Only if you don’t think China is future Military Threat
 

Only if you don’t think China is future Military Threat.

China is making territorial demands on 3 of our Allies that I know of; Japan Philippines and or course the Philippines . And, taking of territory by China from any could bring us unto a War.

Due to Chinas Large Military right now if there was a War with China We could not invade it. I mean even if all of our Allies joined I with it.
The technological gap is closing daily.

I just think that reducing our Military further than it is already we lose what little deterrent we have and that lack of deterrence is going to led to us relying again on Nuclear Weapons.


\"Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:17:54 -0500
WASHINGTON (AP) — Looking beyond America's post-9/11 wars, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday proposed shrinking the Army to its smallest size in 74 years, closing bases and reshaping forces to confront a "more volatile, more unpredictable" world with a more nimble military.
The nation can afford a smaller military so long as it retains a technological edge and the agility to respond on short notice to crises anywhere on the globe, Hagel said. He said the priorities he outlined reflect a consensus view among America's military leaders, but Republicans in Congress were quick to criticize some proposed changes.

In a speech at the one-year mark of his tenure as Pentagon chief, Hagel revealed many details of the defense spending plan that will be part of the 2015 budget that President Barack Obama will submit to Congress next week. Hagel described it as the first Pentagon budget to fully reflect the nation's transition from 13 years of war.

At the core of his plan is the notion that after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that proved longer and more costly than foreseen, the U.S. military will no longer be sized to conduct large and protracted ground wars. It will put more emphasis on versatile, agile forces that can project power over great distances, including in Asia.

Hagel stressed that such changes entail risk. He said, "We are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted."

However, budget constraints demand that spending be managed differently from the past, with an eye to cutting costs across a wide front, including in areas certain to draw opposition in the Congress, he said.

He proposed, for example, a variety of changes in military compensation, including smaller pay raises, a slowdown in the growth of tax-free housing allowances and a requirement that retirees and some families of active-duty service members pay a little more in health insurance deductibles and co-pays.

"Although these recommendations do not cut anyone's pay, I realize they will be controversial," Hagel said, adding that the nation cannot afford the escalating cost of military pay and benefit packages that were enacted during the war years.

"If we continue on the current course without making these modest adjustments now, the choices will only grow more difficult and painful down the road," he said.

Although Congress has agreed on an overall number for the military budget in fiscal 2015 — just under $500 billion — there are still major decisions to be made on how that money should be spent to best protect the nation.
Early reaction from Republicans in Congress was negative.
"I am concerned that we are on a path to repeat the mistakes we've made during past attempts to cash in on expected peace dividends that never materialized," said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible presidential contender in 2016.

"What we're trying to do is solve our financial problems on the backs of our military, and that can't be done," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Another proposal likely to draw fire on Capitol Hill is Hagel's call for a new round of domestic military base closings in 2017. In the years following the last round, in 2005, members of Congress fought to protect bases in their home districts and states, arguing that the process does not yield as much savings as advertised.

Among other changes Hagel proposed:
— The active-duty Army would shrink from today's 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000 — the smallest number since 1940 when the nation was gearing up to enter World War II. The Army currently is scheduled to be reduced to 490,000.

The Army's post-World War II low was 480,000 in 2001, according to figures provided by the service. In 1940 the Army had just 267,000 active-duty members, but that number surged to 1.46 million the following year as America prepared for war in Europe and the Pacific.

— The Army National Guard would drop from 355,000 soldiers to 335,000 by 2017, and the Army Reserve would drop by 10,000, to 195,000. The National Guard also would send its Apache attack helicopters to the active-duty Army in exchange for Black Hawk helicopters more suitable for domestic disaster relief missions.
— The Marine Corps would shrink from 190,000 to 182,000.
— The Navy would keep its 11 aircraft carriers but "lay up," or temporarily remove from active service, 11 of its 22 cruisers while they are modernized. The Navy would reduce from 52 to 32 its purchase of littoral combat ships, which are smaller vessels designed to operate closer to shore.

— The Air Force would retire its fleet of A-10 "Warthog" tank-killer planes for an estimated savings of $3.5 billion over five years. It also would retire the venerable U-2 spy plane, which debuted early in the Cold War as a stalwart of U.S. intelligence.

Hagel built his case on what he called a foundation of realism. He quoted one of his predecessors, the World War II-era secretary of war, Henry Stimson, as saying Americans must "act in the world as it is, and not in the world as we wish it were."

"This is a time for reality," Hagel said. He emphasized that the period of explosive growth in defense budgets was over, making it more important to preserve a technological edge as other nations modernize their militaries. He made no direct mention of China or Russia, but both are investing heavily in their military capabilities.

