News Will the US reintroduce the draft?

[Art]

US will 'have to face' military draft dilemma: senator
Washington | June 12
AFP - The United States will "have to face" a painful dilemma on restoring the military draft as rising casualties result in persistent shortfalls in US Army recruitment, a top US senator warned.

Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US Army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months

Ten-Hut!
The Army's Bungling Recruitment
Don Edwards | June 12
WaPo - Nearly every day, anywhere from one to several U.S. soldiers or Marines die in Iraq, and even more are wounded. The news doesn't always make the front pages anymore, but the casualty rate has apparently registered deeply in the consciousness of young Americans and their families. The result is a dangerous decline in new enlistments that is depleting U.S. military resources and weakening our capacity to face additional conflicts or threats from abroad.

Now, the Army's latest desperate attempt to gain recruits is a shortened, 15-month enlistment policy. A 15-month enlistment means that soldiers will receive only basic and advanced individual training, but none of the team and unit training our premier soldiers traditionally receive. These recruits will be shipped off to war after only five months of training, deployed to units in combat where they know no one. These inexperienced soldiers will be at an enormous disadvantage and the casualties among them will be bound to reflect that disadvantage

After Lowering Goal, Army Falls Short on May Recruits
Eric Schmitt | Washington | June 8
NYT - Even after reducing its recruiting target for May, the Army missed it by about 25 percent, Army officials said on Tuesday. The shortfall would have been even bigger had the Army stuck to its original goal for the month.

What are people's opinion on the reintroduction of the draft? Is it likely to happen? Will you support it if it does?

 

[klusener]

If someone gave me 75,583 dollars everytime someone asked this question, I would be 680,247 dollars richer.

 

[1123581321]

i would not oppose a draft, but i don't think that it will come to that. if we find the need to attack North Korea/Iran/Syria and the like, then that may become needed.

fibonacci

 

[FredGarvin]

Personally I think there are too many people in charge that remember what it was like in Viet Nam in dealing with draftees. The superiority of an all volunteer force is pretty obvious. I would think they would be very reluctant to institute a draft simply because it would have to go back to the mix of professional soldiers mixing with draftees. It was not a harmonious mix.

It would take a monumentous world event for me to support another draft.

 

[Pengwuino]

Biden is a moron, or well, he's a democrat. Hes just trying to bring out more fear-mongering tactics to get people to fall for the idea that there is going to be a draft. You put that out in the media and you'll get all sorts of people making... well, threads like this. Theres no factual evidence to support a serious look at a draft.

 

[loseyourname]

The only way a draft will be instituted without popular revolt is if the US is invaded. It'll be difficult to get past the navy to do that.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hey that's a good idea. Let's tell the navy to get off their butts and go fight in iraq ;)

 

[russ_watters]

What are people's opinion on the reintroduction of the draft? Is it likely to happen? Will you support it if it does?

There is no reasonable chance of a draft happening in my lifetime (I'm 29). This issue was brought up a lot last year by the Democrat's for the purpose of turning public opinion against the war in order to get Democrats elected. It would appear Biden still thinks he can get some more mileage out of the issue...

Hey that's a good idea. Let's tell the navy to get off their butts and go fight in iraq ;)

Ahem, while the Navy (with the exception of the Marine Corps, a branch of the Navy, and Navy corpsmen serving with the Marine Corps) suffers virtually no casualties, the Navy does a significant fraction of the work.

 

[Pengwuino]

Quiet you! we'll replace all the naval men with robots! :D lol

 

[ray b]

The only way a draft will be instituted without popular revolt is if the US is invaded. It'll be difficult to get past the navy to do that.

I am unaware of any naval opperations on the Reo Grand
and very aware of a continued invadesion across that and other borders
and judging by the local landings in south Fla the navy/cousties/ins is getting less then 1/2
of the attemped crossers

just wait intill BuSh2 trys to invade N K or Iran

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think he was tlaking about illegal aliens..

 

[Rev Prez]

What are people's opinion on the reintroduction of the draft? Is it likely to happen? Will you support it if it does?

It will not happen. The only cache of political support for American conscription comes from left-leaning circles where the predominant concern is one of equity. The data is compelling even at a first order analysis, the American fighting force is more mobile, more lethal, better protected, and enjoys greater reach at a quarter of its last conscription-era size. Consequently, personnel base outlays amount to about a quarter of the entire defense budget--the single largest line item for a fighting force with only about 1 million men and women. That means an extra division of fighting strength will run you an extra $10 billion a year just for the manpower.

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The only way that a draft would be re-instated anytime soon in the US, would be in the event of war with China, a situation that many experts now see as inevitable:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind65.html

 

[Art]

The only way that a draft would be re-instated anytime soon in the US, would be in the event of war with China, a situation that many experts now see as inevitable:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind65.html

Which is why the US is currently cosying up to Asian countries. The plan being I presume to keep any war with China confined to the Asian continent.

 

[Rev Prez]

The only way that a draft would be re-instated anytime soon in the US, would be in the event of war with China, a situation that many experts now see as inevitable:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind65.html

1) Lew Rockwell is no expert. Neither is William Lind.

