5 ms·

It's a bit fascinating and scary how casually they talk about the weapons of China and Russia, and what we need to counter them. Do they believe there is a real

It's a bit fascinating and scary how casually they talk about the weapons of China and Russia, and what we need to counter them. Do they believe there is a realistic chance of war with these countries? Or is just about using military might as a political & diplomatic tool?

edanm 10y ago
I think most people generally believe that, yes, war with other countries is possible. Considering the history of the world, and considering that wars are happening in other countries all the time, I'd personally say that thinking war isn't possible is incredibly naive and unrealistic.
baddox 10y ago
> Do they believe there is a realistic chance of war with these countries? Surely anyone looking at history learns it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Perhaps (hopefully!) it won't be in our lifetimes, but it's reasonable to want to stay even with or ahead of the capabilities of other powerful militaries, including ones we are currently allied or at peace with.
curt15 10y ago
The weapons of China and Russia aren't going to be confronted only in China or Russia. At any rate, it's always good to negotiate from a position of strength.
Teever 10y ago
Let's look at this another way: Do you think that there will never be another major war? Like never, ever, ever again? Can you genuinely state with certainty that humanity is over fighting major wars -- that we've evolved past that? The answer is simply no, we haven't gotten past that point and likely never will. So in that context we should be developing weapons to fight and win wars against the most likely of threats. The most likely threats happen to be China and Russia.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  It's a brave new world.
- tormeh 10y ago
  No, we haven't evolved past major wars, but nuclear weapons have made them impossible to win. That is something new under the sun. That's why I don't believe in "a world without nuclear weapons" - a world without nuclear weapons is a world in which the next world war is imminent. That said, something is going to happen in the south China sea. But no rational actor would ever start a nuclear war. That leaves cold-war style local dominance battles. Not nice, but not a major war either.
nradov 10y ago
You won't find any official government statements about this, but supposedly senior US military officers have been saying privately that they think an air and naval war with China is inevitable within the next few decades. They see China today as being roughly equivalent to Japan circa 1930 as a competing power. So they've been quietly reorienting the military to fight that conflict. I hope they're wrong. We need to find a way to coexist.
- Roboprog 10y ago
  I look forward to the day when all of this "offshoring" of manufacturing (etc) will be recognized as the treason that it is.
  - Roboprog 10y ago
    Downvoters: so it's a good thing that we are transferring technology/manufacturing expertise away from the US and to potential rivals???
    - brightball 10y ago
      Not going to disagree with you. The only people who benefit from offshoring are the people making the money and the areas with the best ports to import from those areas. In terms of China, that means the west coast.
      - golergka 10y ago
        You don't consider Chinese workers to be people?
        brightball 10y ago
        Of course, but when conditions of the work are in question the benefit is in question.
        10y ago
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Strategically, China is our only real rival and threat (Russia is a secondary power at best). It's in our interest, and our allies interest, that we be prepared to win a war with them, even if we prefer not to fight them.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
The re-annexation of the Crimea and construction of military outposts on artificial islands in the South China Sea show that neither of the two powers have lost their ambitions. Vegetius's adage "If you desire peace, be prepared for war." applies just as much today as it did in the time of the Roman Empire. I only hope that the Western powers are prepared enough.
hackuser 10y ago
As an amateur with a hobby in foreign affairs, I can say the following based on reading many experts for years but with no expertise of of my own: > Or is just about using military might as a political & diplomatic tool? Military might is always a political tool. One of the most famous, enduring descriptions of war, by arguably its leading theorist, 19th century Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, is 'the continuation of politics by other means'. Sometimes you threaten with your military power, sometimes you fight, but either way it's always for political reasons. Nations pursue war to obtain political goals and wars end with political settlements. Sometimes those settlements are vastly unbalanced, such as total surrender, but they're still political - 'we agree that you will govern us' - otherwise you keep fighting. When nations forget that then they waste blood and treasure - look at the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which lacked a political aim and thus found itself in a quagmire after the military goal, the overthrow of Hussein, was achieved. That lack of political resolution left a political vacuum which persists to this day, and which ISIL, Iran, the Kurds, and others have tried to take advantage of; the wars there will end when there is a stable political equilibrium. > Do they believe there is a realistic chance of war with these countries? RUSSIA is mostly bluster but they do have some capability; they are a threat to small, poor neighbors; and of course they have nuclear weapons. They can cause pain but would be absolutely insane to fight a real war with NATO (though that hasn't stopped some people). Their current strategy is to approach the line but not cross it; e.g., occupy neighboring parts of Ukraine and Georgia but stay away from NATO borders. The foundation of military power is economic power; money buys more and better weapons (and friends too). Russia can't possibly afford to compete with NATO; they can't really afford their current operations, which are on the cheap (the Ukrainian province of Crimea was conquered with a small number special operations soldiers, for example). Annual economic output (GDP) of NATO, Russia, and selected countries says it all: * NATO: $37 trillion * U.S.: $17 trillion * Germany: $3.9 trillion * UK: $2.9 trillion * Canada: $1.8 trillion * Russia: $1.1 trillion (with a shrinking population and also a shrinking economy based on mineral wealth, not technology or industry) CHINA is a much more serious issue. Remember the economic foundation of military power. China's economic output likely will surpass the U.S.'s in the next decade. With four times the U.S.'s population, it's not crazy to imagine China's economy being twice the size of the U.S.'s in future decades. Then what happens? Much history has been studied and written about what happens when a rising power overtakes the existing dominant power. The result usually is war. Like an old incumbent tech company, the old dominant power can't see their obvious situation and tries to hold on to their historical position; the rising power refuses to remain subordinate. The last time it happened, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. was the rising power and the European powers were the incumbents. To the Europeans the U.S. was about as benign as they could hope for: A relatively peaceful democracy, sharing the same values and culture, filled with European immigrants, and a great trade partner who enriched them all. Broadly speaking, they accommodated the rise of the U.S.; by the end of WWII, with Europe devastated by two massive wars, the transition was complete. According to one account I read, during one international security crisis in the 50s (Suez?) the UK government actually called the US and said, effectively, 'we can't handle this any more, it's your job now'. The U.S. has been primarily responsible for global order ever since. China seems much less benign, a dictatorship that is openly threatening everyone from its neighbors to the U.S. to European nations. Many nations view the U.S. as a relatively very benign hegemon, actively seeking alliances and U.S. forces based in their countries. Another common pattern when a new power arises is that the others ally against them as a balance. Right now that seems to be happening around China, with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, India, S. Korea and others busily forming stronger bonds with the U.S. and among themselves in response to China's bellicosity. But it's a very long game, one that will last a generation or more, so nobody knows.

edanm 10y ago

I think most people generally believe that, yes, war with other countries is possible. Considering the history of the world, and considering that wars are happening in other countries all the time, I'd personally say that thinking war isn't possible is incredibly naive and unrealistic.

baddox 10y ago

> Do they believe there is a realistic chance of war with these countries? Surely anyone looking at history learns it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Perhaps (hopefully!) it won't be in our lifetimes, but it's reasonable to want to stay even with or ahead of the capabilities of other powerful militaries, including ones we are currently allied or at peace with.

curt15 10y ago

The weapons of China and Russia aren't going to be confronted only in China or Russia. At any rate, it's always good to negotiate from a position of strength.

Teever 10y ago

Let's look at this another way: Do you think that there will never be another major war? Like never, ever, ever again? Can you genuinely state with certainty that humanity is over fighting major wars -- that we've evolved past that? The answer is simply no, we haven't gotten past that point and likely never will. So in that context we should be developing weapons to fight and win wars against the most likely of threats. The most likely threats happen to be China and Russia.

jcoffland 10y ago
It's a brave new world.
tormeh 10y ago
No, we haven't evolved past major wars, but nuclear weapons have made them impossible to win. That is something new under the sun. That's why I don't believe in "a world without nuclear weapons" - a world without nuclear weapons is a world in which the next world war is imminent. That said, something is going to happen in the south China sea. But no rational actor would ever start a nuclear war. That leaves cold-war style local dominance battles. Not nice, but not a major war either.

nradov 10y ago

You won't find any official government statements about this, but supposedly senior US military officers have been saying privately that they think an air and naval war with China is inevitable within the next few decades. They see China today as being roughly equivalent to Japan circa 1930 as a competing power. So they've been quietly reorienting the military to fight that conflict. I hope they're wrong. We need to find a way to coexist.

