4 ms·

Something's going to have to give here. Between budget and scope, one or the other will have to change in order to increase staffing, sleep, training, and maint

Something's going to have to give here. Between budget and scope, one or the other will have to change in order to increase staffing, sleep, training, and maintenance and reduce errors like this. It's only going to get worse in the future, too. China is interested in the South China Sea, Russia is interested in Eastern Europe, and North Korea may come to a head soon, so scope of operations won't be decreasing. Procurement of the F-35, Columbia SSBNs, FFX frigates, and Ford class carriers (and that's only the Navy!) means that there's going to be less budget to go around too. Something is going to have to give.

vkou 9y ago
> China is interested in the South China Sea, Russia is interested in Eastern Europe, and North Korea may come to a head soon, so scope of operations won't be decreasing. Maybe it's time to realize that the global imperial ambitions of a country of 350 million people are not sustainable in the 21st century. Oh, who am I kidding, of course that will never happen.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wahern 9y ago
  Counter balancing those "threats" wouldn't be a problem if the U.S. was't constantly engaged in warfare in the Middle East. But the fact that 1) conservatives are more interested in shifting attention back to Iran than dealing with North Korea, and that 2) both conservatives and liberals criticized Obama's restraint in Syria, tells you everything you need to know about the ultimate, unfortunate fate of American foreign policy. People criticized Obama for drawing a red line wrt chemical weapons in Syria and then flinching. But IMO his decision to flinch is probably one of the greatest acts of presidential leadership we've seen in generations. Obama's mistake was drawing the red line, but that's something every American president does almost habitually, paving the way to normalizing the bombasticism of Donald Trump. Not only did Obama realize his mistake, he resisted making an even larger mistake just to save face and supposedly preserve our deterrent (as if it wasn't obvious we were already overextended), despite universal advise to do otherwise. In many respects it's on par with Kennedy's decision to cut a deal with Khrushchev, though the optics are less flattering this time around. The atrocities in Syria are morally repugnant. But while most European allies criticized Obama for not getting the U.S. more involved, precisely none has chosen to get more involved themselves. The situation is fundamentally intractable given the politics and level of commitment that could be sustained. Obama stood up, _alone_, to make the hard choice. It took Obama years to develop that kind of spine. It's a shame he had to go because that's something we sorely need when it comes to North Korea. Like Syria, North Korea is a losing proposition every which way, except with greater global consequence. Either 1) there's a major war with hundreds of thousands or even millions dead (including tens of thousands of Americans) within days or weeks, 2) global nuclear proliferation as North Korea exports nuclear technology, or 3) a momentous quid pro quo with China that shifts the balance of power in the Pacific to them in exchange for regime change in North Korea. The best outcome for both America and the world is #3, but there is no mainstream American leader willing to even conceive of that bargain, let alone provide the leadership and intelligence necessary to negotiate those waters. Instead we're likely to get #2, which will merely provide more fodder for American chickenhawks to pursue fanciful military expeditions around the world. Nothing is more certain to lead to the swift end of the American era.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Option 4: Contain North Korea like we contained the USSR until they collapse, while maintaining a soft blockade and trade sanctions to limit global nuclear proliferation.
    - wahern 9y ago
      Not possible. North Korea shares a border with both China and Russia, and neither would agree to the type of embargo required. They haven't even enforced the embargoes they agreed to. The last thing they want, particularly China, is a total collapse of the regime and a flood of migrants coming across their border. They also see significant value in having a buffer state between them and American-allied South Korea. Both China and Russia benefit from a situation which exposes the limits of U.S. power. Finally, they have a greater tolerance for nuclear proliferation because, at the end of the day, it's really only the U.S. with a global footprint and a target on its back. They're playing a dangerous game, but however flawed their calculus they seem to think the prospective benefits are greater than the costs. You'd think it would behoove China to simply replace Kim Jong-un, but for some of the above reasons, and more, they're not willing to try it. If you track the past thirty years of diplomatic efforts, it's obvious how stark the choices are. Frankly, I'm astounded at how short the memories are in Washington, and how motivated their thinking. Across the political spectrum. It's really made clear to me how increasing partisanship (including reactions to that partisanship) has blinded everybody.
      - nradov 9y ago
        China has actually started partially enforcing the trade sanctions. They aren't in favor of nuclear proliferation either and won't knowingly allow nuclear weapons components through their territory. So containment is still mostly possible. It doesn't have to be an unbreakable barrier, just good enough.
        wahern 9y ago
        If a blockade strategy were feasible, North Korea would have never gotten the bomb. North Korea has pursued a nuclear capability in earnest since at least the 1990s (EDIT: 1980s according to the Wikipedia timeline), though their desire to obtain one was declared decades earlier. It's unfolded so slowly and so deliberately that the public and many pundits don't even _remember_ all the precipitating events because at this point they don't even stand out. Just look at the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_n... If China were serious about containment, if the sanctions were effective, then things would have never gotten even remotely this far. Both the U.S. and Israel were on the verge of bombing Iran before they even got as far as North Korea did before 2000. The situation _inside_ China is complex, but ultimately the reasons are irrelevant because 1) China manifestly has proven that it is unwilling to be aggressive enough even during the periods when they were truly upset with North Korea and 2) there is no evidence that China's fundamental calculus has changed or even might change--the calculus that has allowed North Korea to openly a) begin a nuclear research program, b) refine and breed fuel, c) test nuclear weapons, and d) import, develop, and export missile technology to the point where they're close to e) having a delivery vehicle for a nuclear weapon. At each step China has vehemently (and believably) opposed those advancements, yet they've refused to prevent it. To be sure they've applied some pressure, just as they are now; but North Korea's resolve is too great. Despite all this overwhelming, indisputably clear history, people are still in denial. It's incredible. Trump is absolutely correct on at least one thing: negotiation is futile. Fortunately, my guess is that Trump's vanity and preternatural instinct for survival will stand in the way of the U.S. choosing to go to war over this issue. Which is why my money is on North Korea joining the nuclear ICBM club, with all that will entail down the road.