2) There is no discernable strategic objective in a war against China that would necessitate meeting the PLA--fully mobilized and assembled--in battle on the mainland.

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

1) Lew Rockwell is no expert. Neither is William Lind.

No, but he discussed the musings of experts in that writeup, I considered it a good review (especially since he is particularly hard on Bush, so I'm sure that he would have some fans on this forum). I happen to agree with his conclusions too.

2) There is no discernable strategic objective in a war against China that would necessitate meeting the PLA--fully mobilized and assembled--in battle on the mainland.

I do not necessarily agree with this.

If the unfortunate situation was all-out war with China, there is a chance that a stalemate would not be achieved, and Beijing would become a target to force a peace. I could also forsee limited strikes in key areas against their mainland, as the Japanese had done.

It is hard to know for sure when we are not military planners, other than the arm-chair kind

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Which is why the US is currently cosying up to Asian countries. The plan being I presume to keep any war with China confined to the Asian continent.

It would seem that way. The issue is now being raised where Japan wants a seat on the UNSC.

 

[Rev Prez]

No, but he discussed the musings of experts in that writeup...

Expert. One. And a guy he's arguing against. And trust me on this, Robert Kaplan is not a favorite amongst these people here.

I considered it a good review (especially since he is particularly hard on Bush, so I'm sure that he would have some fans on this forum). I happen to agree with his conclusions too.

His conclusions aren't conclusions at all. They're based on a very silly analogy to a common criticism of Lehman's Maritime Strategy--namely that Backfires armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles could hunt down and prevent a NATO carrier offensive against Soviet SSBN bases around the Kola. Of course, the Soviets had it easier since the proposal involved maneuvering carrier strike groups through narrow passages of water and within Moscow's coastal, EM and satellite field of vision. The solution was simple; send up SSNs with Tomahawks. What Lind proposes would require the Chinese to find a carrier group with a weapon that is destructive over at most 400 square miles in millions of square miles of ocean; the Reds have to buy their satellite intelligence from the French.

I do not necessarily agree with this.

If the unfortunate situation was all-out war with China, there is a chance that a stalemate would not be achieved, and Beijing would become a target to force a peace.

There is no chance of a stalemate happening in any sphere of conflict that the US and Chinese may engage in. The US has no strategic objective on the mainland that requires an airland force to accomplish, and this Beijing idea of yours is just crazy.

I could also forsee limited strikes in key areas against their mainland, as the Japanese had done.

The Japanese engaged in full effort to conquer the mainland. Exactly what the hell do you think American interests in China are?

It is hard to know for sure when we are not military planners...

No, it's really easy to know for sure. It's easy even for security studies undergraduates.

Rev Prez

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'll have to go with Rev Prez on the idea of a conflict with China. It would be insane. The worst that I think might happen would be a new Cold War type scenario. WE have no interest in attacking them at home and I agree with RP that it would be absolutely insane to even attempt such an endevour lest we blow their whole country sky high first, and that in and of itself would be insane.

On the OP I'd have to say that a draft does not seem likely. All hell would break loose.

 

[Smurf]

I have yet to hear any convincing argument that war with china is "inevitable" and find that laughable, let alone that it rise to to total war that will require any activity on mainland china at all. Neither of you are going to go over the pacific to each other's continent to fight each other. That's just silly.

As for the draft. No one in cabinet wants it, no one out of cabinet wants it. It's just some democrat trying to lower support for Bush.

 

[Art]

The Japanese engaged in full effort to conquer the mainland. Exactly what the hell do you think American interests in China are?
Rev Prez

Taiwan...

 

[russ_watters]

Taiwan...

While China could concievably send half a billion people walking across each others bodies in the strait of Taiwan to get there, realistically, the Navy could easily handle a conventional invasion attempt by China. There'd be no need for the US to invade mainland China.

 

[Art]

While China could concievably send half a billion people walking across each others bodies in the strait of Taiwan to get there, realistically, the Navy could easily handle a conventional invasion attempt by China. There'd be no need for the US to invade mainland China.

The question was what are America's interests in China and the answer I supplied is Taiwan.
That said if the situation flared up again as it did in 1996 and China did attack Taiwan and America intervened IMO it could escalate exponentially very quickly. From what we see of China it seems they interfere very little outside their own borders but equally go ballistic if they believe others are interfering in their domestic affairs.

 

[Rev Prez]

...I agree with RP that it would be absolutely insane to even attempt such an endevour lest we blow their whole country sky high first, and that in and of itself would be insane.

I didn't say it is insanity to launch an airland offensive on the mainland. I said that there was no reason to do so...ever. Whether the US can take China in a stand up fight on their own soil is another question entirely.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

The question was what are America's interests in China and the answer I supplied is Taiwan.

The question was prefaced by a point regarding Japan's reasons for invading the mainland.

