Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (31885)	6/8/2002 7:55:08 AM
From: Hoa Hao	Respond to of 281500

What the world is facing is a revolution in energy weapons over the next 25 years. Something which will have as much impact as gunpowder. Good point about advantages Vs disadvantages but Vietnam is not a good example. We had many overwhelming advantages there but the Democrats threw them all away, and successfully hobbled the republicans when they took office in '68. They could not allow a republican president to win the war in VN. Guerilla wars are actually easy to fight. You simply get rid of the sanctuaries and the rest is good police work. The powers that be may be worried about WMD in Iraq, but I doubt guerillas matter much. The "crisis" between Pakistan and India is probably a non event. Both are stalemated in a conventional sense; incapable of achieving a decisive victory with regular armies. The current nuclear "crisis" has all the hallmarks of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis which was more a media event then anything else. The world was never in any danger of a nuclear war in '62, but it sure made that Kennedy look like a hero. India faces a problem that the US and Europe faced against the Sovs. Terrorists backed indirectly by a nuclear power. I personally, if I were running Indian, would start an undeclared naval war against Pakistan if I thought that they were uncooperative with the infiltrators. Under the cover of piracy, I would interdict Pakistani commerce and raise the cost of their support for the terrorists in Kashmir.

To: Bilow who wrote (31885)	6/8/2002 8:42:14 AM
From: Elsewhere	Respond to of 281500

The Israelis are calling the Europeans antisemitic near fascists. What if they're right They are wrong. and we have to put down Germany again? No need to. The Arab haters are saying that eventually we're going to have to put down the Arab world. What if the Arab world pulls an economic miracle (like parts of SE asia) In my view extremely unlikely. The Russian experiment with Democracy hasn't been glaringly successful, It has. The system has "produced" Putin who is the smartest leader Russia has had for decades. what if they decide to go fascist? Very unlikely considering how much money can be earned in international trade, especially with oil and natural gas. And it's not like we're on terribly good terms with the Chinese or even the Indians. The USA and China are the only superpowers left. China will need 2-4 decades to catch up. But once they decide to go for world dominance I imagine that they won't fire a single bullet. "With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem." Sun Tzu - "The Art of War" classics.mit.edu

To: Bilow who wrote (31885)	6/9/2002 2:00:12 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi D. Long; Re: "The overmatch value when compared to the threats the US faces in the next decade research cycle, IMO, doesn't justify it." The next decade research cycle will be for weapons that are deployable into what at least 25 years from now? Twenty five years doesn't seem like very long when looking into the future, but that's because the future doesn't have any events yet. We're already 1-3 generations ahead of our nearest great power rivals, the Europeans. And they ain't even lookin cross eyed at us. That's what I'm trying to say. We're already so far ahead, we can use existing weapon systems and still overmatch any potential great power adversary in 20 years, without our leap-frog technology. By the time any adversary catches up to what we have NOW, we'll be unreachable. Skip a generation and come up with some truly revolutionary weapons that will keep us ahead for the rest of the century. I agree with you that we must plan for worst case scenarios, namely a major multi-front Eurasian land war. But considering the state of our most advanced likely adversaries (that, as you say, aren't 3rd world nations), we've got overmatch right now. With existing systems. The Russians are in no shape, and most likely won't be able to threaten us within the next quarter century. The Chinese are woefully trained and equipped. The Europeans, well, nevermind. Who's left? Arabs? They have no domestic arms industry, that I know of. They buy the hand-me-downs. I have to disagree that in the event of a "real war" we couldn't win, and win decisively. Due to technology, at least. As to your other points: 1. Desert Storm wasn't against a developed nation. But even the developed nations aren't up to par with our weapons, now or in the immediate future. 2. Not quite sure what you're getting at. 3. Which is it Carl? Are we planning for a massive Eurasian land war, or guerrilla warfare? A simple howitzer would be just as effective against irregulars as the Crusader. Crusader would be damn overkill, if you ask me. 4. It's a grave mistake to count on our enemies being so gracious as to allow us time to build up overwhelming force to beat them into snot. The Iraqis made a massive mistake in not attacking US forces in Saudi Arabia while we were below strength and they had the advantage. The Chinese are not going to wait for 5 carrier battle groups to show up in the Straits to start bombarding Taiwan with surface to surface missiles. America, as an oceanic power, is both at an advantage to continental powers, and disadvantaged. We are the advantage because we can move forces, globally. We are at a disadvantage because we HAVE to move forces, globally, and there is a vital strategic gap while massing forces where US forces are exposed and under strength. Our enemies realize this, count on it. Count on any great power not making Saddam's mistake. If the wars that will get us are the wars that we are now afraid of fighting, we don't need the Crusader. The US Armed Forces do one thing really, really, well - they're DAMN good at killing lots of humans bunched together in formations. We'll still be good at doing that without the Crusader. If what we should be afraid of are guerrilla conflicts, then we should improve (not concentrate on, we should still concentrate at being good at killing lots and lots of aggressive humans bunched together) information warfare capabilities and small unit warfighting capabilities and weapons. Current artillery is good enough for guerrillas. Derek