The Obama administration seems to live in a bubble of unreality not unlike that of the French and British in 1938. Their fecklessness makes war more likely, not less.
But then there is this. You can’t have it both ways.
This is a complex subject that requires a knowledge of how nuclear weapons are or can be delivered.
B-52 bombers have been upgraded. They can now carry nuclear cruise missiles under the wings for excellent standoff capability. In other words, nuclear bombs do not have to be dropped over the target.
ECM, or electronic counter measures, technology has been improved.
Existing fighter bombers can carry nuclear weapons.
SLBMs, or sub launched ballistic missiles, can carry nuclear warheads over long ranges.
Naval ships can launch cruise missiles.
Aging silos doesn’t mean much. The outer blast door must be able to withstand a certain overpressure from a nuclear warhead detonating at a given height and distance, while still protecting the ICBM inside.
Such silos are also protected by Terminal Defense Systems which exist and may have been upgraded to include ground laser weapons, but the latter is unconfirmed.
Laser weapons are being tested on US Naval ships, but details are classified.
I don’t see how the US modernizing it’s military is justification for China seizing land claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam. It’s a non sequitur.
The quote was in response to the "bubble of unreality " comment.
Contested island or international waters of shipping lanes used by everybody? China did not build this island in a few months or even a year did they? Resort islands are a product of the latest engineering field; an example is the Banana Island Resort of Qatar (world class resort). But this Chinese creation is quite remarkable and now that it is WHERE they built it, why are we surprised that it is a military offensive launch facility. No, we were not surprised, we were once more the Gruber stupid Americans that have Obama as the POTUS.
It is laughable that Obama has the “selfies” to claim he is concerned about closing Gitmo in a time frame that will not BURDEN the next President with having to deal with that sticky old problem that costs so much money. :rotfl: As if he ever cared about how much money was being wasted by his preferances - like Obama care or flying out for a weekend of golf!
This kind of laughing really hurts!
Derogatory comments toward posters of alternate political persuasions ought to be avoided,
You could say something about the Remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Breakdown of the Stresa Front, failure of the League of Nations to support Ethiopia, and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Why is the issue of Western folly focused on Munich?
What about the Catholics who supported von Papen against the threat of the Communists, as Papen enabled the subsequent coup?
Actually, the Allies partitioned a sovereign nation Czechoslovakia, without its own input in negotiations, this is similar the so-called “Soviet Invasion of Poland” and its supposed “partition” in the Secret Protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact .
What are you implying? That Chamberlain appeased Hitler primarily for moral and humanistic reasons (and that he did not act under realism)? Chamberlain arguably was mostly reasonable and realistic when he appeased Hitler, but he mistaken Hitler as a rational statesman who too had an aversion for war, legitimate grievances, and limited ambitions. In other words, Chamberlain’s error was one of not adopting “political realism” but failing to understand the intentions of an adversary (and having a limited hand to bargaining with him that lead Chamberlain to recourse to diplomacy in the first place).
Aside from the public’s aversion for war, Chamberlain did not want war because:
(1). His military was in a limited state of readiness, as the Royal Navy and RAF preferentially received funding in the 30s. (But it was the RAF and the Dowding System that the thwarted the sea lion.) If Nazi Germany seized the oil fields of Romania, it would render the strength of the RAF and Royal Navy moot to impose economic blockades on Nazi Germany. In contrast, it was reported by the press that after the naval Battle of Jutland, the High Seas Fleet attacked their jailer, but remained in jail. In other words, the Germans, despite delivering some stunning blows in that battle, they failed to achieve a decisive strategic victory by breaking the economic blockade. Such an assessment, in my mind, justified Admiral Jellicoe’s prudence (even if he only had a ten percent chance of losing) for not risking the Royal Navy to deliver a defeat to the Germans on the scale of Trafalgar.
(2). Great Britain did not just have to just worry about Nazi Germany, but the Axis. He thought it was imperative to placate some Axis members because Great Britain did not have the military ability to defend against them all.
a. Great Britain had colonial interests in the Pacific and judged that getting embroiled in a European would render them vulnerable to Japanese expansionism.
(3). Chamberlain overestimated the abilities of his allies, particularly Poland and France, to resist Nazi aggression.
(4). The Western powers had an interest in diverting Nazi aggression towards the Soviet Union, as Nazism has an explicit ideological enmity towards Bolshevism. Moreover, Great Britain was loath to enter a military alliance with the Soviet Union, especially after its military capability was suspect after the purge of Marshal Tukhachevsky.
It is time to retire the Munich trope, especially when it is used liberally to justify aggression and pre-emptive strikes.
There were no satellites in the 1939 period.
The man Time magazine named Man of the Year in 1938.
The fall of France is still a mystery. The British kicked off the continent in 1940 after a mysterious “halt order” prevented their annihilation. Chamberlain wanted no more soldiers dying in France as they did in the First World War, only to be saved, again, by the entry of the Americans. The British could not withstand two technological surprises: the V-1 and the V-2, which could not be shot down.
Get a hardcover copy of Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill. You’ll learn how relatively recent events have led to all of this today. China cannot afford to lose face or be seen as a paper tiger.
I think it is speculative to make comparisons with historical events with current events. However, if one could make a reasonable comparison with China’s military strategy to the Battle of Britain.
The Battle of Britain wrote a new chapter in the history of warfare. For the first time, a major conflict was fought by air forces alone. The outcome was settled not by armies of millions, but by handful of men of each side armed with the most advanced weapons of their day: fast monoplane fighters, mounting multiple machine guns or cannon; advanced bombers, some capable of ranging over a thousand miles; radar, a revolutionary air defense system never tested before in combat. The Battle of Britain was a trial, not only of the courage and skill of fighting men, but in the scientific and technical ingenuity of the warring nations.
Tim Pigot Smith, from the Battlefield Documentary.
I suppose that China, as the defender, would want to repel a major US naval task force. They would likely use their missiles and other technology to destroy major capital ships, and prevent the US from launching major offensive operations. I wonder what the results from war games would be, whether the Chinese could locate US capital ships so they could be targeted with Chinese weapon systems. I also wonder how successful the US would be against modern air defense systems.
The most salient comparison with the Battle of Britain is the question of whether the Chinese could inflict unacceptable attrition (and perhaps some major propaganda victory) such as disabling a supercarrier, for the US to continue. like what the RAF did to the Luftwaffe. But the Battle of Britain is not the only possible comparison; Desert Storm and the Falklands Campaign may be more relevant.
Regarding Dunkirk, I wonder if the Kriegsmarine could have finished them off. That is one major reason (to destroy invading or retreating amphibious forces) why a major power would have a navy.
I don’t the V-2 really mattered, as it did not kill many civilians. Instead, the Western Allies inflicted more civilian causalities than the Luftwaffe. I do not think bombing civilians is an effective military strategy (except perhaps for anti-guerrilla campaigns that the US conducted in Latin America).
Gee I have to read your response more than twice. Does the quoted response mean that there is another PC category of alternate political persuasions and must not be criticized?
The post quoted by the above quote was not aimed at any poster nor was it derogatory.
Hopefully you were not offended.
Sorry. I tend to go off when I notice what I regard as unjustified hunting of Mr. Obama.