vkou 9y ago

> China is interested in the South China Sea, Russia is interested in Eastern Europe, and North Korea may come to a head soon, so scope of operations won't be decreasing. Maybe it's time to realize that the global imperial ambitions of a country of 350 million people are not sustainable in the 21st century. Oh, who am I kidding, of course that will never happen.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wahern 9y ago
Counter balancing those "threats" wouldn't be a problem if the U.S. was't constantly engaged in warfare in the Middle East. But the fact that 1) conservatives are more interested in shifting attention back to Iran than dealing with North Korea, and that 2) both conservatives and liberals criticized Obama's restraint in Syria, tells you everything you need to know about the ultimate, unfortunate fate of American foreign policy. People criticized Obama for drawing a red line wrt chemical weapons in Syria and then flinching. But IMO his decision to flinch is probably one of the greatest acts of presidential leadership we've seen in generations. Obama's mistake was drawing the red line, but that's something every American president does almost habitually, paving the way to normalizing the bombasticism of Donald Trump. Not only did Obama realize his mistake, he resisted making an even larger mistake just to save face and supposedly preserve our deterrent (as if it wasn't obvious we were already overextended), despite universal advise to do otherwise. In many respects it's on par with Kennedy's decision to cut a deal with Khrushchev, though the optics are less flattering this time around. The atrocities in Syria are morally repugnant. But while most European allies criticized Obama for not getting the U.S. more involved, precisely none has chosen to get more involved themselves. The situation is fundamentally intractable given the politics and level of commitment that could be sustained. Obama stood up, _alone_, to make the hard choice. It took Obama years to develop that kind of spine. It's a shame he had to go because that's something we sorely need when it comes to North Korea. Like Syria, North Korea is a losing proposition every which way, except with greater global consequence. Either 1) there's a major war with hundreds of thousands or even millions dead (including tens of thousands of Americans) within days or weeks, 2) global nuclear proliferation as North Korea exports nuclear technology, or 3) a momentous quid pro quo with China that shifts the balance of power in the Pacific to them in exchange for regime change in North Korea. The best outcome for both America and the world is #3, but there is no mainstream American leader willing to even conceive of that bargain, let alone provide the leadership and intelligence necessary to negotiate those waters. Instead we're likely to get #2, which will merely provide more fodder for American chickenhawks to pursue fanciful military expeditions around the world. Nothing is more certain to lead to the swift end of the American era.
- nradov 9y ago
  Option 4: Contain North Korea like we contained the USSR until they collapse, while maintaining a soft blockade and trade sanctions to limit global nuclear proliferation.
  - wahern 9y ago
    Not possible. North Korea shares a border with both China and Russia, and neither would agree to the type of embargo required. They haven't even enforced the embargoes they agreed to. The last thing they want, particularly China, is a total collapse of the regime and a flood of migrants coming across their border. They also see significant value in having a buffer state between them and American-allied South Korea. Both China and Russia benefit from a situation which exposes the limits of U.S. power. Finally, they have a greater tolerance for nuclear proliferation because, at the end of the day, it's really only the U.S. with a global footprint and a target on its back. They're playing a dangerous game, but however flawed their calculus they seem to think the prospective benefits are greater than the costs. You'd think it would behoove China to simply replace Kim Jong-un, but for some of the above reasons, and more, they're not willing to try it. If you track the past thirty years of diplomatic efforts, it's obvious how stark the choices are. Frankly, I'm astounded at how short the memories are in Washington, and how motivated their thinking. Across the political spectrum. It's really made clear to me how increasing partisanship (including reactions to that partisanship) has blinded everybody.
    - nradov 9y ago
      China has actually started partially enforcing the trade sanctions. They aren't in favor of nuclear proliferation either and won't knowingly allow nuclear weapons components through their territory. So containment is still mostly possible. It doesn't have to be an unbreakable barrier, just good enough.
      - wahern 9y ago
        If a blockade strategy were feasible, North Korea would have never gotten the bomb. North Korea has pursued a nuclear capability in earnest since at least the 1990s (EDIT: 1980s according to the Wikipedia timeline), though their desire to obtain one was declared decades earlier. It's unfolded so slowly and so deliberately that the public and many pundits don't even _remember_ all the precipitating events because at this point they don't even stand out. Just look at the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_n... If China were serious about containment, if the sanctions were effective, then things would have never gotten even remotely this far. Both the U.S. and Israel were on the verge of bombing Iran before they even got as far as North Korea did before 2000. The situation _inside_ China is complex, but ultimately the reasons are irrelevant because 1) China manifestly has proven that it is unwilling to be aggressive enough even during the periods when they were truly upset with North Korea and 2) there is no evidence that China's fundamental calculus has changed or even might change--the calculus that has allowed North Korea to openly a) begin a nuclear research program, b) refine and breed fuel, c) test nuclear weapons, and d) import, develop, and export missile technology to the point where they're close to e) having a delivery vehicle for a nuclear weapon. At each step China has vehemently (and believably) opposed those advancements, yet they've refused to prevent it. To be sure they've applied some pressure, just as they are now; but North Korea's resolve is too great. Despite all this overwhelming, indisputably clear history, people are still in denial. It's incredible. Trump is absolutely correct on at least one thing: negotiation is futile. Fortunately, my guess is that Trump's vanity and preternatural instinct for survival will stand in the way of the U.S. choosing to go to war over this issue. Which is why my money is on North Korea joining the nuclear ICBM club, with all that will entail down the road.