Stop the slliness, if the US abandons it's maritime obligation guess who will fill the void? Also, we have gone over this before, via the CBO, the Stimulus alone cost more than the OIF to date. Lastly, hate Military Spending? Fine, then Turn off your Internet, GPS, Microwave, do not take most of your meds, avoid most of the modern EMS services, etc...etc...Sheesh, I have rarely heard so many who gave so little whine so much and forget that the Military is not the burden you think it is. Oh, before an ill informed person pops in and tries to say that Military Benefits too are a burden, most arerolled into the DoD budget and there only about 28 million Vets total in the US, retired Vets are even a smaller percentage of that. I am so tired of the whine when you folks do not look at the big picture. Who will fill the void if we go isolationist again? Who would you have guide the world, us or China? For the most part the US has been a force for good in the world, far better than any other past power but I doubt the lot of you will stop bashing it, stop talking up conspiracies or your most common offense, looking at events with 20/20 hindsight. Almost a joke at this point.

Not directed at you, that was a shot across many a bow.

This comment is an example of the Soviet Union mentality found in the US military. Money is no object!

"For the most part the US has been a force for good in the world..."

They oughta put that on a recruitment poster.

Shocker, I got two of the biggest conspiracy folks on here for a reply. Cmarygoround and Don "everything is a conspiracy by big business" Bacon ;)
Don, what was the purpose of the those conflicts? I thought we were in a world struggle for ideals and while we did some pretty horrible things during the cold war to act as though it was for business or that is should not have been done at all is illustrates my point in my first post, your amazing 20/20 hindsight. You can post all you want about "War Is A Racket" Don but in the end they have to be fought and if the US does not do it, who? Have we overextended ourselves? It would seem so. Have we always made the right choices? No. Yet, the world does not exist in a vacuum, power leaves and is filled by another, just the way world has always worked. To think anything else would happen if we pulled back to our shores is just naive and unfortunately typical of many.

Yes, another "Logical" contributor ;) If you really think that the Chinese do not have global ambitions, ask the Japanese, Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans and others what they think? If you think the Chinese do not think in those terms you are not very well informd nor do you follow current or past Chinese History. Yet another naive and silly "America" is the devil post. I am glad all the Cuck-coos are striking the old familiar rants though, at least you are consistent. Exactly when will the Bush Rants get old? When exactly will the "the Military-Industrial Complex" Conspiracies get old? When will the whole slew of conspiracies some spout get old? Sheesh, I should invest in tin foil with some of the marxist, paranoid rants I hear on here at times.
Hmm....Oh, by the what has the DoD given us that may have helped our economy a bit? What are we all on now? Lets face a fact guys, the things you are typing on, the thing we are posting on and many other facets of everyday life are due to the DoD. Lastly, the cries of the US not being taken seriously and on it's death bed have been said many a times before. I am all for better spending, wayyyy better leadership in the DoD and much more stream lined procurment but the way some of you talk about cuts is a bit overboard. Ducky did not have a bad idea about making the Army smaller but the Navy is a bit more important for a Nation with two oceans around it and overseas territory and states. Lastly, I also noticed how the moonbats who howled about the costs of the DoD ignored the whole fact that the CBO came out and said that OIF (argument is legit that is was not necessary) cost less than the stimulus.
My whole point is that even with a 50% across the board DoD cut you would not change a bloody thing about our economy, our debt or habit of adventure. You are looking at the wrong devil boys if you are looking for someone to blame for the current economy or debt.

I am glad you are not blaming the Military for our economic down turn, that is refreshing but you are wrong on China. They do not take a fiscal year to year approach and have a long view and do indeed want to be the dominant power, why? It also helps with their economy and their energy needs when they can influence and push treaties and agreements. See the big picture.

Why does the US do it? Why does anyone do it? So they can better situate themselves for economic gain. If you cannot see the baseline cause of these things then nothing I say will will convince you or make you open your mind or line of reason. Yourself and Injun really just cannot see it and for some reason want to think the US is capable of such things but no one else is. Then again, I envison you both more than likely wear turtlenecks or some other "hipster" clothing, hang out at Coffee shops and/or the local University spots and just shout "Down with the Man" as you drive away in your Prius to the burbs, but hey, that could just be me ;) Now if you will excuse me I must report to my Military-Industrial Masters, they frown on it when we are not plotting something for the benefit of Wall Street.

That depends on what you consider oversized Grant. What do the Brits, supposedly a maritime nation, consider there interests off shore? Were I King of Argentina, and still smarting from that slap on the wrist Britain gave in 1982 in the Falklands, I might think the time is nearing for some military adventurism.

The fact is, the Brits were hard pressed last time to put together a maritime force, and the late Lord Lewin was heard to have said after the war,” that was a damn close-run thing."

The British air defense of the Falkland’s is rather robust with a half squadron of new Euro fighters and ground based missile defensives that are extensively tested on a routine basis. British C-17’s can quickly reinforce the garrison on the Falkland’s with additional assets. Currently, the garrison is staffed by the Grenadier Guards with special cold weather training and can be rapidly brought up to strength by Royal Marines (intensely cold weather trained) and the balance of the Guards. The key to the defense of the Falkland’s is air power and air power based at the Mount Pleasant base can not only defend Falkland airspace but can easily range over all Argentine air base’s within range of the Falklands. The RAF has the same anti-runway and precision munitions as that of the USAF and knows how and where to put them.

Granted Argentine capabilities have improved since 1982 but British capabilities have geometrically increase in comparison to Argentine. For Argentine’s to invade the Falklands they first have to get there through British nuclear attack submarines and air dominance but be prepared to fight for a beachhead against professional British infantry and Marines whose mobility has been dramatically enhanced by the helicopters and other goodies already there at their disposal unlike the previous occasion. One would also imagine that the Brit's hopefully not being complete idiots would have signals, surveillance, reconnaissance and human intelligence assets which would give them a bit of a heads up on any change in Argentine military activity?

Actually, none of this will come to pass and over a period of time the British and Argentines will come to some sort of agreement on sharing the oil wealth underneath the cold waters which is what this is all about. It would do no good for the Argentines to forcibly take the Falkland’s since the RN nuclear attack boats could make it impossible for them to do any offshore drilling anyway. So my guess is that this is Argentina’s way of beginning the process of negotiations by trying to start out with the strongest hand they can.

Ok, no war in the far Southern Hemisphere - crisis avoided. And France won't have to buy back up all the Exorcet missiles it sold world wide, as it did last time, to prevent Argentina access again - a financial mess avoided for the Grenouilles as well! : )

JPWREL: This is a very narrow question. I am just using the Argentine Navy and the Falklands as an example. I don't think it would actually happen.

Let us say the Argentina did not try to invade the Falklands. Let us say they announce a blockade of the Falklands using the 3 diesel electric subs they have. Could the Brits break that blockade with the very small naval force they have? Could the Royal Navy afford to try if they stood a chance of losing one or two of their very small force of ships mentioned in the blog entry? Or we could up the ante a bit and say the navy of Argentina bought an extra two subs, Kilo class or one of the new European designs. Could such a little Royal Navy break a blockade established by only 5 subs?

If they didn't it would not matter if the British garrison could be supplemented by air. I don't know but I would guess the islands people, military and civilian, could not be supplied over the long term by air. It seems to me what the British will have is a Reichswehr type navy, good for maintaining professional skills in the hopes that times will get better but not much else.

Carl, that’s really a good question for RubberDucky our former submariner! The Royal Navy primary job during he cold war was anti-submarine warfare to protect the lines of communications across the Atlantic to the western hemisphere. The Argentine diesel electrics are likely no match for the RN’s skilled and experienced submariners and nuclear attack boats of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class. Also, complimented by anti-submarine patrol aircraft which could be based right on the Falkland’s at either Mr. Pleasant or Stanley that would make the waters around the Falkland’s very dangerous place for the inexperienced Argentines. As I understand it from RD a first-rate diesel electric is no match for a first-rate nuclear attack sub like those possessed by the USN and RN. While anything could happen and usually does in war a sea fight with the RAF controlling the airspace plays right to the skill set of the British Navy’s attack submarine force whose technology, training and technique is comparable to the U. S. Navy. Also, if that situation required the British have the capability to attack both Argentine Air Force and Navy installations via their submarine launched cruise missile force.

One must remember that the RN is the second largest Navy in the world in tonnage and that the new ships replacing the old ones such as the new large deck carriers and the Darling class destroyers have an exponential increase in capability versus the vessels leaving service. On land it would be very problematic for the Argentines to land without air superiority or controlling the lines of communications to the mainland for obvious reasons. My son in his career has worked with British troops particularly Royal Marines, and the says they are outstanding troops and possess a standard of physical conditioning that training that is incomparable.

"Two blind men in an unlighted coal bin at night, each armed with baseball bats and aiming to kill each other." That's how an old skipper (the late Yogi Kaufman) described sub-on-sub ASW.

All else equal, odds to the nuke. But it's a crap-shoot and many nukes have been embarrassed by pigboat adversaries in exercises. Give me the names of the two COs and I'll adjust the odds...

I agree with what I think is your point, that we should get some more D Boats, the Germans make an excellent D boat that is a far quieter than any Nuke we have, cheaper and owned by GE last time I checked. The only hiccup would be if Congress got involved and forced them to buy US made only thus driving up the costs.

The utility of diesel submarines - even modern Air-Independent Propulsion types - lies in there value as coastal defense platforms for nations without global duties and bluewater strategies. The slow speed, relatively low endurance, and small ordnance and sensor load make them singularly useless for US needs. In a nutshell, a diesel submarine functions like a barely mobile minefield, deadly to those near it but with no real legs.

In the area of quieting, though, a diesel on the battery is as quiet as ... a modern nuclear (sorry, George: nuculer) attack boat. With detection (and counter-detection) range for both in hundreds of yards, neither type boat would have a distinct advantage in nuke-vs-diesel ASW and it would get down to tactics and skipper smarts. And luck: as an old executive officer once said it, "In this line of work, if you're not lucky we can't use you."

I've been advocating against US building diesel submarines for 30 years, in print and vociferously (me? yeah, really). The best description of the DBF crowd (Diesel Boats Forever) is in the legend under a pair of DBF dolphins in the Submarine Museum at Pearl Harbor: "Unauthorized Insignia Sometimes Worn By Incurable Romantics."

"...their..."

Never worry about typos, we all do it :) As for D Boats, the word I got from guys in that area and from other sources is that the new D boats Fuel Cells are wayyyy quieter than the Nukes, am I being mis-informed? Also, they would be a cheaper alternative to what we have now for coastal defense vs fast attack nukes wouldn't they? Or is it a short term saver only?

Quiet is quiet. Once you get a boat quieted to the 'hole-in-the-ocean' level, with passive detection ranges perhaps under 1,000 yards, initial-detection range is a random factor and the battle problem so frenetic that it pretty much washes into the mix of launch readiness, minimum run requirements of weapons, danger of collision, classification certainty, and a wild mix of other factors not related to ship-type that will determine the outcome.

And we don't do coastal defense. USN is a blue-water force and operates in a forward environment ... one which at the present time has no blue-water enemies. Diesel submarines for the UA Navy are the equivalent of strengthened coastal batteries for the Army.

There are some really good, really cute non-nuclear-propelled submarines on the market. But all suit the strategic needs of regional nations, not global. Let's put it this way: nukes vs diesels for the US Navy has the same perennial character as treads-vs-wheels and heavy-vs-light in army affairs. But unlike these golden oldies, the clear answer ... for the US Navy ... is nuke.

Will always bow to your knowledge on these things, thanks for a different look.

RD: would it make sense for the USN to buy one or two AIP or diesel boats from the Germans or Swedes in order that our nukes can train against them; or do we get enough opportunities to train just working with other navies?

We rent them.

Responding to Arvay's comment (the rest I am not going to wade into).

On the point of the Falklands it is still part of the U.K for the time being. Personally I'm of the opinion that it should return to Argentina but I am also of the opinion that the best way to accomplish that is for both nations to negotiate.
Considering the debacle of 1982 I find it highly unlikely that Argentina will attempt to retake it by force and even if it does I recall that the bombers had more of an impact than the navy by ruining the calculations of the Argentinian generals sending them into a panic. On the sailor unless you can provide some kind of evidence that he gained those injuries in combat it isn't really relevant. He could have easily gotten hurt in an accident (not necessarily on a ship), in a fight that got out of control or a dozen other scenarios.

On the U.K's relationship with the U.S I have to simply say "what?" We could only wish to have that kind of power over the U.K. We couldn't stop the U.K from developing a nuclear weapons program, we had to threaten economic sanctions to get British soldiers out of the Suez Canal and the Troubles in Ireland caused friction more than once. Also I don't really see how the First and Second World Wars were 'civil wars' in any sense. A civil war is generally understood to be largely within a state while most of the fighting in those two wars were done between states.

Lastly I'd suggest we be careful about assumptions concerning geopolitics and Asia. People who talk about the inevitable rise of Asian states make me remember the talk of Japan overcoming the U.S in the 80s and the idea that Communism was the natural and inevitable outcome of history prior to 1991.

Its happening right now. The dollar is sliding ever downwards.

One F-35 lifts more conventional bomb/missile weight than a flight of B-29's, and probably more than a max effort strike by the Ark Royal's entire air wing. And that's before the $100M 'fighters' are loaded with nukes.

Defending the realms most distant sheep pastures with strategic bombers has a lot of flair, but airlifting a light brigade BEFORE the Argentines land at Stanley is probably a lot cheaper.

No disagreement on the third rate Presidential candidate. Highly mobile naval aviation with state of the art aircraft and munitions has breath taking strike capability against conventional or semi-conventional targets. Against ghosts lurking in the mountains of Afghanistan it is likely a hyper-expensive way of merely making holes in the ground.

Carrier based naval aviations usefulness is based strictly on the prevalent tactical conditions. It is no panacea and useless in some circumstances. But that is the nature of all weapon systems whether it is a nuclear carrier, main battle tank or heavy self propelled artillery. An infantryman with small arms can be the ideal weapon in some circumstances but in others he is merely a helpless target poised to be incinerated. Right now the battle is essentially a light infantry fight but perhaps down the road it will require something different thus highly professional forces like our own and the British train and equip for many different contingencies.

The HMS Victory is an absolutely spectacular ship to pay a visit to. She is a magnificent 1st Rate of 100 guns with a history to match. This ship required over 3,000 English oak trees for it’s framing alone.

But at least it is in the water.

;-)

Walt

Truely amazing to walk where Nelson was shot and later died. Not to mention the historic naval buildings.

While I was there I had the priviledge of touring the HMS Ark Royal. Wow! It's tiny compared to an American carrier. Wikipedia has a side by side picture of the Ark Royal's sister ship alongside the the USS John C. Stennis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_John_C._Stennis_(CVN-74)_%26_HMS_Illustrious_(R_06).jpg

The two replacement carriers would be a huge step up in size but I wonder how the RN will change it's current operating plan of having one carrier undergoing extended retrofit with the other two are out to sea. Keeping to that would leave only 1 carrier available most of the time.

Other Ranks, the only thing that I can think of is that while one carrier is deployed or at sea training is air group the other will be dockside doing maintenance and training crew while its air group trains ashore. Pretty much the same thing we do but on much smaller scale. However, the new British carriers with an F-35 air group compare favorably with US carriers flying F-18E’s. I was visiting my boy at the NSWC base on Coronado two weeks ago and while crossing the bridge notice that San Diego’s three carriers were all in port probably doing essential maintenance and training new crews. Carriers spend a lot of their lives berthed pier side..

First off, none of those things would have gotten the push or funding to be what they became without DoD funding. Never said it was a monopoly did I? Simply stating that the DoD has spurred a lot of what you and I take for granted every day. Also, when you start down the road and sound like a conspiracy hack "Our war mongers have now conveniently replaced the Soviet Union with China as the latest villain. How long can this extortion go on while the society bleeds?" Really?! You do not do much for your arugment. China is a rival and a threat in the Pacific Rim, if you do not think they are you are just naive and a bit on the un-informed side.
"How is it that we can't even subdue a medieval nation like Afghanistan?", I did not know we were in the process of making the Afghans subdue? Also, I think we have acted with remarkable restraint if anything. "Or, why did we have to find a face saving 'compromise' in Iraq to extricate ourselves?", face saving? hmm...we still have 50k troop there and they are not leaving anytime soon, so I would hold onto your carping just yet.

Again, this line is off topic but I will engage-
Funding-I actually agree, I would prefer to see money routed through more civilian channels as long as it was in a way that did not favor large donors but I fear that the same thing that goes on with the Military silliness and funding would happen with that if it was diverted to civilian companies as well. However, my whole point was not act like your money has all been squandered or mis-spent down the years, we have all gotten a benefit from it and again you guys are after the wrong bad guy for the blame of our economy. Try looking to the loans and the "People's" Congress that pushed them, combined with good old human greed and selfishness, not the military. Again, what say you to the CBO pointing out that the stimulus cost more than OIF to date, does that not say something about wildly inflamed attacks on military spending as being the cause of our economic demise? Or is the CBO part of the conspiracy as well?
Afghanistan-Our intention it not to subdue or force to our will the nation of Afgahnistan, do some reading on what COIN is, what our actual goal is as well as how that goes over with the Afghans when you act like the Russians did. We are acting with restraint as we should or is it that you want us to commit genocide since it is costing us billions? ;) Your argument is weak and full of conjecture on Afghanistan and not sure what your point is except to rant.
Iraq-you said we saved face and got out, having been there I can assure you we have not done any such thing and it is not you who has attempted to use ''semantics" by saying since the pols goal is no more combat operations that is indeed what is happeneing, I on the other hand never said Combat ended and know better. We also did not declare to not engage "in any military initiatives going forward?", what excactly do you think the 50k troops are still there for? Amusement perhaps? Who said that they would not do anything with the Iraqis? Or back them up against Iran if need be? Again, you show yourself to be ill informed or a selective reader.
Your conspiracy-Ike was talking more about the huge growth in the push towards Military expenditures, not some evil, secret cabal that was going to lead us into wars or somehow control how FP is made, like far to many on here suggest. Ike was a part of a lot of that spending himself do not forget that.
Lastly, when you go off on rants that are more hyperbole and conjecture you come off, at least to me, like a conspiracy nut. You have many allies on here who will say off the wall things all the time so know that you will not be alone in your far flung theories. Try not to frame your arguments in terms of conspiracy and you might sound more rational.

"If military supremacy is essential for a nation to thrive (both economically and culturally), then how do the militarists explain the rise of China, India, and Brazil whose combined military budget is roughly one tenth of that of the US?"

What happened the last time that there wasn't a dominant naval power or two that controlled the world's seas. WWII happened. The time before that? WWI. All of history before that? Global disunity and chaos.

Without an ethical power assuming responsibility to keep waterways safe, the global economy fails to function. That global economy is what lends America its power.

It doesn't matter exactly who maintains freedom of the seas but someone with values similar to ours needs to do it. We are the only nation that can do it unilaterally so we should. Not only does it ensure our supremacy in the next global conflict (WWII has hardly foreseen more than 4-5 years prior) but it makes other nations more amenable to our causes and interests.

"You get answers that do not fit your premise so you ask other questions in the hopes of doing so, I think I covered you in the post before last"

Could you please cut and paste instead of vaguely referring to a post. I have re-read all your posts and found no answers to my specific questions vis. ROI in Afghanistan and Iraq AND the need to have an overwhelming military superiority to become (and remain) an economic power. I would be much obliged.

Also, what, in your opinion, is my "premise"? Look, I love this country as much as you do. And just like you, I want the best for it. You being an ex-military person, seem to be enamored by a world-view that is exclusively militaristic. To reduce the complexities of relationships and attitudes between nations in the 21st century to a 'zero-sum game' is not just fallacious -- it is outright dangerous. There are compelling reasons why generals and admirals do not make foreign policy or economic policies of the country. Our wise founding fathers spoke on this over 200 years ago.

Thank you for an extensive reading list. I am familiar with most of the items you provide. However, they mean nothing to me unless they answer my (and now increasingly, the nation's) fundamental questions on "Why are we there?", "What are our current objectives for being there?", "Have we met any of the set (or proclaimed) objectives prior to going there?", and "Has it been advantageous to the nation by us being there and spending (by conservative estimates) three trillion dollars+ and thousands of innocent lives?". To my knowledge, none of the sources cited address any of these questions. Some do echo talking points of people who got us into this mess. Which, at this stage of the game, have been proven to be false and self-serving.

To put our military blunder in measurable terms, consider this: The cost of keeping one soldier in Afghanistan for a year is $1 million! We currently have 94,000 of them there (i.e., not counting the thousands of contractors). Just do the math.

Can you imagine the positive impact on our economy if even a fraction of this money were to be invested in our industries and education?

The tussle for 'supremacy' among countries in the coming years will not be waged militarily. It will be in the class rooms, in sciences, technology, and learning of classics, etc. -- which would lead to economic strengths in the Global marketplace. Hence, to remain an economic super power the US must expend its energies and resources on things that really matter -- education, sciences, industry, and human capital. By squandering trillions of dollars on pointless foreign wars and expeditions we are robbing our nation of its future well being.

Sure, given the world we live in, we need a strong military to protect us from outside invasions etc. But we do not need a military to invade other countries -- especially, under false pretexts (remember Saddam's nukes, etc.?). Not only it proved to be false, this mis-adventure has made us less secure, and has hurt us all around. It has also accelerated our mortgaging of America to foreigners -- especially, the Chinese.

What happens if the Chinese call in their notes tomorrow? Even if they don't, remember, they can. And this is something we can never control -- despite our "over whelming" military advantage over them.

That nightmare should be a recurring one for all true patriots.

Nuclear weapons are useless when it comes to maintaining open sea lanes. No country is going to go nuclear over maritime aggression.

You say that carriers are obselete when they have been used extensively during the most recent conflicts and humanitarian operations. No carrier has ever been sunk and chinese ASBM capabilities are unproven and, some say, nonexistant. They haven't been shown to be able to sink a moving target and still lack detection capabilities that are requisite when operating in a space as large as the ocean. Even when they do overcome the technical difficulties, we still have pleanty of countermeasures.

Naval power is not retro. The belief that nuclear weapons are all a nation needs to be secure is. Remember the talk of disbanding the Navy and Marine Corps prior to Korea? Yeah, spot on.

The global economy can't flourish in the absense of security. Just like in a nation's economy, the world needs an enforcer of property rights and the rule of law. Without that element, people can't trade.