That said if the situation flared up again as it did in 1996 and China did attack Taiwan and America intervened IMO it could escalate exponentially very quickly. From what we see of China it seems they interfere very little outside their own borders but equally go ballistic if they believe others are interfering in their domestic affairs.

And tell us, Art. What did you "see of China" in 1996?

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

And tell us, Art. What did you "see of China" in 1996?

Rev Prez

China's threatening posturing achieved this;

An important outcome was the new balance struck between China and the US. A new Sino-US compact was reached whereby the Clinton Administration reaffirmed its commitment to one China, including no US support for Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations, while Beijing reaffirmed Jiang Zemin's proposal, which, whilst not renouncing the use of force, nonetheless opts for gradual peaceful reunification.

 

[Nicool005]

I doubt the draft will be reintroduced. If it is reintroduced, I would not support it mainly for two reasons. 1) Because I believe that military service is a good and honorable thing, but it should be voluntary. 2) Because President Bush said it would not be reintroduced before he was elected this November after some people grew nervous about the possibility of it being reintroduced, and I would be really ticked off if that was a lie.

 

[pattylou]

Last interview I heard on this, with a high-up dude in the military, is that of course there will be no draft. He laid out some excellent reasons why politicians on both sides bring up the draft - and it has nothing to do with ... the draft.

If I could remember the reasoning...

But you asked for opinions - and mine is it won't happen.

What *is* happening is that standards are being lowered for foreigners to become citizens - if they sign on to military service. Also, in at least one court case (probably more) of drug possession, the defndant was given the option of serving time in jail, or in the military. And packages are being beefed up, and the No Child Left Behind act has a a clause that gives the military automatic access to our children's personal information. Schools need to "opt out" of this - the default is that the military is granted the information in the NCLB act.

-Patty

 

[Art]

On a lighter note here is a draft registration form.
http://www.draftregistration.us/

 

[pattylou]

That's a riot.

Did you follow the links? I particularly like the "Peace is for pus*ies" T shirt.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The solution was simple; send up SSNs with Tomahawks. What Lind proposes would require the Chinese to find a carrier group with a weapon that is destructive over at most 400 square miles in millions of square miles of ocean; the Reds have to buy their satellite intelligence from the French.

I highly doubt that the Chinese would have any difficultly getting satellite imaging, give me a break.

There is no chance of a stalemate happening in any sphere of conflict that the US and Chinese may engage in.

Again, what basis do you have for this statement? While the US is militarily superior, that may change - it would be a close match, especially given that we would have to pick up and go over there.

The situation would be very much like the invasion of Japan that never happened - due to nukes. Yet we were willing to do it without them if need be, so this scenario is not "impossible" as you say.

The Japanese engaged in full effort to conquer the mainland. Exactly what the hell do you think American interests in China are?

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence.

The Japanese never conquered all of China, only key areas of strategic and industrial importance.

No, it's really easy to know for sure. It's easy even for security studies undergraduates.

If you say so Reverend. I'm glad that you have it all figured out, 'cuz hundreds of PhDs in D.C. work on this stuff, and I guarantee you that somewhere in those 'playbooks' of theirs is a situation involving warfare on the Chinese mainland. I, on the other hand, am just a lowly scientist and am not qualified to make natsec decisions - these debates are just for fun really, I would never be quite as convinced of such things as you seem to be.

I don't think it would be done "just for kicks" but i could foresee the situation arising. We went into Korea (where we were mostly fighting Chinese soldiers), that was almost the same thing as going into China (and it would have been if McArthur had his way).

 

[The Smoking Man]

I have yet to hear any convincing argument that war with china is "inevitable" and find that laughable, let alone that it rise to to total war that will require any activity on mainland china at all. Neither of you are going to go over the pacific to each other's continent to fight each other. That's just silly.

As for the draft. No one in cabinet wants it, no one out of cabinet wants it. It's just some democrat trying to lower support for Bush.

LOL.

What are you going to bomb?

Manufacturing?

Logitech, Sony, Mitac, Motorola, Phillips, Emmerson, FMC, Ford, Volkswagon, BMW, Toyota, Seimens, ... you get the idea?

The rest of the manufacturing would put Walmart out of business.

So ... ae you going to bomb the people?

I thought you would be required to 'liberate' the people who are under a despotic government.

The government? ... there are 79 million members of the 'Party' ... You have to be a member to take on a government Job ... Like Postman.

Who IS your target here?

And don't forget, if you win ... You get to clean up the mess like in Iraq.

The population of Iraq is held in two cities here: Shanghai and Beijing.

Can you even afford to win?

 

[Rev Prez]

I highly doubt that the Chinese would have any difficultly getting satellite imaging, give me a break.

I suggest you actually read up a bit. [1][2].

Again, what basis do you have for this statement? While the US is militarily superior, that may change - it would be a close match, especially given that we would have to pick up and go over there.

