaterally seizing islands that have disputed claims, ignoring international law, establishing illegal large aviation exclusion zones, ordering the US military out of the S/E China Seas, ramming Vietnamese fishing boats, forcing down and seizing US military aircraft, etc? How big of an attack do you need to see before you would take action? I ask just to prompt your thought process a bit. You've made a generic statement but I'd like you to consider the real world "attacks" that China has made and is constantly making.<br /><br />Suppose China non-violently landed troops in the Philippines just to provide protection for Chinese civilian emigrants to that country? China has already seized disputed islands. Suppose they claim that the Philippines are actually theirs - and there have been some claims circulated that all of the Pacific was once visited by early Chinese explorers and, thus, belong to them?<br /><br />Suppose they don't commit an all-out military invasion but simply continue "peacefully" seizing islands and extending their reach and their claims. Do you allow that or do you respond?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4700655459725324712015-08-10T07:53:49.181-07:002015-08-10T07:53:49.181-07:00@PLA RealTalk
I'd say the correct approach wo...@PLA RealTalk<br /><br />I'd say the correct approach would be only if China launches its own unprovoked attack should the US respond. <br /><br />You do raise an interesting point though:<br />- If a small nation engages in an act of aggression that was not provoked, then what? <br />- If Taiwan declares independence on its own accord<br />- If Japan attacks on its own accord, then what? The US does have an assurance with Japan, but one serious issue is that nationalism has been growing in Japan as of late and if the trends continue, then what?<br /><br />I would argue that the US should opt for the diplomatic approach. First because, in the immediate aftermath, all the facts are not known, and second because there's a very rapid risk of escalation. It should also work to discourage its allies from contemplating a preemptive strike. <br /><br />It's only if China itself attacks and does so in a large scale unprovoked deliberate manner that it should be full scale response.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30420061497069418222015-08-10T04:58:06.754-07:002015-08-10T04:58:06.754-07:00PLA, you're quite correct. Unlike the US, Chi...PLA, you're quite correct. Unlike the US, China considers all actions to be a part of war. As I've stated, China is currently at war with us and is using economic domination as the preferred means to wage the war (and quite successfully, so far). All actions, be they economic, emigration, or military are part of the war they are waging (and not just against the US). They take the long view of history. The main problem for the US is that we're engaged in a war and don't realize it!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9503241035415201652015-08-10T04:51:00.546-07:002015-08-10T04:51:00.546-07:00The problem with the US pulling back and ceding co...The problem with the US pulling back and ceding control of the S/E China Seas, first chain, and second chain is that such a policy borders dangerously close to appeasement. As we know, appeasement has never worked and has likely contributed to wars by encouraging the aggressor to take more or to believe that they will be unopposed if they take further actions.<br /><br />Chamberlain's now infamous "Peace for our time" quote sounds eerily like the talk from so many regarding relations with China. In fact, I view China as quite similar to pre-war Germany: expansionistic, whipping up nationalistic fervor, encouraging cultural hatreds, using military force to achieve political goals, etc.<br /><br />I'm violating my self-imposed, non-political rule for this blog so I'll leave at that.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20502714811110882362015-08-09T18:40:57.013-07:002015-08-09T18:40:57.013-07:00CNO, the premises which you state are all true.
T...CNO, the premises which you state are all true.<br /><br />There is much hatred of Japan, and China absolutely does want to have the ability to control the first and possibly second island chains.<br /><br />However, those premises do not equate to China wanting to invade and occupy the islands in the first and second island chains nor does it mean they want to attack and subjugate Japan through war.<br /><br />China can achieve those aims via various other means which are more peaceful and of lower risk. They can increase their economic and political clout to increase their influence in the region, they can fund their military to make it increasingly preferable for other countries to ally with China rather than to work against China, with the long term goal of effective Finlandizing all the nations in the region without firing a shot.<br />It's not hard to envision, given China is currently the biggest trading partner of virtually all its neighbours, not to mention the biggest trading nation in the world.<br /><br />I think it is dangerous to assume that just because a nation has certain interests or goals, that they will necessarily use the most violent and aggressive means to achieve it. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567746214832617166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17101279711998365712015-08-09T18:35:48.535-07:002015-08-09T18:35:48.535-07:00@CNO:
Regarding the democratic China thing, it was...@CNO:<br />Regarding the democratic China thing, it was just an offhand comment, because there are many commentators who believe that a democratic China would not compete with the US. <br /><br />As for red lines, yes it essentially is asking for a geopolitical strategy. <br /><br />If you do not accept a China that can control the first island chain, then I suspect China and the US will eventually come to conflict. I believe that China intends to impose a sort of its own "Monroe Doctrine" upon the western pacific, where they will not accept excess interference by another power in their own sphere of interest. This is very much continuous with their view of a multipolar world, where several superpowers all have dominion over their own part of the globe. This of course suggests that there will be a decline of relative US power where the US cedes its power over the middle east, europe and the west pacific to essentially only hold indisputable influence and power in north america, the west atlantic and east pacific. <br /><br /><br />@AltandMain: <br />Yes, there are obviously many ways in which the US can attempt to try and compete with China economically. <br /><br />I agree with your red line, but the issue I see is if China does conduct a military attack on a major US ally or US assets, it will likely be due to what China perceives as provocations or aggressive moves from either a US ally or from the US moving naval vessels or assets into the region during a time of high crisis. In other words, the US needs to clearly define the conditions under which a red line is "crossed". <br />E.g.: if a Philippines Navy frigate attacks a Chinese Coast Guard vessel unprovoked, and sinks it, and if the Chinese Navy end up responding and sinking that frigate, will the US stand by the side of the Philippines?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567746214832617166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9760063360976720732015-08-09T07:36:41.406-07:002015-08-09T07:36:41.406-07:00@PLA RealTalk
If the US really wanted to try to m...@PLA RealTalk<br /><br />If the US really wanted to try to match China, I'd say the easiest option would be to invest in itself. <br /><br />This would entail standing up to corporate America. By that I mean, a massive surge in R&D, infrastructure, and education investments. Also demand that all American companies resource back a large part of their manufacturing. <br /><br />Likewise, there would have be drastic increases in taxes for the wealthiest to pay for the costs of education, research, and other areas. It might create a trade dispute, but not a military dispute. It would also involve some very tough political decisions. <br /><br />To be honest, it would seem that American institutions are their own worst enemy in a way. The US Navy's internal problems, documented extensively are almost entirely self-inflicted in nature. Poor maintenance, lack of free form training, rampant careerism, focus on technology that may or may not work, the death spirals of expensive equipment, etc, are self-inflicted. <br /><br />So too are most of the problems of economic decline. Corporate greed and the very wealthy unwillingness to pay their share of taxes is a very serious problem. <br /><br />As far as a "red line", I'd say, if there is a military attack on any major US ally or an attack on US assets, that would be the red line. I could care less about the small islands that are just a few rocks that are not valuable, save for their strategic location.<br /><br />Beyond that I very firmly believe in the dove approach as well. I don't think deliberately provoking a war is a good idea, nor is actively trying to destabilize a nation internally. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47037616959213895982015-08-09T06:53:27.439-07:002015-08-09T06:53:27.439-07:00I pretty much have to agree!I pretty much have to agree!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67154219898163714322015-08-09T06:51:57.969-07:002015-08-09T06:51:57.969-07:00Of course it's called competition. War is com...Of course it's called competition. War is competition, too, just on a more violent scale. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem from the US perspective is that we aren't competing. We're conceding. We need to get into the fight and fight like our future depends on it because it does. We need to address tariffs, trade deficits, movement of manufacturing to China, and a host of other issues that China is killing us on.