I would put it at under 1%. Sure could we have one? I guess, but to set policy by it, no way. I can see us going the way of the European countries where we spend our capital on our people vs. the military. Thoughts?

We can definitely have another world war. History has a way of repeating itself.

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would put it at under 1%. Sure could we have one? I guess, but to set policy by it, no way. I can see us going the way of the European countries where we spend our capital on our people vs. the military. Thoughts?

Its a lot more possible than it was even 5 years ago. Nuclear proliferation increases the chances of a war started by a middle eastern country such as Iran. Then there's Putin's adventurism. Most likely flash point-Russian invasion of Estonia.

I don't think it's that high. Low scale regional conflict will continue to be all the rage.

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would put it at under 1%. Sure could we have one? I guess, but to set policy by it, no way. I can see us going the way of the European countries where we spend our capital on our people vs. the military. Thoughts?

I wish it weren't so, but anytime you have an autocratic ruler, they have an tendency to dream of a larger area to dominate........... They don't have to answer to "the people" nearly so much, control what messages get out to the masses much more.

Unfortunately, given that Russia, China, and Iran are all autocratically ruled........I wouldn't sleep on it and allow our military preparedness to go into the crapper.

The provocative things all three have been doing is because they know Obama is a paper tiger - America's Neville Chamberlain....

(04-18-2016 09:08 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would put it at under 1%. Sure could we have one? I guess, but to set policy by it, no way. I can see us going the way of the European countries where we spend our capital on our people vs. the military. Thoughts?

I wish it weren't so, but anytime you have an autocratic ruler, they have an tendency to dream of a larger area to dominate........... They don't have to answer to "the people" nearly so much, control what messages get out to the masses much more.

Unfortunately, given that Russia, China, and Iran are all autocratically ruled........I wouldn't sleep on it and allow our military preparedness to go into the crapper.

The provocative things all three have been doing is because they know Obama is a paper tiger - America's Neville Chamberlain....

And 4-8 years of Sanders or the grossly incompetent Clinton could increase the possibility exponentially.

(04-18-2016 09:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think it's that high. Low scale regional conflict will continue to be all the rage.

I agree with this and actually argued back in the 1960s and 70s, that Vietnam was a necessary conflict at the time. (I actually believe that Vietnam was a success in that it slowed the expansion of Soviet style communism. Had it not been Vietnam, it would have been Malaysia or the Philippians or someplace else in the region.)

However, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst paranoid nations, Putin's adventurism and China's expansionist desires, it might happen.

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would put it at under 1%. Sure could we have one? I guess, but to set policy by it, no way. I can see us going the way of the European countries where we spend our capital on our people vs. the military. Thoughts?

No, I don't. The thing about nuclear war is that most likely not a single person is likely to be better off after a nuclear war. No "chickenhawk" world leader is going to start a war where you are on the battlefield no matter where you are in the world.

And this is sort of off-topic, but I find it interesting that people who tend to think defense contractors decide who we go to war with are some of the most staunch proponents of nuclear disarmament. If there was a nuclear war the factories that make weapons will be among the first targets. Probably no one will profit off of a nuclear war and if they did there may not be anything left of the economy for them to enjoy the spoils.

There is no doubt in my mind that if nuclear weapons were not developed we would have had a major conflict between major military powers within the last 70 years.

We are certainly going to have another.

(04-18-2016 09:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  Most likely flash point-Russian invasion of Estonia.

Which is exactly why I believe that a few battalions of US armor should be deployed to the Baltics. They wouldn't be sufficient to repel an invasion but they would provide a red (white & blue) line that I don't believe even Putin would be willing to cross.

(04-18-2016 09:18 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  [quote='Machiavelli' pid='13206054' dateline='1460987920']


No "chickenhawk" world leader is going to start a war where you are on the battlefield no matter where you are in the world.

Of course you are correct but your argument presumes that every world leader is level headed and wishes to live. People are willing to fly planes into buildings in the name of Allah, what makes you think that they wouldn't conclude that nuclear war isn't the grand gesture? And what if Lil Kim is actually deranged?