Beijing has barely 200 aircraft that can reach the relevant AOR, and most of those are aging J-8s fighters. Her airmen train at most 110 hours a year, far short of the 180 hours minimum Western air forces can achieve. She has no strategic sealift, no strategic airlift, no strategic bombing capability, and a Navy that consists of few new destroyers, old frigates, and mostly older third-generation diesel submarines. In short, most of what the PLA can toss into a fight was around in 1954 and 1958, when the Taiwanese by themselves managed to rack up a 7 to 1 kill ratio in the air. So what can the Chinese do? They can make good on their claim of Matsu and Quemoy and that's about it.

The situation would be very much like the invasion of Japan that never happened - due to nukes.

No it wouldn't, because there is no reason to invade the mainland. The aim is to protect Taiwan. What the hell's in China worth fighting an airland war with the PLA?

Yet we were willing to do it without them if need be, so this scenario is not "impossible" as you say.

It's "impossible" because there's no reason whatsoever to do it.

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence.

I mean just what I said. What are the interests in mainland China that would necessite invading the mainland?

The Japanese never conquered all of China...

Get this through your head...it doesn't matter. The Japanese aimed to conquer China. Why the hell else would you put forces their in the first place?

...only key areas of strategic and industrial importance.

To their interests in conquering and holding Manchuria--a part of China! This really isn't that hard.

If you say so Reverend.

Once again, I'm no Reverend.

I'm glad that you have it all figured out...

I didn't figure it out. Your scenario is so off the wall it should take no one more than two minutes to show how absurd it is.

...'cuz hundreds of PhDs in D.C. work on this stuff and I guarantee you that somewhere in those 'playbooks' of theirs is a situation involving warfare on the Chinese mainland.

Of course there is. There is discussion in the open literature as well. That's why I told the other poster that I wasn't saying that it is impossible to invade the mainland, I was saying it's impossible to conceive of a plausible reason or a scenario leading to that end.

I, on the other hand, am just a lowly scientist and am not qualified to make natsec decisions...

I'm not so sure you are a scientist. Security studies is primarily a science; and one to which a number of people from very diverse scientific and technical backgrounds contribute. A good chunk of MIT's SSP are physicists, electrical engineers, operations researchers, etc. by training.

I would never be quite as convinced of such things as you seem to be.

I would never be so cavalier about making stupid claims.

I don't think it would be done "just for kicks" but i could foresee the situation arising.

Then perhaps you've read too many comic books, or you may have an immature imagination, or--given this last bit you posted--you may have a deficient talent for analogy.

We went into Korea (where we were mostly fighting Chinese soldiers), that was almost the same thing as going into China (and it would have been if McArthur had his way).

The objective in Korea was never to invade China. MacArthur's objective wasn't to invade China either. He planned to drive them north of the Yalu river and destroy the main force away from Pyongyang. And fighting and holding a mountainous isthmus geographically and politically distinct from China is not the same thing as going to China.

Rev Prez

 

[Smurf]

Beijing has barely 200 aircraft that can reach the relevant AOR, and most of those are aging J-8s fighters. Her airmen train at most 110 hours a year, far short of the 180 hours minimum Western air forces can achieve. She has no strategic sealift, no strategic airlift, no strategic bombing capability, and a Navy that consists of few new destroyers, old frigates, and mostly older third-generation diesel submarines. In short, most of what the PLA can toss into a fight was around in 1954 and 1958, when the Taiwanese by themselves managed to rack up a 7 to 1 kill ratio in the air. So what can the Chinese do? They can make good on their claim of Matsu and Quemoy and that's about it.

I think the main fear is in chain's SSM and SAM capabilities, is it not?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I suggest you actually read up a bit.

Thank you for the interesting links. I'm not going to sit here and read a massive document on naval tactics though, and it's not pertinent anyway. I really don't see the point in discussing barrel sizes or missile range or any of that crap since we are not qualified to know what any of that means. That's my point on your "armchair naval commander" approach here seeming childish to me.

Consider these statistics (source if the World Factbook): The US military expeditures per $GDP is at 3.3%, whereas China's is currently at 4.3% that is that China's military expenditure per $GDP is currently 30% greater than that of the US.

And that is a GDP that the US is contributing to by importing goods, I might add! very smart!

Apparently Rumsfeld does not share you optimistic appraisal of the situation:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/china_military_moves_worry_lawmakers.htm

I mean just what I said. What are the interests in mainland China that would necessite invading the mainland?

Get this through your head...it doesn't matter. The Japanese aimed to conquer China. Why the hell else would you put forces their in the first place?

Look here Reverend: if we were ever attacked by China militarily (especially in a confrontation with Taiwan) then we would kick their ass all the way back through their own turf to set an example against making a direct military challenge to the US. I will refer you back to WWII and the use of nuclear weapons on Japan - which was preceded by a planned land invasion of Japan to stop the aggressor - as a case in point. The war with Japan did not end with naval battles, they involved hard fighting on land, a landwar that was planned on being taken to their own capital.

In my opinion, given past precedents set by the US, this would not end at Taiwan (if the Chinese are infact stupid enough to attack Taiwan).