<br /><br />If the economic trends continue, China won't need to fight us militarily, they'll simply own us at some point!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85218116739723547492015-08-09T06:48:42.484-07:002015-08-09T06:48:42.484-07:00John, this blog is full of posts that document the...John, this blog is full of posts that document the decline of the Navy under the leadership of CNO Greenert. Consider the INSURV fiasco, fleetwide Aegis degradation, the choice to push ahead with the LCS despite all evidence that this was a badly flawed program, minimal manning which has been a major contributor to our maintenance problems, early retirement of perfectly good ships, abandonment of MCM and MIW capabilities, focus on diversity and gender at the expense of tactics, decline in readiness, and so on. Honestly, I could go on with hundreds of reasons. Read the archives and you'll see plenty of reasons.<br /><br />Greenert is presiding over the hollowing of our fleet to a degree not seen in decades.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30928135219943708582015-08-09T06:41:16.891-07:002015-08-09T06:41:16.891-07:00Consider China's intentions towards Japan. Th...Consider China's intentions towards Japan. There is a deep, deep ingrained hatred towards Japan (not entirely without reason). Consider the actions of China. Domination of the first chain is just the first step. China is going to try to isolate Japan, dominate them economically, and, eventually, subjugate them. Again, they don't put their plans in writing but the pieces are there for anyone who cares to assemble them into a complete picture.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67108441768900738352015-08-09T06:37:52.060-07:002015-08-09T06:37:52.060-07:00Your red lines are another way of saying that we n...Your red lines are another way of saying that we need a coherent geopolitical strategy. We need to define how we will interact with China. Everything flows logically from that.<br /><br />I'm reluctant to delve too much deeper into this as this is not a political blog. I'll say that, personally, the thought of China controlling the first island chain and beyond is unacceptable to me. That is a government that shares none of our core beliefs (the value of human life, for instance) and would be a continual threat to our existence. I'll leave it at that.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28165451568001379252015-08-09T06:28:23.481-07:002015-08-09T06:28:23.481-07:00"... I think it is dangerous to assume that a..."... I think it is dangerous to assume that a democratic China would necessarily be more amenable to the US's interests."<br /><br />When did I assume or advocate that?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72243401844982576102015-08-09T06:26:22.491-07:002015-08-09T06:26:22.491-07:00"... I haven't read anything about in ser..."... I haven't read anything about in serious literature"<br /><br />A bank robber isn't going to send a note to the police that he's planning to rob the bank. However, if you monitor him and see him buy a mask, obtain a gun, and get a building plan for the bank, you can draw a pretty reasonable conclusion about his intentions.<br /><br />China isn't going to put in writing that they're planning to take over the entire first island chain followed by the second and, eventually, the world. However, by observing their actions, their intentions become pretty clear. There is not doubt that they intend to seize the first island chain - they're already doing it. Their various writings have discussed the dangers inherent in warmongering countries (that would be the US!) controlling the second island chain. Given what they're doing with the first chain and the dangers they see in someone else controlling the second, it's not much of a leap to see their longer range plans.<br /><br />If you want to be a serious follower of China's geopolitical and military intentions (they're one and the same), you need to do more than just read what's written and accept it at face value. You need to collate all of their actions and writings and see the patterns - patterns which they won't put into writing. Assemble all their actions into a coherent picture and you'll know their intentions. Good luck!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57125215612740628392015-08-09T05:54:18.251-07:002015-08-09T05:54:18.251-07:00PLA, rather than repeat myself and write a mini-bl...PLA, rather than repeat myself and write a mini-blog post, check out these previous posts,<a href="http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/05/war-with-china-part-1.html" rel="nofollow">War with China - Part 1 </a> and <a href="http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/05/war-with-china-part-2.html" rel="nofollow">War with China - Part 2</a>ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32329235607306618522015-08-09T04:10:08.122-07:002015-08-09T04:10:08.122-07:00"China is currently waging economic war on us..."China is currently waging economic war on us and winning."<br /><br />It's called "competition", and the US regards that as just fine when it's winning. However, many of the large businesses of the US were happy to cooperate with the Chinese agenda in search of short-term profit. It's too late to legislate against that now. <br /><br />Reconstructing the US economy doesn't have to be done from the ground up, but is going to require using a new generation of production technologies, some of which still need inventing. It's also going to involve US businesses revising their thinking. <br />John Dallmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184719865727491672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42207938139052604992015-08-09T00:28:06.898-07:002015-08-09T00:28:06.898-07:00The big question about China which no one is addre...The big question about China which no one is addressing, either here or in military circles (that I have read), is about how much of a decline in "relative power" the US is willing to stomach in the forseeable future.