4 ms·

US Must Be Ready for Simultaneous Wars with China, Russia

23 points by ironyman 3y ago

tonyedgecombe 3y ago
>The United States must prepare for possible simultaneous wars with Russia and China by expanding its conventional forces, strengthening alliances and enhancing its nuclear weapons modernization program, a congressionally appointed bipartisan panel said on Thursday. I wonder who is really pulling the strings here.
- westmeal 3y ago
  Rockleed Martin and friends
- beardyw 3y ago
  > we also believe the nation must make these investments Interesting choice of words. Investment: the action or process of investing money for profit.
- netsharc 3y ago
  Yeah, if I'm not currently relaxing on the couch I'd look up members of this panel and see who's been donating to them/what companies are in their jurisdiction... Edit: Well I did look it up for the committee chair: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/jack-reed/summary?cid=N00000362 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/jack-reed/su... Top 5 donators are all defense contractors...
mnky9800n 3y ago
Time to build more m1 Abrams tanks so they can sit in the desert unused. But don't worry, Ohio got jobs. Just think if the government created jobs programs that did things other then funnel money into the defence industry.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  It's actually in the US national interest to maintain the capability - both in terms of tooling/production lines as well as know how - to produce our currently used main battle tanks. In addition, performing upgrades on older tanks, which is a large part of what the Ohio plant does, makes it possible to continue using existing tanks.
onetokeoverthe 3y ago
[dead]
dumboldman 3y ago
[flagged]
nojvek 3y ago
We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. Other democracatic countries that want to buy US weapons can do so, but we shouldn’t be spending billions of our own money supporting them if we are continually raising debt ceiling. With high inflation, low wage growth, increasingly expensive housing, healthcare, education, we gain little from other wars.
- verdverm 3y ago
  The whataboutism in this line of thinking is not helpful. Have you considered what happens if the US doesn't engage? This was the same stance before WW2, which the US eventually entered late, and cost more in the long run. If America is to be great again, what would the previously great America have done in this situation? Condoleezza Rice on Russia, China, and Great Power Conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA (2 parts) > We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. When was the last time a US president did not have a war going on during their time in office?
  - xtian 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - verdverm 3y ago
      wow, some serious whataboutism there, go back and read the HN rules ...and inaccuracy, the secretary of state does not oversee wars Condi is president of the Hoover Institute, she's a good person with good ideas. Maybe try listening before going off on baseless whataboutism
      - xtian 3y ago
        [flagged]
verdverm 3y ago
I've heard three theaters spoken about more often: Europe, Asia, and Middle East
demarq 3y ago
Back in the day they called it a world war
- verdverm 3y ago
  They called the first one "The Great War" until they had the second one. One reason we haven't had a third one was because the Allies went for unconditional surrender and post-war occupation, Germany and Japan are much better off today because of it. Containment of authoritarianism doesn't effect change, remains to be seen if it delays the inevitable.

23 points by ironyman 3y ago

>The United States must prepare for possible simultaneous wars with Russia and China by expanding its conventional forces, strengthening alliances and enhancing its nuclear weapons modernization program, a congressionally appointed bipartisan panel said on Thursday. I wonder who is really pulling the strings here.

westmeal 3y ago
Rockleed Martin and friends
beardyw 3y ago
> we also believe the nation must make these investments Interesting choice of words. Investment: the action or process of investing money for profit.
netsharc 3y ago
Yeah, if I'm not currently relaxing on the couch I'd look up members of this panel and see who's been donating to them/what companies are in their jurisdiction... Edit: Well I did look it up for the committee chair: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/jack-reed/summary?cid=N00000362 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/jack-reed/su... Top 5 donators are all defense contractors...

mnky9800n 3y ago

Time to build more m1 Abrams tanks so they can sit in the desert unused. But don't worry, Ohio got jobs. Just think if the government created jobs programs that did things other then funnel money into the defence industry.

meepmorp 3y ago
It's actually in the US national interest to maintain the capability - both in terms of tooling/production lines as well as know how - to produce our currently used main battle tanks. In addition, performing upgrades on older tanks, which is a large part of what the Ohio plant does, makes it possible to continue using existing tanks.

onetokeoverthe 3y ago

[dead]

dumboldman 3y ago

[flagged]

nojvek 3y ago

We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. Other democracatic countries that want to buy US weapons can do so, but we shouldn’t be spending billions of our own money supporting them if we are continually raising debt ceiling. With high inflation, low wage growth, increasingly expensive housing, healthcare, education, we gain little from other wars.

verdverm 3y ago
The whataboutism in this line of thinking is not helpful. Have you considered what happens if the US doesn't engage? This was the same stance before WW2, which the US eventually entered late, and cost more in the long run. If America is to be great again, what would the previously great America have done in this situation? Condoleezza Rice on Russia, China, and Great Power Conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA (2 parts) > We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. When was the last time a US president did not have a war going on during their time in office?
- xtian 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - verdverm 3y ago
    wow, some serious whataboutism there, go back and read the HN rules ...and inaccuracy, the secretary of state does not oversee wars Condi is president of the Hoover Institute, she's a good person with good ideas. Maybe try listening before going off on baseless whataboutism
    - xtian 3y ago
      [flagged]

verdverm 3y ago

I've heard three theaters spoken about more often: Europe, Asia, and Middle East

demarq 3y ago

Back in the day they called it a world war

verdverm 3y ago
They called the first one "The Great War" until they had the second one. One reason we haven't had a third one was because the Allies went for unconditional surrender and post-war occupation, Germany and Japan are much better off today because of it. Containment of authoritarianism doesn't effect change, remains to be seen if it delays the inevitable.