Economically, we are not just going to repel an attack against Taiwan and then say "ok guys, see you later" and leave. We are going to have to get something out of it, like concessions or reparations paid and this would only come with the threat of force (if not actually the force itself) against the Chinese mainland. If they feel safe and secure they will feel the tendency for increasing aggression without reparation or fear.

Besides, the surest path over the Pacific toward the US, is through space, an area that China is making great strides in.

I'm not so sure you are a scientist.

And I do not care what you believe. I think that you are a reverend though, since you preach alot.

The objective in Korea was never to invade China. MacArthur's objective wasn't to invade China either. He planned to drive them north of the Yalu river and destroy the main force away from Pyongyang. And fighting and holding a mountainous isthmus geographically and politically distinct from China is not the same thing as going to China.

You are wrong again:

From wikipedia:

MacArthur sought an extension of the conflict into China, but President Truman refused his request. Later declassified documents indicate that MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons on Chinese territory, some sources suggesting as many as 50. A nuclear strike may have drawn the Soviet Union into the war and perhaps launched a Third World War. Truman feared a nuclear exchange and needless Chinese deaths. After heated arguments between the two men, Truman relieved MacArthur of his duty on April 11, 1951.

 

[Smurf]

Consider these statistics (source if the World Factbook): The US military expeditures per $GDP is at 3.3%, whereas China's is currently at 4.3% that is that China's military expenditure per $GDP is currently 30% greater than that of the US.

That doesn't really mean anything since it's Total $$ that counts, not GDP. Does it give an actual budget number you can compare? Either that or you could look at their source for GDP and work it out.

The war with Japan did not end with naval battles, they involved hard fighting on land, a landwar that was planned on being taken to their own capital.

It was actually an island hopping war and involved some pretty intense logistics. Now, I don't doubt China could do that today if necessary, but it's pretty obvious that America has a lot better logistical understanding and capability than China.
But that's completely besides the point anyways, what DOES this have to do with anything?

In my opinion, given past precedents set by the US, this would not end at Taiwan (if the Chinese are infact stupid enough to attack Taiwan).

Yes.. yes it would. No one wants a major war - No one gets a major war. Seems pretty simple to me. Taiwan doesn't exactly have huge importance to China and USA, mainly domestic and diplomatic.

Economically, we are not just going to repel an attack against Taiwan and then say "ok guys, see you later" and leave. We are going to have to get something out of it, like concessions or reparations paid and this would only come with the threat of force (if not actually the force itself) against the Chinese mainland. If they feel safe and secure they will feel the tendency for increasing aggression without reparation or fear.

Actually that's probably exactly what's going to happen. One of you will come out on top and the other will back down.

Besides, the surest path over the Pacific toward the US, is through space, an area that China is making great strides in.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not suggesting China's going to nuke the US. Or wait, an invasion force through space? COME ON! CHINA ISN'T GOING TO ATTACK MAINLAND USA OVER TAIWAN MAN!

P.S. And I wouldn't say MacArthur wanted to nuke China. He talked openly about it mostly as rhetoric for political reasons. I don't think MacArthur, had he had the power, would have wanted a full scale war with China. Let alone nuclear.

 

[Grogs]

P.S. And I wouldn't say MacArthur wanted to nuke China. He talked openly about it mostly as rhetoric for political reasons. I don't think MacArthur, had he had the power, would have wanted a full scale war with China. Let alone nuclear.

'Wanted' is probably not the right word, but from what I know about the man, I suspect he considered it a very viable option. He wouldn't have wanted a full scale war, but I think he was willing to do whatever it took to drive the Chinese forces back across the Yalu river, regardless of the consequences.

You have to remember that MacArthur was the senior Army commander in the WWII Pacific theater. It was a pretty common thing to load up hundreds of bombers with incendiaries and firebomb the heck out of Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Undoubtedly, he also knew about the massive bombing raids in German cities like Berlin and Dresden. That was the mindset, flatten the cities to win the war.

He was also deeply involved in the planning for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. He knew the figures for how many thousands were expected to die during the invasion. He also saw, firsthand, how 2 atomic bombs brought the war to a close and made the invasion unnecessary.

You also have to remember the climate of the time. Nuclear power was new, and thought to be the way of the future. Lobbing a few artillery propelled tactical nukes into enemy troops, dropping a few larger ones on key cities, and then mopping up with ground troops was considered to be a feasible military option.

 

[Rev Prez]

I really don't see the point in discussing barrel sizes or missile range or any of that crap since we are not qualified to know what any of that means.

Speak for yourself. I'm thoroughly qualified to understand measures of length and distance.

Consider these statistics (source if the World Factbook): The US military expeditures per $GDP is at 3.3%, whereas China's is currently at 4.3% that is that China's military expenditure per $GDP is currently 30% greater than that of the US..

CIA gives GDP as given in PPP, which you should know is useless for determining the purchasing power of a country with respect to foreign goods and is therefore useless to plot expenditure against quality in warfighting systems. The relevant figure is the $70 billion expenditure estimate calculated under real exchange. We spend about as much or more each on personnel, procurement, revolving and management, and operations and maintenance than they do on their entire force. [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2006_greenbook.pdf]

And that is a GDP that the US is contributing to by importing goods, I might add! very smart!

