(03-11-2019 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:12 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  I was in the home of NATO yesterday and they feel that they don’t need us.

it'd be great if we got an eviction notice....

Now that we are something close to energy independent---im kinda starting to think we really dont need to be the worlds policeman anymore. Continue our position as the most powerful military on earth, but go back to more of the pre WWII USA where we were not constantly involved in tiny wars 1000's of miles from home. Basically, dont jack with us in the western hemisphere and we wont jack with you (Monroe Doctine).

The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.

No pay, no way.

(03-12-2019 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.
No pay, no way.

As long as the Cold War was going on, we got "paid" by their tucking in behind us and following our orders to oppose the USSR. We also gave them basically one-way access into our markets. As Peter Zeihan says, we bribed them.

The problem was that nobody ever figured out what to do if we won. We did, 30 years ago, and we've been living with an outmoded paradigm for those 30 years.

(03-12-2019 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.

No pay, no way.

We do get paid in incredible perks. You want to be in our position, trust me.

(03-12-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.
No pay, no way.

As long as the Cold War was going on, we got "paid" by their tucking in behind us and following our orders to oppose the USSR. We also gave them basically one-way access into our markets. As Peter Zeihan says, we bribed them.

The problem was that nobody ever figured out what to do if we won. We did, 30 years ago, and we've been living with an outmoded paradigm for those 30 years.

THIS....every single nugget...

(03-12-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.
No pay, no way.

As long as the Cold War was going on, we got "paid" by their tucking in behind us and following our orders to oppose the USSR. We also gave them basically one-way access into our markets. As Peter Zeihan says, we bribed them.

The problem was that nobody ever figured out what to do if we won. We did, 30 years ago, and we've been living with an outmoded paradigm for those 30 years.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who listens to Zeihan. We are in a good position moving forward.

(03-11-2019 12:59 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 11:30 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 10:31 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:56 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:21 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'll let this one simmer a few hours before I post the real answer.

Offer your rationale for your figure, even if it's just "that's what quick pick gave me at the gas station this morning."

Not enough.

The best that could happen was a delay.

The one thing that Russia and China have over the USA and NATO is ground troops and conventional warfare equipment. It is not even close.

What good are their ground troops when we can kill them all with Tomahawk cruise missiles from 3,000 miles away?

You can't. Tomahawks don't work that way.

So are you arguing we don't have the technical capability to take out thousands of troops marching on the ground from a distance?

That's not how it would work. Troops dont 'march' across the ground anymore.

Since this is a sports place, lets use a sports analogy. The Texas A&M Stadium seats what 100K? How long does it take to fill that place up and empty it? Probably a few hours at most. And thats only because of the pinch point of parking. The fact is 100k people can more easily up until the final point of parking.

The ability to move mass numbers of people very quickly means that Russia could have 100K soldiers all around Poland before anyone knew. If Putin wanted to pull off a capture of Poland, send troops out ahead of times with plain clothes to certain areas to wait. The moment you 'declare war' a large number of your troops would already be in position to engage in surgical strikes against the capital.
If you're going already deciding to declare war unprevoked, do so in a way that it's over as quick as possible. Russia could potentially capture the key points of the capital long before a NATO response could be made.
And even if the US wanted to respond instantly... what could we even do? Send cruise missiles into the heart of Warsaw blind? Such a response would never be authorized, and even if it is considered it wouldnt be approved. Cruise missiles require boots on the ground providing intel on targets.

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:12 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  I was in the home of NATO yesterday and they feel that they don’t need us.

it'd be great if we got an eviction notice....

Now that we are something close to energy independent---im kinda starting to think we really dont need to be the worlds policeman anymore. Continue our position as the most powerful military on earth, but go back to more of the pre WWII USA where we were not constantly involved in tiny wars 1000's of miles from home. Basically, dont jack with us in the western hemisphere and we wont jack with you (Monroe Doctine).

The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

We are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend and have the largest debt we have ever had. Spending enough on defense to defend everyone in the world is simply not sustainable.