<br /><br />Even if we assume a Chinese economic "slowdown" to 6% and pretend the US is able to somehow achieve a growth rate of 4% (which the US hasn't been able to do since the 60s), that will still result in China overtaking the US GDP in nominal terms by the mid 2020s. The shift in political power on the world stage which has already begun will begin to tilt even more in China's favour, and increased economic size will eventually translate to technological and industrial growth and improved military capabilities. <br />While China might not overtake the US in absolute military power until later in the century, there is a very real danger that they can field a military capability in the western pacific which is able to fight the US's westpac forces to a standstill if not win such a confrontation, by 2030. <br />This is all ignoring the effects that a more economically influential China will have on the geopolitics of the western pacific nations as well. <br /><br />The options for the US are simple -- option one: they can either accept that they will have markedly less influence in global affairs post 2020, or option two: they can use means to try and limit China's future power.<br />I'm a dove myself, I hope that both countries can come to an amicable version of option one.<br />But if the US takes option two, there are a variety of means to achieve it -- and all of them have sacrifice:<br /><br />-withdraw US forces from the rest of the world and concentrate them around China's periphery/westpac. This will leave US interests in the rest of the world weaker but means they will be able to maintain military superiority over China for longer.<br /><br />-the US can seek to create a military and economic alliance against China. This is already occurring in a sense, given the US's string of allies in the western pacific and in agreements such as the TPP. However, the difficulty with this approach is that China is still a driver of global growth and is the biggest trading partner to almost all its neighbours and likely to remain so for decades to come, and asking countries to avoid the benefits of trading and interacting with China without a reason that is enticing or beneficial to them would be hard to pull off.<br /><br />-the US can actively seek to destabilize China in a political and economic way, with the ultimate goal of impeding its economic growth which is the prerequisite of future Chinese power.<br /><br />-the most dangerous option but the one most likely to succeed, is for the US to start a war with China sooner rather than later, to completely destroy present day China in the same way that they destroyed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Of course, such a conflict would most likely go nuclear, and it would also mean the US is effectively "choosing" to go to war from no other provocation apart from fear.<br /><br /><br />Thoughts, CNO?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567746214832617166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59121398379166457242015-08-09T00:27:48.811-07:002015-08-09T00:27:48.811-07:00@CNO, I think it is dangerous to assume that a dem...@CNO, I think it is dangerous to assume that a democratic China would necessarily be more amenable to the US's interests. Many of the cultural, historical and strategic issues between a democratic China and the US may still remain. <br />Hell, one could say that the US victory over Japan hasn't fully changed their cultural foundations given the presence of far right-wingers in government who still believe their country did nothing wrong in WWII. Their navy still uses the flag of the old IJN, which is also a little alarming, especially for some US allies such as South Korea.<br /><br /><br />I think what the US really needs, before it can start to define a strategy for itself, is to draw some red lines that they cannot accept -- i.e.: if a red line is crossed, then it would mean a military response.<br /><br />China's red lines are fairly well known; if Taiwan declares independence, there will be war. Excessively provocative moves in territorial disputes (say, if Japan landed troops onto the disputed islands tomorrow) would also likely result in a military response to some degree. <br />And other red lines are more similar to other countries -- basically if nation A attacks nation B, nation B has the right to respond.<br /><br />Over the years, I've tried to seriously consider where the US should draw its red lines, and I'm honestly drawing a blank. <br /><br />Obviously if the US's treaty allies become involved in a conflict with China, then the US will be obliged to respond, but is that current red line far enough (for instance, should the US also seek to prevent China from attaining a certain degree of military capability -- say, if China gets three aircraft carriers then it's too much to accept and the US should declare war?), or is it too far (I say too far, because the US needs to consider whether its allies may end up becoming more confident against China if they believe they have US military support, and end up antagonizing China which makes a military conflict inevitable)?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567746214832617166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63786577838739515272015-08-08T23:51:28.388-07:002015-08-08T23:51:28.388-07:00@milspecmusings -- I'm not sure if comparisons...