Roboprog 10y ago
I look forward to the day when all of this "offshoring" of manufacturing (etc) will be recognized as the treason that it is.
- Roboprog 10y ago
  Downvoters: so it's a good thing that we are transferring technology/manufacturing expertise away from the US and to potential rivals???
  - brightball 10y ago
    Not going to disagree with you. The only people who benefit from offshoring are the people making the money and the areas with the best ports to import from those areas. In terms of China, that means the west coast.
    - golergka 10y ago
      You don't consider Chinese workers to be people?
      - brightball 10y ago
        Of course, but when conditions of the work are in question the benefit is in question.
        10y ago

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

Strategically, China is our only real rival and threat (Russia is a secondary power at best). It's in our interest, and our allies interest, that we be prepared to win a war with them, even if we prefer not to fight them.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

The re-annexation of the Crimea and construction of military outposts on artificial islands in the South China Sea show that neither of the two powers have lost their ambitions. Vegetius's adage "If you desire peace, be prepared for war." applies just as much today as it did in the time of the Roman Empire. I only hope that the Western powers are prepared enough.

hackuser 10y ago

As an amateur with a hobby in foreign affairs, I can say the following based on reading many experts for years but with no expertise of of my own: > Or is just about using military might as a political & diplomatic tool? Military might is always a political tool. One of the most famous, enduring descriptions of war, by arguably its leading theorist, 19th century Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, is 'the continuation of politics by other means'. Sometimes you threaten with your military power, sometimes you fight, but either way it's always for political reasons. Nations pursue war to obtain political goals and wars end with political settlements. Sometimes those settlements are vastly unbalanced, such as total surrender, but they're still political - 'we agree that you will govern us' - otherwise you keep fighting. When nations forget that then they waste blood and treasure - look at the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which lacked a political aim and thus found itself in a quagmire after the military goal, the overthrow of Hussein, was achieved. That lack of political resolution left a political vacuum which persists to this day, and which ISIL, Iran, the Kurds, and others have tried to take advantage of; the wars there will end when there is a stable political equilibrium. > Do they believe there is a realistic chance of war with these countries? RUSSIA is mostly bluster but they do have some capability; they are a threat to small, poor neighbors; and of course they have nuclear weapons. They can cause pain but would be absolutely insane to fight a real war with NATO (though that hasn't stopped some people). Their current strategy is to approach the line but not cross it; e.g., occupy neighboring parts of Ukraine and Georgia but stay away from NATO borders. The foundation of military power is economic power; money buys more and better weapons (and friends too). Russia can't possibly afford to compete with NATO; they can't really afford their current operations, which are on the cheap (the Ukrainian province of Crimea was conquered with a small number special operations soldiers, for example). Annual economic output (GDP) of NATO, Russia, and selected countries says it all: * NATO: $37 trillion * U.S.: $17 trillion * Germany: $3.9 trillion * UK: $2.9 trillion * Canada: $1.8 trillion * Russia: $1.1 trillion (with a shrinking population and also a shrinking economy based on mineral wealth, not technology or industry) CHINA is a much more serious issue. Remember the economic foundation of military power. China's economic output likely will surpass the U.S.'s in the next decade. With four times the U.S.'s population, it's not crazy to imagine China's economy being twice the size of the U.S.'s in future decades. Then what happens? Much history has been studied and written about what happens when a rising power overtakes the existing dominant power. The result usually is war. Like an old incumbent tech company, the old dominant power can't see their obvious situation and tries to hold on to their historical position; the rising power refuses to remain subordinate. The last time it happened, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. was the rising power and the European powers were the incumbents. To the Europeans the U.S. was about as benign as they could hope for: A relatively peaceful democracy, sharing the same values and culture, filled with European immigrants, and a great trade partner who enriched them all. Broadly speaking, they accommodated the rise of the U.S.; by the end of WWII, with Europe devastated by two massive wars, the transition was complete. According to one account I read, during one international security crisis in the 50s (Suez?) the UK government actually called the US and said, effectively, 'we can't handle this any more, it's your job now'. The U.S. has been primarily responsible for global order ever since. China seems much less benign, a dictatorship that is openly threatening everyone from its neighbors to the U.S. to European nations. Many nations view the U.S. as a relatively very benign hegemon, actively seeking alliances and U.S. forces based in their countries. Another common pattern when a new power arises is that the others ally against them as a balance. Right now that seems to be happening around China, with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, India, S. Korea and others busily forming stronger bonds with the U.S. and among themselves in response to China's bellicosity. But it's a very long game, one that will last a generation or more, so nobody knows.