(03-12-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.
No pay, no way.

As long as the Cold War was going on, we got "paid" by their tucking in behind us and following our orders to oppose the USSR. We also gave them basically one-way access into our markets. As Peter Zeihan says, we bribed them.

The problem was that nobody ever figured out what to do if we won. We did, 30 years ago, and we've been living with an outmoded paradigm for those 30 years.

Suppose we did stop being the world's policeman.

Power abhors a vacuum. Dictatorships will step in and take that power.

Democracy's biggest weakness is that outside forces can bribe their way into power. That hasn't happened in the USA because of our size and historical isolation. But it's happened elsewhere. Look at Lebanon - they were a peaceful and thriving Democracy for two decades until Syria (which is 4 times bigger) started bribing the Druze and the immigrant Palestinians. Lebanon fought wars with Israel that the Lebanese people had no desire to be involved in. Today the Syrian Civil War has led to Lebanese being literally a minority in their own country.

Power abhors a vacuum. Dictatorships will step in and take that power.

Without US influence, China will turn Malaysia (23% Chinese) and the Philippines into client states. Taiwan is gone. New Guinea is tiny and weak, so this puts them on the doorstep to Australia and Indonesia. Can Australia, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia form a united front against China? Indonesia and Korea still hate Japan from WW2, so probably not. And it's easy to infiltrate a country of 25 million (Australia) with illegal immigration. Even today, the Aussies are wavering between supporting China or the USA. If the USA leaves and China is their dominant neighbor, then freedom is gone in Australia. Can an aging Japan face Chinese hegemony alone? The USA is exceptional because we are the only country that all of China's opponents trust. Without resolute US support, China will dominate Asia.

Israel is finished if the Arabs and Iranians are no longer scared of American power.

In Africa, Nigeria (200 million people), Ethiopia (100 million), Tanzania (60 million), and Kenya (50 million) are budding democracies with moderate levels of freedom and high growth potential. But they're still young and need another generation of stability. Without the Pax Americana they'll be throttled by Chinese money and Russian private armies (which are already in Nigeria and Ethiopia).

Russia's little green men will make quick work of the Baltics if America leaves NATO.

Germany/France might wake up to confront Russia. But after the Boomers die off, how friendly will they be to an America that abandoned them?



The real bottom line: No country is isolated any more. Do we want to live in a world where fascist regimes control the bulk of international corporations that we interact with every day?

Dictatorships support each other. Just look at Putin and Erdogen, Putin and China, or the Napoleanic Wars. How long can freedom last if free countries don't support each other?

(03-12-2019 12:00 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.
No pay, no way.

As long as the Cold War was going on, we got "paid" by their tucking in behind us and following our orders to oppose the USSR. We also gave them basically one-way access into our markets. As Peter Zeihan says, we bribed them.

The problem was that nobody ever figured out what to do if we won. We did, 30 years ago, and we've been living with an outmoded paradigm for those 30 years.

Suppose we did stop being the world's policeman.

Power abhors a vacuum. Dictatorships will step in and take that power.

Democracy's biggest weakness is that outside forces can bribe their way into power. That hasn't happened in the USA because of our size and historical isolation. But it's happened elsewhere. Look at Lebanon - they were a peaceful and thriving Democracy for two decades until Syria (which is 4 times bigger) started bribing the Druze and the immigrant Palestinians. Lebanon fought wars with Israel that the Lebanese people had no desire to be involved in. Today the Syrian Civil War has led to Lebanese being literally a minority in their own country.

Power abhors a vacuum. Dictatorships will step in and take that power.

Without US influence, China will turn Malaysia (23% Chinese) and the Philippines into client states. Taiwan is gone. New Guinea is tiny and weak, so this puts them on the doorstep to Australia and Indonesia. Can Australia, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia form a united front against China? Indonesia and Korea still hate Japan from WW2, so probably not. And it's easy to infiltrate a country of 25 million (Australia) with illegal immigration. Even today, the Aussies are wavering between supporting China or the USA. If the USA leaves and China is their dominant neighbor, then freedom is gone in Australia. Can an aging Japan face Chinese hegemony alone? The USA is exceptional because we are the only country that all of China's opponents trust. Without resolute US support, China will dominate Asia.