"Budget reductions inevitably reduce the military's margin of error in dealing with these risks," Hagel said, adding that a smaller U.S. force "strains our ability to simultaneously respond" to multiple global crises.
He and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs chairman who appeared with him, both argued strongly against a return to the across-the-board congressional budget cuts known as sequestration that were partially suspended for the 2014 and 2015 budgets. Hagel likened a return to such cuts to "gambling with our military." Dempsey, too, said those deeper reductions would have exceedingly harmful effects on the entire military.
"We're all willing to take risks," Dempsey said. "None of us are willing to gamble."

Under a congressional deal passed two months ago, the Pentagon's 2015 budget would be set at $496 billion — the same as in 2014. But Hagel said Obama's overall budget proposal also will include a government-wide "Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative" that would provide the Pentagon with an additional and separate $26 billion — assuming there will be no return to sequestration. He said the new money would be used for increased training and other partially neglected activities central to making the military ready for combat."

Now, even a stronger argument to rebuild DETROIT. Detroit's manufacturing ability helped crush the axis forces in WW2. If we cut off our imports from our buddies in China, and sliced off the parking spaces for their yen, dollars, or whatever they got, that would go a long way in getting rid of the threat without firing a shot. No one could out produce the good o'le USA in its glory days of WW2. Time to rebuild our factories.

China is not stupid enough to go to war with its biggest export market and client. I would start to worry when the US stops importing everything from China. Until then, not going to happen.

What would WalMart do?

That why they surfaced a fast attack sub in the middle of one our fleet exercises a couple years ago, undetected?

That noble thought is really gonna get traction with the CEO's greed, control agenda.:rolleyes:

The parallels between 1914 and 2014 are interesting.

Everyone thought the world was to well connected and to international for a big war, especially among the big powers of the day.

Peace had lasted for decades, other than minor piddly colony wars.

Germany and England were some of the worlds largest trading partners with leadership related by blood.

Treaties and alliances protected small countries.

Than in 1914 a butterfly flapping its wings in Sarajevo, an event that no one really thought was that unusual at the time set a storm in motion.

In this Great County of ours, we used to have high minded folks, such as those in the "Greatest Generation". I suspect we still have some, young and old alike. Who knows, maybe even a handful from the social progressive camp. :D

If you can't even be bothered to understand the currencies involved in this particular theater, I don't know that your "opinions" can be considered to carry anything more than 'homeless man on the street interview' level of credibility.

LOL ... Wowza that came from what book now ...:eek:

No one thought the Japanese would attack us either. My point is why become weak enough that another Nation thinks they can get what the want from us.

I think you forget that this is also a time period of negotiations and China might opt for a War that brings us to the Negotiation Table and still get what they want and simply repeat that in the future till the get what the want.

You assume that they want Money and not Power. If they subdue US they have the rest of the world to sell to.

What I said was that a conflict with our Allies Territory would bring US into a War.

And, I bet European Nations will have noting to do with a War with China and we will bee alone.

In WWII we got caught with our pants down and Ass Kicked for some Years till we rallied. We live in a time where a Country Like North Korea let alone the Chinese can bring a War to our Country with Technology.

Look what happened in the Korean War; again caught with our Pants down. Imagine China and Korea starting a War at the same time. If we had double the Ground Forces We have now we would be unable to do anything but put up a weak ground defense.

We have Trillions of Dollars We send overseas in various types of Aid. We should cut enough of that tokeep the Military Strong and prevent some other Country from thing we are weak enough that they can benifit from a War with US.

Obviously Walmart is backing the Team they feel is going to win.

No books involved - just a basic understanding of the fact that the yen is a JAPANESE currency - and that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with China.

Except to dimwitted maroons who figure that slant eyed Asians, be they Japanese or Chinese or Taiwanese or Whateverese are ALL of the evil yellow scourge and must be quashed.

So,
 

When do the butterflies come out in the Ukraine this year?

When the energy $ interests require crisis the actors will assume their roles.

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

Don't bet on it. Do they put a hydrophone in the water and announce "training exercise under way-do not attack" ?

One must then ask, why did they surface?

With the exception of the reference to the Nukes with which I agree I think you're wrong on the rest. I think the US is making a huge mistake with it's shrinking force structure and reliance on fighting by proxy.

To pretend they are able to guess the type of warfare that will occur in future is to fly in the face of history, the lessons of which indicate the need for a large balanced force capable of countering all possible threats. Not just a few current ones.

- Peter.

That's what the Navy is working on; USS Zumwalt.

Carriers are going the way of the battleship with the improvement of drones. I suspect the current class the Navy is launching will be the last.

For the same reason we sneak up and surprise their navy regularly. They pulled it off once, we do it more often than anyone cares to admit.

The best thing the Navy could do would be never admit they are able to do it. Next best would be to deny they could do it. Like planting sensors in USSR Navy ports. Bet your ass we've got 'em all over China. Never admit it.

I understand your argument, especially with the Navy, which takes years to build-out to a global fleet.