The opportunity costs of letting Chinese industry and modernization languish far outweigh the risks of economically engaging the mainland in a way that is only marginally advantageous to Beijing strategically. The Chinese are no greater threat to us than when they first acquired the ability to hit our shores with nuclear weapons. They have no nuclear counterforce capability to speak of, and really that's the only jump in the nuclear sphere that matters. The US margin of militarity superiority--more importantly, Taiwan's as well--has remained constant and comfortably large.

Apparently Rumsfeld does not share you optimistic appraisal of the situation:

Actually, he does given the narrow focus of the hearing--Chinese naval power. Read again, and pay close attention to the excerpt from his testimony.

Look here Reverend...

Are you really that thick? I'm no Reverend.

...if we were ever attacked by China militarily (especially in a confrontation with Taiwan) then we would kick their ass all the way back through their own turf to set an example against making a direct military challenge to the US.

If we were ever attacked militarily by China, we would either win in that sphere or it would go nuclear. There is no strategic reason to invade China whatsoever--face it.

I will refer you back to WWII and the use of nuclear weapons on Japan - which was preceded by a planned land invasion of Japan to stop the aggressor - as a case in point.

WWII was also fought largely before the advent of nuclear sovereignty. Counterpoint: there were never any plans to take a war in Central Europe against the Soviets to Moscow; no planner could possibly anticipated such an end occurring before a nuclear exchange. Couterpoint two: throughout the entirety of the Vietnam War the United States did not pursue any strategy to end North Vietnam as a sovereign state, and in 1991 Coalition members commonly understood their mission was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait while leaving Baghdad intact. The absurdity of this point exceeds even your comparison of American and Chinese defense spending-to-GDP ratios.

In my opinion, given past precedents set by the US, this would not end at Taiwan (if the Chinese are infact stupid enough to attack Taiwan).

And your opinion is foolishly held, at length, against tons of better reasoning and probably some of it yoru own.

Economically, we are not just going to repel an attack against Taiwan and then say "ok guys, see you later" and leave.

No, the United States would break Beijing's ability to project power beyond her borders.

We are going to have to get something out of it, like concessions or reparations paid and this would only come with the threat of force (if not actually the force itself) against the Chinese mainland.

You do realize that there was a fairly recent war where we did exactly that, through a series of UN Security Council resolutions that spelled out the aggressor's obligations to the injured party and to a disarmament process. The aggressor regime survived another fourteen years, much of the time spent shooting at American aircraft and trying to assassinate an American president.

If they feel safe and secure they will feel the tendency for increasing aggression without reparation or fear.

And you inanely conclude that the only way to achieve this is through waging a land war on their territory.

Besides, the surest path over the Pacific toward the US, is through space, an area that China is making great strides in.

The Chinese already have an adequate countervalue force; who cares? That's what constrains action in the first place.

And I do not care what you believe. I think that you are a reverend though, since you preach alot.

And I think you're a high school kid who likes to pretend to knowledge he lacks; you flub a lot.

You are wrong again:

A conclusion reached only if you complete ignore what I've just said said. [http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/coll3/image/13.pdf ]

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

That doesn't really mean anything since it's Total $$ that counts, not GDP. Does it give an actual budget number you can compare? Either that or you could look at their source for GDP and work it out.

Military spending as % GDP indicates how important military growth is to that country. While it is absolutely clear that China's military spending is still less than the US, based upon the current rates of growth (for both China and the US) China's military is expected to surpass the US within 10-20 years.

Speak for yourself. I'm thoroughly qualified to understand measures of length and distance.

oh, ok there Euclid...i forgot that you tend to demand mathematical equations for politics

Actually, he does given the narrow focus of the hearing--Chinese naval power. Read again, and pay close attention to the excerpt from his testimony.

I guess I have to quote things verbatim, since it seems that you will not acknowledge them:

The plan is contained in Bush's 2006 budget proposal, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday defended, saying the military was closely watching China's moves but that the U.S. Navy remains the pre-eminent fleet.

``The United States Navy ... is the Navy on the face of the Earth that is a true blue water navy,'' Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ``On the other hand, when one looks at trend lines, it is something that we have to think about.''

[snip]

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, whose state of Maine is home to the Bath Iron Works, one of the Navy's largest ship builders, expressed her reservations to Rumsfeld.

``I recognize that our naval fleet still remains the most technologically advanced in the world. But the decreasing number of ships being procured, particularly in the light of the Chinese buildup, really concerns me,'' she said.

``Are you concerned about projections that the Chinese fleet may well surpass the American fleet in terms of numbers in just a decade's time?''

``Senator,'' Rumsfeld replied, ``it is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to.''

One of Rumsfeld's top aides, Douglas Feith, echoed the secretary's views in an appearance later Thursday before the Council on Foreign Relations, a private think tank.

Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, singled out China as among ``important powers in the world,'' whose strategic choices will influence U.S. national security.

``Of the new powers that are rising ... the country that can be expected to have the greatest effect on international relations is China,'' Feith said.

So..not exactly the force that you seem to describe: a bunch of retards with nothing but rowboats and BB guns?

Couterpoint two: throughout the entirety of the Vietnam War the United States did not pursue any strategy to end North Vietnam as a sovereign state

1) when did i say anything about ending chinese sovereignty??
2) we lost the vietnam war, so it wasn't really an option!
3) your statement makes no sense since the goal was to eliminate communism in vietnam and southeast asia - i find it hard to imagine how that would happen without removing the political boundary between north and south vietnam, which would remove the sovereignty of the north wouldn't it.
4) if you are saying that we purposely just wanted to maintain a line between the north and south, (like the 38th parallel in korea) then you are utterly ignorant of facts.
5) In analogy to Korea, leaving the agressor untouched on their own home turf only postpones the problem.

we would not just sit in a purely defensive mode if Taiwan was attacked. (Really, if we were attacked to get to Taiwan). They could attack Taiwan, we repel, they attack, we repel..no, i don't think so. We would not just sit there repelling their attacks constantly. The obvious solution would be to let them know that there will be reprocussions if they do that, which could involve limited strikes against their mainland (or at least the threat of this by having plans on the table).

You do realize that there was a fairly recent war where we did exactly that, through a series of UN Security Council resolutions that spelled out the aggressor's obligations to the injured party and to a disarmament process. The aggressor regime survived another fourteen years, much of the time spent shooting at American aircraft and trying to assassinate an American president.

Yes, a war that I support, I might add. And did we invade Baghdad the first time? No, and that was not a very good decision since we wound up having to do it all over again 15 years later. I guess that you are agreeing with me, since as a result "much of the time spent shooting at American aircraft and trying to assassinate an American president"? I appreciate the point that you are making for me.

A conclusion reached only if you complete ignore what I've just said said.http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/coll3/image/13.pdf ]

Grow up and put down the GI Joe dolls. Unless you are a former naval officer it is completey foolish to try to discuss things like "which battle formation is superior" or whether an American missile is better than a Chinese missile, etc. I find it funny how someone reads a Time magazine article and they are suddenly an expert

It reminds me of a friend of mine who was stationed on a nuke sub. During his time in the service, he was utterly convinced that the Soviet technology was garbage, that there was no way in hell the Soviets could stand up to the US militarily due to our far-advanced technology. After his service, he came to realize that infact the Soviet military technology was just as advanced as ours, in some cases more so. He felt that the illusion was maintained by the service to keep the morale of the forces in place, but in reality is without basis.

Face facts: the Chinese are the next potential military threat to the US, everyone seems to acknowledge this except you.

 

[Art]

Quetzalcoatl9 I find myself in the disturbing position of agreeing with you
Something Prez missed in his analysis comparing military spend was that ultimately most of the US military force will remain in the US whilst China is fighting on home turf. Meaning America will only be able to bring perhaps 10% of her military arsenal to bear whilst perhaps 90% of China's will be available to her.
A useful analogy is the Falklands war. Although overall Britains armed forces dwarfed Argentina's in both quality and quantity the amount of this might that Britain could actually bring to bear in the conflict was very small. to the extent that Britains military commander in charge of the campaign said afterwards that they had been extremely fortunate to win it.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Quetzalcoatl9 I find myself in the disturbing position of agreeing with you

whoa...<falls out of chair>

 

[edward]

Draft or China?

If we invade any other country the draft will be inevitable. Recruiters did however meet their June goals by being allowed to accept high school drop outs and giving cash enlistment bonuses to others.

As far as China goes, the Chinese can bring us to our knees by simply refusing to export goods for six months.

 

[Smurf]

Face facts: the Chinese are the next potential military threat to the US, everyone seems to acknowledge this except you.

I have a big problem with this statement, especially since you claim it as 'fact'. China is in no way, what so ever, a threat to the integrity of the USA. The United States hasn't had an actual military threat to it since 1812 and it's not going to change simply because China gets a few extra dollars. America won't be threatened because someone else becomes a superpower, they'll be threatened when they can no longer be considered a superpower themselves.

 

[Smurf]

we would not just sit in a purely defensive mode if Taiwan was attacked. (Really, if we were attacked to get to Taiwan). They could attack Taiwan, we repel, they attack, we repel..no, i don't think so. We would not just sit there repelling their attacks constantly. The obvious solution would be to let them know that there will be reprocussions if they do that, which could involve limited strikes against their mainland (or at least the threat of this by having plans on the table).

Just how important do you think Taiwan really is? The entire conflict will be over in a matter of days. The winner will be largely dependant on how much of their forces China decides to use for the attack and how much of USA's forces can get there in time. One of you will come out on top, take the island and a cease fire will be declared so everybody's military can stand around for a couple months while the silly politicians squabble over peace treaties before being demobilized.

 

[Art]

Just how important do you think Taiwan really is?