Israel is finished if the Arabs and Iranians are no longer scared of American power.

In Africa, Nigeria (200 million people), Ethiopia (100 million), Tanzania (60 million), and Kenya (50 million) are budding democracies with moderate levels of freedom and high growth potential. But they're still young and need another generation of stability. Without the Pax Americana they'll be throttled by Chinese money and Russian private armies (which are already in Nigeria and Ethiopia).

Russia's little green men will make quick work of the Baltics if America leaves NATO.

Germany/France might wake up to confront Russia. But after the Boomers die off, how friendly will they be to an America that abandoned them?



The real bottom line: No country is isolated any more. Do we want to live in a world where fascist regimes control the bulk of international corporations that we interact with every day?

Dictatorships support each other. Just look at Putin and Erdogen, Putin and China, or the Napoleanic Wars. How long can freedom last if free countries don't support each other?

Russia has a Navy half the size of the US. Their AF is about half the size of the US AF. If you consider Army, Navy, and Marine Air wings, the US combined airpower is over 3 times as large as Russian combined air power. We have 10 "mini carriers" and the Russians have one (thats so unreliable its basically combat ineffective). We have 10 super carriers. There are no other super carriers in the world.

The Russian army has 1 million men--the US only around 476K...but its up over a million with the National Guard...which the Russians dont really have. The Russians do have a much much larger army reserve than the US (2.6 million vs 200K).

The point is---we outspend the Russians and have a MUCH more capable military--yet the Russians can pretty do what they wish as long as they stay relatively close to home. The world police role is expensive--and the fact is---we really no longer have the political will to do it anymore. What fits us best is being the most powerful military in the world---with the ability to project power and protect our own sea lanes with our Navy---while engaging in mutual defense pacts with certain allies that agree to pull their own weight or are at least of significant US strategic value.

We cant defend all of Europe while they just toss in a few dollars here and there. We'd be better off engaging the Soviets in a strategic alliance that protects both of us against the Chinese. As JRSec has said---ultimately---we have much more in common with the Russians than we do differences.

(03-12-2019 09:15 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:07 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The current situation benefits us greatly. We've had 70+ years of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity because we are the world's policeman.

If we're going to police the world we're going to be paid by the world just like every other policeman.
No pay, no way.

As long as the Cold War was going on, we got "paid" by their tucking in behind us and following our orders to oppose the USSR. We also gave them basically one-way access into our markets. As Peter Zeihan says, we bribed them.
The problem was that nobody ever figured out what to do if we won. We did, 30 years ago, and we've been living with an outmoded paradigm for those 30 years.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who listens to Zeihan. We are in a good position moving forward.

I listen to him, and like him, because he comes from a very similar perspective to where I have been since my military days. I think maybe there's something about those who think of global strategy from a national defense perspective that leads us that way.

We are, because we have always been in a good position. We are in such a good position that, despite our best efforts to screw it up, we have not been able to. We can probably survive future efforts to screw it up.

But I just wish we would stop trying to screw it up, look around and see what we have, and make the best out of rather than the worst.

We need to quit giving everybody else such huge one-way trade breaks, and we need to get those who can to help us with the world policeman role.

There's a new world order and we need a new paradigm to deal with it. When Ross Perot (Annapolis grad and another with a fairly heavy defense/national security background) ran for president in 1992, he said something that I had been thinking since the fall of the Berlin wall, "In the post cold war era, economic power will be more important than military power." China gets that. We don't. But China (and Russia) are in much more vulnerable positions than we are. We have easy and obvious counters to what they do, and neither really has the ability to be an existential threat to the US, aside from nuclear holocaust. I'm ready for us to start pursuing our own interests instead of worrying to death that we might offend someone.