(04-18-2016 09:25 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Of course you are correct but your argument presumes that every world leader is level headed and wishes to live. People are willing to fly planes into buildings in the name of Allah, what makes you think that they wouldn't conclude that nuclear war isn't the grand gesture? And what if Lil Kim is actually deranged?

They may not be level headed, but they aren't going to be willing to put themselves and their families in harms way.

And the countries that we generally think of as being the most unhinged generally have the smallest and least technologically advanced arsenals anyways.

We are fighting one right now against the Muslims.

What do You expect to happen with China & Russia if a major conflict between the US & South Korea happens with North Korea. China sent thousands of troops into North Vietnam as NVA

some 320,000 Chinese soldiers served in Vietnam during the war. Russia and China supplied the weapons and equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_..._equipment

(04-18-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  Most likely flash point-Russian invasion of Estonia.

Which is exactly why I believe that a few battalions of US armor should be deployed to the Baltics. They wouldn't be sufficient to repel an invasion but they would provide a red (white & blue) line that I don't believe even Putin would be willing to cross.

He wants to splinter NATO. No better possibility than invading a mostly defenseless Estonia and daring NATO to drive him out with a weak kneed Democrat as president.

(04-18-2016 09:25 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:18 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  [quote='Machiavelli' pid='13206054' dateline='1460987920']


No "chickenhawk" world leader is going to start a war where you are on the battlefield no matter where you are in the world.

Of course you are correct but your argument presumes that every world leader is level headed and wishes to live. People are willing to fly planes into buildings in the name of Allah, what makes you think that they wouldn't conclude that nuclear war isn't the grand gesture? And what if Lil Kim is actually deranged?

And the leaders of Europe were pretty much all related and didn't want a war in WWI, but it happened anyway. There are letters from the Kaiser to his cousin Tsar Nicholas talking about it.

(04-18-2016 09:30 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  They may not be level headed, but they aren't going to be willing to put themselves and their families in harms way.

And the countries that we generally think of as being the most unhinged generally have the smallest and least technologically advanced arsenals anyways.

Levelheaded is in the eye of the beholder. What if some Muslim wants to get to paradise fast?

And the small country wackjob only needs one device and a small missile to get it to Seoul.

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would put it at under 1%. Sure could we have one? I guess, but to set policy by it, no way. I can see us going the way of the European countries where we spend our capital on our people vs. the military. Thoughts?

Mach we managed a second world war within 20 years of the first.... Yes I believe we could have another one.

World wars were not caused by Military spending, military spending was caused by world wars. Before WWII the US and much of Europe had been letting their military age and fall into disrepair.

Truth is that at Pearl the Japanese sank a lot of ships which were second best and the French only relied on the Maginot Line...

When everyone decided to draw down their military then it only takes one or two nations to buck the trend and start a war. In WWII that was Germany / Japan.

Europe only spends their capitol on "people" because we have been a 50 year shield for them. I don't think we should shrink our Military but I do think we should shrink our ongoing scope of operations.

(04-18-2016 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  Most likely flash point-Russian invasion of Estonia.

Which is exactly why I believe that a few battalions of US armor should be deployed to the Baltics. They wouldn't be sufficient to repel an invasion but they would provide a red (white & blue) line that I don't believe even Putin would be willing to cross.

He wants to splinter NATO. No better possibility than invading a mostly defenseless Estonia and daring NATO to drive him out with a weak kneed Democrat as president.

There would be no worry about a fractured NATO if member nations actually gave two damns about their own defense and security.

War has moved into a new generation characterized by smaller groups loosely affiliated in furtherance of a long-term goal, as opposed to zero-sum hegemonies fighting face to face.

However, lowest on the "Surprise-O-Meter" would be an aggressive Russian action in the Baltic and daring NATO to do anything about it......

Highest on the "Surprise-O-Meter" would be a Chinese attack on the USA.