US to abandon the 2 wars philosphy?

[Serial_Worrier]

Some far distant tetchyness with Iran perhaps but no desire for a real war and invasion.

If you break every bridge, shipping terminal, and dam in Iran, and keep them broken across a summer, do you need to invade?

That would constitute a massive war crime and would land Obama in the ICC docket.

[AgentR11]

That would constitute a massive war crime and would land Obama in the ICC docket.

And that would matter to Obama or any other US President?
Just not seeing it.

I don't see Iran actually doing anything that would precipitate such an action anyway. If they did though, I doubt any president would give a rats butt what the ICC thought of their war actions.

[dorlomin]

This is obviously a pullback from empire status, on the bright side maybe if we are able to fight just one war we will be more careful about how we choose it.

At half the size of its current budget the US would still be a hegemon so its not a loss of Emire, just a loss of income for the defense welfare queens.

[rangerone314]

Some far distant tetchyness with Iran perhaps but no desire for a real war and invasion.

If you break every bridge, shipping terminal, and dam in Iran, and keep them broken across a summer, do you need to invade?

That would constitute a massive war crime and would land Obama in the ICC docket.

Screw it. Also target their power generation, power lines, knock out water purification and sewage, destroy what few refineries they have since I know they import a lot of gasoline.

[gollum]

This is obviously a pullback from empire status, on the bright side maybe if we are able to fight just one war we will be more careful about how we choose it.

At half the size of its current budget the US would still be a hegemon so its not a loss of Emire, just a loss of income for the defense welfare queens.

We're still strong but I don't think as much as people might think considering the whole globe is our battlefield (VS adversaries that must only project power regionally). The Soviet Union looked strong in 1982, but ten years later it didn't even exist and the fancy toys were sitting in disrepair on airfields and in motorpools. Other than for a temporary window you're only as strong as what your economy will support amd I think the coming cuts are a symptom of that strength starting to break down.

[Shaved Monkey]

Quite a an interesting analysis of the cuts

Obama attempted to play both sides of the political street while announcing some not-all-that-big cuts to the US defence budget. Claiming to slice the better part of half a trillion dollars from the defence budget sounds impressive, until you look at the detail. For a start, the $US487 billion ($A475 billion) trimming is over 10 years; an average of $US48.7 billion a year before the special interest groups in Congress start pleading for exceptions.

For what they're worth, the US defence cuts are aimed at reducing the number of grunts on the ground. The money keeps flowing to the navy and air force, effectively several hundred billion dollars a year in industrial subsidies by building more ships and planes than they know what to do with.

A justification is required for such spending, so let's encircle China. Gunboat diplomacy is alive and well in Washington thinking. Nothing like escalating military presence and spending in a region to, well, escalate military presence and spending.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/us-sa ... z1ionYmr00

[rangerone314]

I guess they figure it takes a while to build big ships and planes, and not so long that if we got into another World War (this time against China or maybe Russia) that they could build the army back up with the draft.

[SeaGypsy]

War with China would have to be abouut the dumbest thing the US could possibly do, so I guess that makes it likely or perhaps inevitable? War with either Russia or China would result in totally out of control oil markets, something the US dreads almost as much as being superceeded in terms of overall production/ consumption per capita.

[gollum]

I guess they figure it takes a while to build big ships and planes, and not so long that if we got into another World War (this time against China or maybe Russia) that they could build the army back up with the draft.

It seems to me thats the thinking too.

[rangerone314]

War with China would have to be abouut the dumbest thing the US could possibly do, so I guess that makes it likely or perhaps inevitable? War with either Russia or China would result in totally out of control oil markets, something the US dreads almost as much as being superceeded in terms of overall production/ consumption per capita.

Thanks to idiot politicians, the pot can heat up really fast. And there might not be someone like HIM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov to prevent the pot from boiling over.

[PrestonSturges]

I'll wait and see if the US really scales back its military budget by 500 billion. Sounds like political BS at this stage.

All good things come to an end,.... Ancient Roman proverb I believe, spread around by the Goths.

I heard an economics teacher say "If something can't go on forever - it won't."

[rangerone314]

Its funny how when they give a huge figure for cuts, its over 10 years.

[gollum]

In my opinion we could have a very robust defense on a quarter of what we spend if we'd just stop meddling in the affairs of other nations.

[ralfy]

Ultimately, the ones who should be calling for the abandonment of such are the sheeple who are saddled with war costs.

[Shaved Monkey]

Sheeple dont call the shots,unelected people with vested interests do

[Cog]

Sheeple dont call the shots,unelected people with vested interests do

And as long as the MIC can squeeze money out of the sheeple to turn a profit, they will certainly do that.

[gollum]

Sheeple dont call the shots,unelected people with vested interests do

And as long as the MIC can squeeze money out of the sheeple to turn a profit, they will certainly do that.

Aint that a fact!

[gollum]

Interesting story on a link from drudge report last night, the navy may reduce the number of carriers dropping from the current eleven. The article went on to talk a bit about retiring carriers early and slowing production of new ones. There was some thinking that In a generation china would be on par with us. Of course everything is interrelated to out economic decline.

[AgentR11]

Reducing carrier numbers may be exactly the right answer though, even if it looks a little bad. You bring up China, but China needs open and free commercial navigation even more than we do; which is the underlying purpose of a navy to begin with; to insure freedom of navigation. Our current spat with Iran might have been a trigger for them as well; they see our decline as well as our building up of internal, less optimal substitutes, and they start thinking about what if, in a decade or two, a declining US decides to shut the Straits to enhance its internal advantages. As things are now, China could do nothing to stop that, leaving them completely dependent upon overland, aka Iran & Russia. I don't know about yall, but being at the mercy of Persian and Russian extortioniststraders would not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy.

China must deploy a significant navy; and they need to be competitive with US and Russian fleets within 2-3 decades.
Perhaps the source of the next Chinese bubble, and large driver of more internal demand?

[gollum]

We've had giant carriers since WW2 because we could control the battle space and guarantee their safety. Changing technology and our decline (along with the relative rise of other powers) will make that harder. I expect a move back to smaller carriers on our part, keeping all the eggs out of the same basket. We're in decline as a power and resource depletion will accelerate that even farther, I'm 42 and expect that in my natural lifetime we will once again be a regional and not a world power.