Taiwan is very important economically. I remember seeing an analysis done back in 1996 when tension was high and something like 70% of the worlds memory chips were produced there and very high percentages of other strategically important components too. All in a few large business parks. I don't know how much has changed since then but the conclusion at that time was that just a few missiles in the right places would devastate the entire world's economy.

 

[Rev Prez]

Military spending as % GDP indicates how important military growth is to that country.

No, it doesn't. Thirty five countries, including Greece and Maldives, rank higher than the US is defense spending to GDP. [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html] And here I thought pulling nonsense out of thin air was Art's specialty.

While it is absolutely clear that China's military spending is still less than the US, based upon the current rates of growth (for both China and the US) China's military is expected to surpass the US within 10-20 years.

Yet something else you've made up. Even if China's official growth rate of 9 percent isn't exaggerated, and even if she could sustain that high growth for twenty years, at a starting point of $1.2 trillion GDP under real exchange she'll have only grown to $7 trillion in twenty years. Needless to say, 4.3 percent of $7 trillion is a $100 billion short of US American defense spending today. Do you even bother to do the math?

oh, ok there Euclid...i forgot that you tend to demand mathematical equations for politics

Most political scientists do, and we're talking about defense budgeting. What? Did you think numbers had nothing to do with it?

I guess I have to quote things verbatim, since it seems that you will not acknowledge them:

I guess you'll have to actually find some supporting evidence. Here's a clue, though; the PRC already outnumbers the US in combatants. But who really cares if China has more than 300 ships? China already outnumbers in submarines, although three fifths of their undersea fleet are old Ming and Romeo boats from the 1950s restricted to brown water action (if that, since most are laid up). The bulk of their fleet are aging frigates, patrol boats, mine warfare ships and small craft.

So..not exactly the force that you seem to describe: a bunch of retards with nothing but rowboats and BB guns?

When you're done failing to find a single post of mine expressing such stupidity, you can save us both the trouble and call yourself an idiot.

1) when did i say anything about ending chinese sovereignty??

When you insisted we would fight them as we did the Japanese.

2) we lost the vietnam war, so it wasn't really an option!

South Vietnam lost the war, but that's another thread. The fact remains that your thesis that we necessarily take the fight into enemy territory is both absurdly off base.

3) your statement makes no sense since the goal was to eliminate communism in vietnam and southeast asia...

The goal was to stop Communism from spreading into South Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia. Your point is moot.

4) if you are saying that we purposely just wanted to maintain a line between the north and south, (like the 38th parallel in korea) then you are utterly ignorant of facts.

We had reason not to go north, reasons that far outweighed any consideration of knocking Hanoi of the face of the Earth.

5) In analogy to Korea, leaving the agressor untouched on their own home turf only postpones the problem.

Which is also absurd. The entire course of the war between November 1950 through to 1953 was fought without touching the aggressor's home turf.

we would not just sit in a purely defensive mode if Taiwan was attacked.

We wouldn't have to. We would take the opportunity to destroy Chinese naval power and probably their short and intermediate range ballistic missile capabily.

Yes, a war that I support, I might add.

Who cares?

And did we invade Baghdad the first time? No, and that was not a very good decision since we wound up having to do it all over again 15 years later.

You have a very short attention span. You're trying to show that a war with China has an appreciable chance of ending up on the mainland. The Persian Gulf war achieved its limited objective, and Hussein never again invaded Kuwait or attacked any of his neighbors. That the Coalition ended up going back has nothing to do with the way the war was fought the first time around.

Unless you are a former naval officer it is completey foolish to try to discuss things like "which battle formation is superior" or whether an American missile is better than a Chinese missile, etc.

If you believe that, you have nothing to add here. So why do you insist on acting in a way you find foolish?

I find it funny how someone reads a Time magazine article and they are suddenly an expert

And since all you apparently have read is one article in the Times, perhaps its time for you to shut up and move on.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who was stationed on a nuke sub.

You had no such friend.

Face facts:

This coming from a guy so patently and pathetically dishonest he gets knocked down by his own strawmen.

Rev Prez

 

[edward]

China

China doesn't have to do much militarily. At the current rate of industrialization in China, and the current rate of factory closings here, it is a moot point. They are gaining rapidly on us in both basic industry and technology.

Why would they go to war with their best customer?

http://www.itnetcentral.com/pcworld/article.asp?id=13650&info=PC+World&leveli=0

 

[Art]

And here I thought pulling nonsense out of thin air was Art's specialty.
Rev Prez

I have to contradict you on this point Prez as you are inarguably wrong, if you were hanging in thin air as you suggest, I assure you I wouldn't pull you out.
The oxygen saved by your absence would be a far greater contribution to the environment than the hot air you expel.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

No, it doesn't. Thirty five countries, including Greece and Maldives...

<senseless ranting..>

...


<more senseless ranting, unsupported by facts>

Who cares?

Indeed.

I will leave you to your unsupported ideas that contradict all of the legitimate sources that I've posted, along with your childish assumptions and one-liners. In the words of Paul Harvey: "Good day!"

 

[edward]

original topic

It was lost in a childish pissing contest