@milspecmusings -- I'm not sure if comparisons between China today and the Empire of Japan are accurate. While China does have a great thirst for resources, it can quite happily attain them through global trade in a way which is acceptable to them. Globalization has benefited China as much as the rest of the world, and it's far cheaper for China to buy them off the market instead of fighting wars to attain them. <br />IMO the main point of conflict between China and the US, revolves around China's fear of forward deployed military assets in what it perceives as its backyard, and also revolves around US mistrust and paranoia of a country which is not their definition of a democracy. <br /><br />Also, if the US did seriously consider attacking civilian targets such as the Three Gorges Dam, I'm fairly certain the conflict would have already reached the nuclear threshold in which case we can kiss civilisation goodbye.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567746214832617166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41873824007754087302015-08-08T23:39:41.873-07:002015-08-08T23:39:41.873-07:00CNO, state sponsored emigration is also a loaded t...CNO, state sponsored emigration is also a loaded term, as it suggests that the immigrants are immigrating with as part of a larger Chinese state strategy, which I haven't read anything about in serious literature, and I don't think there's enough precedent in history to suggest that China would be willing to invade a country on the pretext of them having a population there. For instance, Myanmar's Kokang rebels are all ethnically Chinese and some have outright asked for China to support them on their behalf against the Myanmar government, but China has ignored them.<br /><br />If an overseas Chinese population eventually do become representative in their adopted nation's governments, there is also no reason to believe that they would necessarily align themselves with China in all its policies. <br /><br />Now, I acknowledge that some Chinese military writings have suggested that China should seek to project power to the second island chain and beyond, but I've not read anything about seeking to control/occupy islands in the second island chain like you're claiming. If you have any writings from Chinese sources on this matter then I'd be happy to consider it.<br /><br />Also, I ultimately think that it's dangerous to assume that all suggestions made by lone authors from Chinese think tanks even military universities equates to the idea that China as a country and a military is intending on adopting such a policy.<br /><br />I'm a true believer in "prepare for the worst, hope for the best," but I also think in this line of analysis we need to also consider a realistic path based off evidence, and I sincerely do not think there is sufficient evidence to suggest China is seeking to occupy islands in the second island chain, on your suggested basis of state sponsored emigration, or others.<br /><br /><br />As for Taiwan... (I'm Rick Joe btw, just using a new account)... again, even if China were so overwhelmingly strong the adverse effects of a unilateral, unprovoked military invasion of Taiwan still remain as I said in my last reply: "costly in terms of resources, lives, and not to mention will make any "annexation" of Taiwan seem illegitimate in the eyes of the Taiwanese populace".<br /><br />That is to say, IMO if China did have such an overwhelming strong military, the likelihood that China would seek to actually conduct an unprovoked military invasion of Taiwan should be even more unlikely than if they had a weaker military -- as a stronger military would be a vastly more capable deterrent/stick to indicate to Taiwan's leaders the direction they should be moving in.<br /><br /><br />---<br /><br />Personally I think the most likely cause of war between China and the US is a US ally such as the Philippines or Japan getting into an accident, say a Chinese coast guard ship and Japanese coast guard ship getting a bit too antsy and sinking each other, with loss of life, and miscommunication leading to an accidental shooting war that eventually ropes in the US. <br /><br />In the short term I cannot see a war over Taiwan occurring, and certainly not a Chinese invasion of the second island chain(!)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567746214832617166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32227375885303412272015-08-08T22:30:01.324-07:002015-08-08T22:30:01.324-07:00Please list more reasons. I mean this sincerely.Please list more reasons. I mean this sincerely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82077339887506648932015-08-08T18:17:24.782-07:002015-08-08T18:17:24.782-07:00way back before , the weapons systems and doctrine...way back before , the weapons systems and doctrine were designed to counter russian weapons and doctrine.. that much we can all agreed on , and after the break up of soviet union , the US become restless and have to find their new nemesis .. after 9-11 , majority of US effort seems to focus on fighting insurgents / low tech enemies.. <br /><br />and this impacts not only weapon procurement / research but also in training.. how much time AH64 pilots devote their training to standard anti armor Nap of the Earth flying instead of flying at high altitude in safety because the enemy have no MANPADS / A2AD ? How often naval aviators practice strikes against enemy fleet instead of focusing on bombing / CAS only ?<br /><br />in the next war , this foolish focus on low tech enemies will be a nasty suprise for american forces.. considering they never even once face a real peer enemy since WW2..<br /><br />the comfortable slumber will be shaken and the delusions will be shattered when enemy's cruise missiles and TBM rain destruction on america's supposedly safe bases like Guam or Diego Garcia or even bases on american soil..buntalanlucuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02058846205282464955noreply@blogger.com