[U184]

jessupjonesjnr87, showing what China spends and claiming it is "catching up" to the USA, without comparing the two, is more than a bit disingenuous. It would be like saying, that Cricket grew an inch, so it is "catching up" to that Tree. Without explicitly showing how tall the Cricket is and how tall the Tree is, there is no frame of comparison.




GS... Do you really categorize inherent threat capabilities by JUST money?

Are you implying that American bases in places like Thailand, Greece, South Korea, etc. actually make America safer?
You seem to think that the world wants and needs the US to be a big policeman. They don't want, nor need it.

I am saying that there are areas that constitute American involvement, for one reason or another and that the USA is, for one reason or another, involved.

That involvement is not, in the majority forced, as you seem to imply.

I would however agree, that in places where it is viable to do so, we should remove our presence. That includes giving help, keeping peace, etc.

The people who often yell about American involvement, will be yelling again, rather quickly, as they remember why they agreed for us to be there in the first place.

But, unless I misunderstood what you meant... It does not matter the the USA was: Invited, made agreements, paid for the use, etc. Nor does it matter that America was invited to keep the peace, help and give aid, protect, etc.

Tell you what, why don't you pick a handful of places where you think America should withdraw ALL connections and tell me what you the think final outcome will end up being. Remember to include, regional stability, economic changes, political changes, the effects of that change over with existing agreements and treaties, health and safety, etc.

jessupjonesjnr87, you are welcome to do the same as well.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Your missing the whole point of my original argument. I said America could have demilitarised 15-20yrs ago but it is too late now as nations like China and Russia are starting to catch up. As my graph shows China is turning increasingly toward military spending so why or how could America start cutting theirs?

@KFlint, leaf cutter ants kill trees.

[Godstud]

GS... Do you really categorize inherent threat capabilities by JUST money?

Ok. How about this, then? Does the US really need 13 aircraft carriers?

Tell you what, why don't you pick a handful of places where you think America should withdraw ALL connections and tell me what you think final outcome will end up being. Remember to include, regional stability, economic changes, political changes, the effects of that change over with existing agreements and treaties, health and safety, etc.

It's very easy to find reasons to justify it, but in the end it's really just America justifying it's power projection, and interference.

As my graph shows China is turning increasingly toward military spending so why or how could America start cutting theirs?

because China will never be as influential as America, just based on it's geographic location.

[U184]

Does the US really need 13 aircraft carriers?

Only as a means to compete and protect against other adversarial navies. OR, to guarantee the safe passage of the entire worlds shipping industry. OR to facilitate the quick and rapid response to global emergencies, or, or, or...

Other than that, nooo. Why would America feel the need to do those things?

It's very easy to find reasons to justify it, but in the end it's really just America justifying it's power projection, and interference.

Sorry, I can not agree.

I can not look at aid agreements, or peacekeeping agreements, or military agreements or any number of economic agreements... from trade, to technology to food production.... as the justification of Americas power.

In fact I would say the opposite is true, that being, that it very easy to find reasons to justify pointing a finger at America. When one conveniently ignores why America is doing anything in particular it is a means to an end, complaint without merit and finger pointing without substance.


Again, I would ask you to pick a handful of places where you think America should withdraw ALL connections and tell me what you think the final outcome will end up being. Remember to include, regional stability, economic changes, political changes, the effects of that change over with existing agreements and treaties, health and safety, etc.


However, if you do not have the time or inclination to go to all that trouble, then feel free to just go by your gut and tell me what you think would happen.

[Godstud]

Other countries meet those demands without the military budget of the US, KFlint. Your argument lacks sincerity, and reason. Are you honestly going to tell me that cutting the US budget in 1/2, which would still be more than any other country in the world, would make it so they couldn't meet their treaty, peacekeeping and other demands?

[onemalehuman]

America is only breeding the next generation of people who hate America, and someday America won't be able to keep up the foreign fight to keep them at bay.

I will disagree with this as America is a common ideology like any other social justification character counts and genders are just a renewable source of cast members in societal evolution staging humanity as the only means to adapt to this moment as a single ancestor passing through the eternity of this eternal moment.

America used to represent liberty of individual thought, that was killed in the civil war of the 19th century. Now the concept of god, country, community took the place of allowing each ancestor to choose their own means of social interaction. the old phrase, "The world is but a stage in need of proper direction." The moment doesn't go anywhere but remain here now. So why educating time changes space?

Lifetimes are consumers of expanding details because they are the contracting forces that maintain this moment becoming everything arriving next as they are what becomes dimensional ancestry within the same lifetime. I know I repeat myself, but this one denial runs every social narrative. The common problem in humanity face it or it will destroy homo sapien life because intellect is just an induced image of functioning instincts self contained to one skin from conception to dead. Death is a process, not the end result like extinction from eternity making eternal details as they exist presently.

Ruling the moment is an exercise of futility as space and time only exist currently universally this moment constantly.

Make peace with that denial all ancestries have played in becoming humanity as it exists now.

[Rei Murasame]

If KFlint wants to propose a scenario where he just does operations in 'four or five theatres simultaneously' (his mindblowing scenario!: [Link!]) with 'full mobilisation' as well as a force that has not yet even implemented JOAC (Joint Operational Access Concept), then it should be funny to see how that turns out. Because that's impossible.

And even if he does use JOAC (nothing in this thread suggests that he is planning to, though, but he ought to), the risk associated with that is that even if his opponents are poor as fuck and cannot do A2, his opponents will just find novel ground insurgency-based ways to do AD on him to make up for it, and then he'll be forced to actually follow through with his 'full mobilisation' of only two army brigades - he has only two active brigades for his army at the moment because of the fact that they need a post-Afghanistan reset [Source 1] [Source 2] of lots of equipment that they are not even bothering to fund - to magically win low-cost victories on 'four or five theatres simultaneously'.

Sounds like suicide to me. Are these 'four or five theatres' anywhere near each other? How does KFlint plan for the A2/AD situations in those possibly diverse cases? Where is the equipment to do this, where will it come from, how will it get there intact? None of these questions have been answered, the only thing that's been going on in this thread is petty-moralising and rampant jingoism. That's liberals for you.

We are on page 3, but the opening post of this thread assumes a scenario which is basically operationally impossible. Nothing in this thread has addressed how having operations in 'four or five theatres simultaneously', would become possible for the United States. Nor does it even lay out why it would be strategically necessary for the people who control the USA to begin attacking all regimes - including those of their supposed allies and dependants - who fail to conform to the very letter of what 'democracy' is 'supposed to look like'.

[onemalehuman]

Rei, we are on the same wavelength, as in making reality happen only takes acting on hypotheticals, but to maintain that reality demands selling hyperbole 24/7. That is simple propaganda through mediums of orchestrating organized chaos.

4 corners of reality needing one leaderships selling real estate in faith character role playing has more rights than a lifetime has the liberty to think as themself.

Academia, politics, religion, and economics are governed by arts and entertainment. 5 points of perception placing governments of thought on one's 6th sense of self containment creating emotional theaters of the mind to wish now wasn't eternity.

[onemalehuman]

Understand that the UN is composed by a multi-international body and they would be in control. However I would suggest that the International Law be absolute and that there could be no voting against clear violations.

What is this organism of body that breaths and eats by itself in the image of the ancestry that passed through this atmosphere as conceived into it from within this moment always now and forever home to life as it exists on this planet?

Conceptual maybes are not conceived specific genders carrying on genetic continuation as it occurs presently.

The metaphor of "international body" has lost face value of its symbolism to a living lifetime. Just an idea kept alive by everybody denying what is really going on currently.

[onemalehuman]

Ok. How about this, then? Does the US really need 13 aircraft carriers?
.

something to lighten the mood, when the United States only has 13 aircraft carriers to cover the 7 seas, then they(the military) are short one carrier to have two in each field of battle to protect one another. There also is a need to have a couple extra for down time and routine maintence. Don't put all the eggs in one basket type of thinking.

Wing ships like wingmen in a fighter squadron. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and endure what now becomes next all the time.

Hurryup and wait.

[U184]

Sorry Rei, talking shit about points that I have not covered, but pretending that I have, should be beneath even you. Not really surprising that it is not though.

Please....tell me all about it, then tell me my side and the conclusion, since your obviously here to stir shit, rather than debate the points set out.

Wait, that is derailing a thread... right? That would mean a rule violation....right?

So ah... either connect it up, while asking proper questions, lose the disrespectful attitude, as that to is a violation, or feel free to not troll...
Thanks.

[Godstud]

The US simply doesn't need the military it has, given that it's not really in any wars. The US military is at Cold War spending levels, and there is no other superpower out there that's going to be in competition for a very long long time.

It's power projection, pure asnd simple, for the American Empire. An empire that's going to wane as the home-front war on poverty, poor education, and other things, becomes more important that the ones abroad.

[U184]

That is a great blanket statement.... in the face of specifics.

The US navy protects shipping lanes it is the only country that does, because it is they only country that can.

Any governments active military deterrent should be as large, or larger than all the combined active military forces that all adversaries currently have and are expected to have in the future and to keep in advance of that growth.

This is just the way it is, it is the way it always has been and the way it always will be, as long as two people use sticks to kill each other.

[Rei Murasame]

Wait, that is derailing a thread... right? That would mean a rule violation....right?

You shoul not be asking me this. Go ahead and report it. Moderators can decide whether talking about JOAC and the incomplete coverage it gives if you assume it to only be used to engage regular state actors, constitutes and 'off topic post' in a thread titled "To Warmonger, or Not to Warmonger.... That is the Question".

To me it seems completely on topic. Talking about war and how war works, seems very on topic here.

Please o great IT specialist tell me all about it

I'm a Systems Analyst and I work close to the same industry that I am talking about, so I like to think that I can leverage my particular way of understanding problems, in explaining situations like this.

So ah... either connect it up, while asking proper questions, lose the disrespectful attitude, as that to is a violation

No.

[Godstud]

The US navy protects shipping lanes it is the only country that does, because it is they only country that can.

