Comments on: Larry Korb Unleashed!

By: Drake

Drake — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:23:36 +0000

” Likely near peers all have nuclear weapons, so a direct conventional war would mean nuclear war.“
It also makes sense in regards to Taiwan and South Korea. Why hasn’t China invaded Taiwan despite all the threats and intimidation
That makes sense if the pier competitor plans on invading continental US BUT and its a BIG BUT would X policriter (either side) really sign off risking/threatening/going nuclear right off the bat over say Taiwan, Georgia, Ukraine, S Korea, Japan, Baltics????“
That’s why you have to keep some form of conventional force component. The question is what composition is that force going to be. Smart diplomacy backed up by smart sue of force, and strategic alliances also play a big part in keeping such situations(which you mentioned)from escalating. For example,China hasn’t invaded Taiwan despite threats and intimidation, because we have sent them (some subtle and not so subtle) signals that we would not tolerate such an action.
Likewise in the case of Georgia, we have a more powerful conventional force than Russia, yet it didn’t stop the Russian’s from invading Georgia, holding Georgia territory, and acknowledging their independence. What would happen if we started a “Desert Storm” type deployment in Georgia to evict the Russians?
“The quickest way to get a nuclear war is make it the only tool in the box.“
That goes without saying. Who would suggest that we get rid of everything and just rely on nukes? Nukes are one reason why despite tensions the Pakistanis and Indians are reluctant to start another conflict with each other.
“The nuclear option only prevents total destruction unless they are ready for MAD, and restrains conventional war to the “limited” part.“
“The stronger you are the less you have to fight, the weaker you are the more you have to fight. You want a peace plan, prepare for overmatch to the point were no-one short the suicider will want war with you.“
This all sounds good and has elements of truth to it, but such statements greatly simplify complicated issues.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:04:13 +0000

” Likely near peers all have nuclear weapons, so a direct conventional war would mean nuclear war.“
That makes sense if the pier competitor plans on invading continental US BUT and its a BIG BUT would X policriter (either side) really sign off risking/threatening/going nuclear right off the bat over say Taiwan, Georgia, Ukraine, S Korea, Japan, Baltics????
The quickest way to get a nuclear war is make it the only tool in the box.
The nuclear option only prevents total destruction unless they are ready for MAD, and restrains conventional war to the “limited” part.
The stronger you are the less you have to fight, the weaker you are the more you have to fight. You want a peace plan, prepare for overmatch to the point were no-one short the suicider will want war with you.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:56:02 +0000

I READ the recommendations. The difference is I understand them.
Cherry picking from the list of things that need to be done is rather typical of the poseurs of the left. “Do this its easier”, “slow down that”, “push the envelope a little less”.
It’s called ‘slow rolling’, and it gives the opportunity for others to catch up and pass us by. But before that we’ll be faced with not being able to do what we need to do because some options are off the table because we will lack in some critical arrow in our quiver — like a beyond the beach capability of a V-22, or just not enough of those doggone F-22s. Playing fair is for suckers.
I’ll make a flat out statement that is supportable by historic fact. Since the 1970’s the so-called progressives (aka Liberals) always underspend n defense and hand out the money as freebies during their time in power playing poverty pimps and thus buying their votes so they can stay in in power. This leaves the Conservatives the chore of having to spend a lot on defense to recapitalize what the Libs let wither. Now this little cycle worked — kind of — until this last go around, where we were attacked (after having the Clintonistas let little two-bit 6th century thug-tards get into their punkin’ little heads the idea they could attack the US with impunity) right after a ‘moderate’ took office. Instead of the little boost to build up our defense after the Clinton-Aspin axis gutted it for some magical ‘peace dividend’ (when oh when will these morons realize that peace IS the dividend?) we have spent that time spending the $ fighting a war, while eating up and wearing out what we already have, because no one has the guts to say we need to spend more.
Let us be clear — this policy paper is ALL about budgets, and asserts that because we cannot see a direct threat, a minimum budget is not justifiable. this is akin to asserting because you do not have anyone in front of you on the highway, you do not need brakes.
I wonder-how bad will it get before it gets better? From what I’m hearing, its going to get pretty bad. It will be interesting to watch when the Audacity of Hope runs smack into the Paucity of Ideas.
BTW.… LOVED ‘the industry-controlled think tanks’ crack. Let me guess, you believe in the big bad mythical military-industrial complex?
In any case, at least I KNOW the industry is populated with a lot more retirees, reservists and guardsmen, parents and grandparents of volunteers now serving and very few of them with political aspirations. I can believe in the purity of their logic and motivations a lot easier than those of a politically-aligned think tank (so-called).

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:30:28 +0000

haha forgot linkage
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:01:50 +0000

And here is for all the global warming ppl.…just because..hehe
no seriously best case yet against the whole evil ppl are causeing global warming

By: John

John — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:40:21 +0000

“God forbid anyone mention non-military approaches to problems, like actual human intelligence or humantarian aid, education.“
And they say Democrats are weak sisters when it comes to defense.
Okay, bust out Obama’s magical Kumbaya Doctrine and lets see if Putin, Chavez, Mugabe, bin Laden and Ahmadinijad don’t bust a gut laughing.

By: Drake

Drake — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:51:42 +0000

I think we are forgetting that nuclear deterrence works. Why would a near peer fight us in a conventional war directly? Likely near peers all have nuclear weapons, so a direct conventional war would mean nuclear war. If there were a conflict, between near peers it would most likely be fought in a proxy war through a third party.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:12:33 +0000

Ohhh I remember now damm its late
Maybe the reason NON-conventional war is the only game of our enemy is that we are AT AND CURRENTLY HOLD/PLAN FOR OVERMATHCH of the pier conventional warfare. Conventional war is the one to avoid it cost not 3k in 4+ yrs it cost 30k in single river crossings.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:55:02 +0000

Better to be over-prepared and so avoid that pier conventional war and adapt to the non-conventional. When you are at disadvantage in pier competitor conventional war the cost is huge in blood and may even result in final ABSOLUTE defeat. When you are at disadvantage in non-conventional battle you usually can just adapt tactics but worst case you are forced to withdraw or go Roman.
It is better to prepare for the worst case and then adapt to the lesser than worst case any day of the week.
Maybe just maybe everyone should consider recent history were for the last 50yrs we have avoided major pier warfare almost entirely on the fact that is OUR GAME. Plan for the big show adapt to the little show.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:00:22 +0000

Good Evening Folks,
The CAP gets it about right. The U.S. must be ready to deal with the full spectrum of possible military events the most likely at this time appears to be insurgency and its aftermath of stabilization and short duration occupation as the CAP indicates.
The thing not mentioned is how to deal with the insurgents. So far we have engaged in not to lost strategy who has taken Iraq longer then necessary to achieve stabilization and has yet to work in Afghanistan. In my opinion would be a fight to win strategy from the beginning of a conflict.
All out full scale conflict with a global power at this time, is the least likely military situation with in the short to medium future. The closest that we could come to this is being drawn into a regional conflict where we have only a limited interest. In that event our current land and navel forces are more then capable of dealing with the existing actors as we now know them. There is little need to advance capabilities ant further in this are then we already have.
As for short interceptors like the F-22 without nearby land bases they would be useless. Any foe that would consider drawing the U.S. into a conflict that would involve extensive air power would be very much aware of this limitation.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner