Is global war a possibility in an age where there are a sufficient number of countries with a sufficient number of nuclear warheads to mKe it a three day event with no winners?

There were plenty of greedy bastards back then too.

Or Harbor Freight?

The refusal to pay attention to history is a cycle that has repeated itself countless times throughout history. Attempting to balance an out of control debt by cutting the military to the bone is not only suicidal, but is a clear sign of massive stupidity.

Don't confuse a training excersize with war. They'll use every opportunity to train their people in a realistic environment the same way we do.

War between the US and China is pure tin foil hattery. If there was a war you would be dead in the first 20 minutes.

LOL ... sounds like you "interpete" things a little too, ... well, let's just leave it at that.

I have a yen for yuan.

Lets have a show of hands of people who actually think that the US of A and China will clash militarily over some islands China and Japan have been bickering over for 150 years (which historically Japan stole from China in the first place in the 1890s), and some unpopulated reefs in the south China sea that China wants to exploit in the exact same way we operated and operate in the Caribbean.

China is our second biggest trading partner after Canada, we import 400 billion dollars of merchandise from them, and export 100 billion dollars in merchandise to them.

After the European Union, the USA is the second largest trading partner of the PRC, and twice as profitable considering the imbalance of good sent vs goods received. Plus they have the wonderful skill of stealing international and national product patents, then producing and selling them in the home country of origin with impunity. Much too profitable a practice to seriously upset.

This isn't 1914. We aren't just flashing our knockers at each other, but have been actively procreating in the same bed for decades spawing profitable children, with vast industrial and commercial interests in each other's countries. There would have to be a hell of a lot more provocation before either of us is willing to jump out of that bed of money. The loss of Chinese trade would be a huge upset to both our economies


Having said that, of course China is a military threat, but our spiraling national debt is a much greater threat to both them and us (since if we default, they don't get paid). We can afford to trim our military budget down by HALF, and will still be spending more money on it than China. Last I checked, The USA was spending 739 BILLION dollars on our defense budget. China is spending 89 billion. In fact, we are spending more than the next 10 countries combined, including China.

There is plenty of room to save some money, out spend China, and do something about our debt.

Was that an old Russian nuke? Or one of the new dangerous German ones I've recently read about?

- Peter.

Send them a Message they wont forget ,Miley Cyrus world tour with 12 dates in China ,they will rethink very quickly due to young teenagers blasting unforegivingly the Miley music while sitting in city traffic .Noo mOWR ,NOOO MOWERRR.

I hear China has quite a few container ships. Wonder how many soldiers you can get on one?

I actually think this revue is a good thing. Any business that is run on a sound basis takes a hard look at expenses and the return on the dollar every now and then, and there is a big push among some for the government to be run like a business.

Let Congress debate this. Let the experts weigh in but Congress should debate the issue. They are entrusted with our money, so they should do all they can to see to it they spend it wisely.

Such as: The shutting down of the Humvee production line. The US has all the Humvee's it needs now and the production line is not entirely shut down as Humvee's are being turned out daily at a plant in Texas. OK, they are rebuilt Humvee's, but they come off the end of the line like new and with current upgrades. So the US still has top of the line machines to use and we are getting them at about 50% of the cost of new ones.

But like any business the changes should come in small steps. Old ways die hard, but who in our military would want to go back to some of the equipment that was in common use only 30 years ago?

Man has a penchant for wars. Based on economic issues in the past. Today we will or do have forms of economic wars without the physical component involved.

A country can default on loans outside it's borders but the international courts have provisions for that scenario. I am just happy things have still held up as well as they have in general everything considered. Part of the intent of international trade is to equalize the wealth around the world a little more to avoid physical confrontations over it. The job loss is one serious consideration that has to be seen with any signifigant reduction of the military. Logically a reduction or reductions should be taken in good financial times. Not in bad or marginal ones. The overall complex is far to large to ignore its economic clout.

Economists years ago thought that one currency for the whole world might be a good ideal. Personally I never saw it as practical. Still it may be in the future.

At the current state of mans knowledge I do wonder about all the manipulations used in currency matters.. Maybe they are a necessity but they do extract a price and create issues.

The US military needs to reconfigure from a land-based, conventional, protracted war in Europe and Asia to unconventional projection of power of short duration and high lethality.

We don't need a vast amphibious fleet to carry armies around the world.

We don't need thousands of tactical and strategic nukes and delivery systems.

We don't need 12 carrier battle groups.

Judging by the condition of stuff that I have received after being carried on those ships, the soldiers would arrive waterlogged, bruised up, 4 weeks late, with half their gear "never sent"

:P