Bullshit. Why make up lies to justify things?

All countries that have navies protect their shipping lanes, and interests on the oceans/rivers, and whatnot. In fact, you even get Danish, German, British warships, etc. in the Arabian Sea, to make sure tankers don't get attacked and to control piracy. I recently spoke to a guy from Norwegian Navy who was posted in Greenland to protect the shipping lanes that are opening up due to global warming.

British naval exercise in Gulf to protect shipping routes
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05- ... ng-routes/

GCC unites to protect oil-shipping lanes in Gulf
GCC states receive information about the international waters in the Gulf as part of a naval coalition called the Combined Task Force 152, one of three task forces that operate under the 25-nation Combined Maritime Forces led by the United States and based in Bahrain.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news ... es-in-gulf

Any governments active military deterrent should be as large, or larger than all the combined active military forces that all adversaries currently have and are expected to have in the future and to keep in advance of that growth.

The whole world is not America's enemy, and America has a great many allies. This statement might be valid if you had no allies, and your country wasn't a warmongering one.

[U184]

The US accounts for the protection of 90% of all shipping lanes, for total economic trade. So why cut hairs on the tiny little players.

As for the other, our Allies do not account for the deficit.

Look, I respect you, but I am not prepared to have a invisible argument. That is to say, I asked you to take a stance in order to prove your point and either you will or you won't.

I will not engage in supposition any further, as it obviously just encourages resentment.

[Godstud]

Dismissing all the other navies of the world out of some misplaced bravado, is just that. Your statements are only valid if US lived in a vacuum. It does not.

The US has allies and there are other navies in the world that patrol their waters.

INcidentally...
.The top 3 biggest navy: United States of America has the largest navy in the world with 12% of the total active warships in the world, followed by Russia 10% with the second largest navy, and China 8% being the third largest navy in the world.

Saying a thing like 90%... is just... false.

[U184]

Please stop with this "bravado" bullshit. As far as military foes, if anyone is coming at America in a traditional manner, they will do it though the Sea. That is reason enough to engage in area denial.

Saying a thing like 90%... is just... false.

In connection to what you said...maybe. In connection to economic trade protection, via shipping lanes... it is absolutely correct. (OR the numbers once were those, the exact % may have changed in the last couple of years, odds are, not by much though)

These are the shipping lanes. Information can be seen here.



This is a map of our blue-water navy capability... in regards to shipping lanes, look familiar?



I would be happy to provide an avalanche of information that shows how America patrols shipping lanes across the globe and how that protection accounts for 90% of the economic trade of the whole world... I have done so several times before, in other threads and could just link to those and you can follow the information.




Obviously there is more to all this, as you seem to be showing a lot more animosity than you need to and more than the situation would warrant....would you like to share why?

[Godstud]

I believe your original words indicated that US does it all. Are you recanting that? It's quite obvious that they do not do everything by themselves.

I just don't like when people start exaggerating, and even to the point of lying, to "wave the flag", as it were.

[U184]

GS< I said...

The US navy protects shipping lanes it is the only country that does, because it is they only country that can.

The US accounts for the protection of 90% of all shipping lanes, for total economic trade.

Could I have been more clear from the start... sure. Did I lie, no, was I waving a flag, no.

America is the primary protectorate of the Sea.

There are many reasons why the US has the Navy it does and I see little reason to throttle it back.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reri, let me make this CRYSTAL.

If KFlint wants to propose a scenario where he just does operations in 'four or five theatres simultaneously' (his mindblowing scenario!: [Link!]) with 'full mobilisation' as well as a force that has not yet even implemented JOAC (Joint Operational Access Concept), then it should be funny to see how that turns out.

And even if he does use JOAC (nothing in this thread suggests that he is planning to, though, but he ought to),

Nothing suggested that I did, nor that I did not.

So here you are AGAIN, placing words into my mouth and then attacking me for them.

Sounds like suicide to me. Are these 'four or five theatres' anywhere near each other? How does KFlint plan for the A2/AD situations in those possibly diverse cases? Where is the equipment to do this, where will it come from, how will it get there intact? None of these questions have been answered, the only thing that's been going on in this thread is petty-moralising and rampant jingoism. That's liberals for you.

Here again you attack instead of ask and follow it up with a concept that has not been approached by the OP> Then add in a little insult as well.

We are on page 3, but the opening post of this thread assumes a scenario which is basically operationally impossible. Nothing in this thread has addressed how having operations in 'four or five theatres simultaneously', would become possible for the United States. Nor does it even lay out why it would be strategically necessary for the people who control the USA to begin attacking all regimes - including those of their supposed allies and dependants - who fail to conform to the very letter of what 'democracy' is 'supposed to look like'.

Exactly, these are non issues brought up by you.

Had you asked them and not been rude, tied them into the OP, then I would have been happy to engage you.

Instead, I think I will just report it.

Please stay on topic Rei. Or failing that, STOP putting words in my mouth and arguing them like I said it.

In fact, unless you quote me and do it correctly, I am just going to report you every time you do it... as a respect issue.

Have a good day.