The balance is in the models of what the next few decades holds for projecting power. Is there a military that we could be fighting in the next few decades that has the ability to threaten us with conventional warfare? The most likely two candidates are Russia and China, neither of which have amphibious capabilities and whose ability to dominate the sea lanes is at best, a wet dream of their respective militaries. China's venture into naval aviation is using a 30 year-old soviet failure Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. True, they will learn a lot for the venture. And they will have to, because in order to challenge western naval aviation they will have to build vessels and tactics that exceed our own. That won't happen within the next 2-3 decades at the earliest.

Their sub fleet is getting better as they use diesel-electric which is pretty good right up until they have to snorkel to recharge. Their nukes are 20 years behind the curve. Goodness knows what their sensors are capable of, but I doubt they are much better than the hulls. Rumor has it that their nukes are built for speed rather than silence. That's a bad choice (for them, good for us) and again, well behind the curve.

With the conventional army, I just don't see a need for the USA to fight a land war in Asia. Let France do it. The PLA just doesn't have the sealift capacity to threaten anybody not on their continent. Not even Japan or Taiwan.

Showing our presence would be stupid. Sitting there fat, dumb and happy for all to see and the war bells sounds....Now they know where we are.

We didn't know they were there until it surfaced....LOL

Good thing you're not in charge of anything in the DOD. That would be a real disaster.

Like you can do any better.

There becomes also the reality of affordability for a large existing military force. This means with so much loss on the industrial front it is really not there. Some hard decisions should be made before the inevitable loss of the current standard of living falls seriously for citizens otherwise.

If excess money is continued to be spent on the military and the infrastructure. At some point there will be widespread poverty in one form or another to enable it. Economic games can be played until they just ultimately run out of options.

This already is noticeable. Social issues present from the ongoing drain of resources and money have already made their mark.

There are not too many nut case countries like North Korea and perhaps some in the middle east. There is something to be said for aid to Pakistan as well. The main one being why with their attitudes.

Russia and China are not really interested in outright aggression. Although China wants back territories that where historically theirs.

America is learning that their days of having excess influence in a region are slowly fading. No matter how much money is spent on the military.

Heard he's looking at spending the savings on food stamps.

Well Dude, since the defense budget is about a fourth of the entitlement budget I think you are correct.

'Kings of the East' , Buddy

[QUOTE=tjts1;3292304]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.[/QUOTE]

That is not what I got from the Comment. The Article I posted said that the USA had a Technological Edge.

Yet the Chinese were able to sneak a Submarine in the middle of our Fleet is indicator of the state of our Technology.

You assume that the War would play out the way you think. What if things don't happen the way you think.

I can see another Korean War Starting and them having to re-call our already small Military to Korea and then having the Chinese showing up again in the new Korean War but this time with vastly more number and similar Technology.

The Bulk of our Military might be defeated in Korea leaving us with what to negotiate?

Or suppose we do not reach Korea with sufficient Forces in time and N Korea wins. At the Same time PRC invades Taiwan and or/Japan.
Does the USA launch Nuclear Missiles or do they do something else? If so what else could the USA do.

In the above possibilities which is more helpful; having more or less People in the Military and which would is more likely to entice someone to start a war.

China owns a lot of our debt. During the 1920s the USA used debt owed to USA Business as a Legal reason to send Troops into those Countries and control the Government and Finances of those countries. And, at the same time kept the Europeans from not doing the same.

So if our debt gets bad enough China could have a legal reason to step in.
Part of what I said was that the USA sends Billions Overseas as Aid. We should cut back on that and preserve our Military.

The situation is somewhat like reducing the size of a Police Force when the Crime level has dropped. A reduction in the size of the Police force creates an environment for Crime to come back.

Generals prepare to fight future wars by preparing for the previous war.

In hindsight we're all brilliant sob's.

The trick is to accurately predict which of the infinite futures is the most probable and amongst those probabilities, which one we will follow.

For those who suggest that the future will involve armies, navies, and air forces as previously deployed, I would suggest that our prognostication skills are retarded.

You joke actually exposes China's weak spot. If a large number of People become dissastified with the Government there it could paralize China.

But, as far as I know the USA is not working that angle. The big wigs are to busy counting the Money they are making with trade from China.

If we keep our Military strong and do not become an easy Target I think nature Will Take its course and the People in China will eventually demand a change in their Government.

How about how many Nukes?

Right now China has a large number or Troops in Mexico.

[QUOTE=Dudesky;3292514]Don't bet on it. Do they put a hydrophone in the water and announce "training exercise under way-do not attack" ?

One must then ask, why did they surface?[/QUOTE]

They wanted us to know they could do it. They were showing us how superior they are.

It is worth a lot in Propaganda in their own country and makes us look like an Ass to the Allies we said we would protect in our various Treaties.