The Pentagon is planning for war with China and Russia — can it handle both?

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Uh, no..........China isn't going to attack the US; one of its biggest, if not the biggest markets.

China doesn't have to declare a war on the US to take it over. For the last 20 years Chinese couples have been flying to the US to birth their babies in the US so their kids can qualify for cheaper tuition. China will simply absorb the US.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

So, do you think that our 'planning' will ever include just the defense of our boarders? Why does 'planning' comprise of invading other countries? Wouldn't the MAD scheme provide us with all of the defense we need? If we are attacked on our own soil, then we have the full right to counter attack with the upmost hostility, until they are off of our shores.

If they attack us remotely, we will respond in kind. No invasion necessary. No need for foreign bases. We can hit any target in the world without those bases. We should just declare that if we are attacked, we will respond with a greater response and then that is it. There is no need for any of our soldiers on foreign soil. That will never serve to protect our land and boarders.

The current 'planning' is just brainwashing the american masses that we have to be proactive. That we have to strike first to prevent attacks on our home soil, BS. All this does is to ensure we remain the pawns for the powerful. We are simply a tool and very possibly a very uneducated one at that because we continuously allow ourselves to be used. We pay in life and blood so our controllers can be paid in material and power.

Maybe it is time for a change. Time to take ourselves out of this game and truly protect our country instead of making enimies across the globe with long lasting memories. That doesn't sound very smart. Why can't we be neutral?

The thread is about planning for the worst case where China and/or Russia attacks us. Maybe the odds of that happening are very low but if there's even a remote possibility and you want to preserve your way of life, you have to consider it.

Going to war is a completely different topic. I don't like it either whe we invade another country without good cause. I believe we have too many military overseas and would love to see us back off some and spend the money here to fix our own problems.

So if you want to talk about going to war instead of preparing against it, start a new thread.

a reply to: yuppa

when it comes to superpowers i dont any will go to war unless they can secure space. once space isnt an issue im sure it will be then they decide to team up against us, even when they cut each other off from their lands. i think they both are securing their borders & taking strategic lands already in case of war, where they can infultrate & base quick next to home for defences.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, I know, you'll still blame the US somehow. All the violence in the world is obviously our fault and if we would just stop everyone else would stop resource hunting and we'd all magically get along.

Simple objective information. I requested people look and compare the two nations over the course of their history. Funny you wont look. Why because the truth hurts real bad.

Why do you think most of the world considers the US to be the greatest threat to world peace. Any idea why. A little self reflection can go a long way in helping one grow up and accept their responsibilities.

Wikipedia
China is nothing but a warring nation. Granted, a lot of it is civil war but China has always segregated itself from the rest of the rest of the world until the 20th century. Now they are on a path to become just like the USA. Yes, they will become the biggest economy. Yes, they will become a very big super power. You'll then be moaning about how China oppresses you instead of the USA. I don't know where you live but it must be depressing to know some other nation is always dominating you.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

We still dont know what these countries have up their sleeve.

NM

a reply to: Zaphod58

While the usa may not be the sole cause of all worldly strife right now, we are certainly a huge part of waging wars and killing people around the globe.

Why is it our job to police the world? Has the entire planet agreed on a single set of morals? Why are we trying to impose our standards on others?

Why should it matter what the rest of the world does? What business is it of ours? We have a 400 year history of blood and violence. Has it made the world a safer place yet?

Maybe it is time to try something different. Maybe we could bring our troops home and see what happens?

a reply to: ClovenSky

I would personally love to. But it won't change many of the events going on in the world. As long as there is competition for resources, there will be wars, and land grabs. I don't agree with being the world police, but it's naive to think that if we bring all our troops home then the world will suddenly be at peace.

I'd love to see a different approach, and would love to find a way that would work. What that would be is beyond me though.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

That would be all well and good if it stopped at planning. Does it? Or through this military planning and media exposure do we soften the american minds to accept our 400 years of continuous warfare? These are our favorite tactics, making up stories of weapons of mass destruction, gas attacks that have been proven false and vilification of foreign leaders. It certainly doesn't appear these 'planning' stages stop there.

We start by saying 'but we are just planning, just preparing in case'. Once we have the logistics down, then something seems to mysteriously trigger a response from us, just as it was 'planned'. Then off to war we go.

The really nice thing is, at least around my area, people are waking up. They do not view this 'planning' to be benevolent but see it for what it is intended to be, just one of the steps to carrying out the actions that further enrich our MIC. Just like our advisors in vietnam, because we are just there to supervise, to plan and nothing else.

But good luck to you and your argument. It will be fun to see more and more people wake up to this unmoral game of blood and tears. Just 'planning' indeed. If that were true, this thread would only be 1 page.

Screw it, not worth it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I completely agree. By bringing our troops home and dismantling our foreign bases, may reduce the pain and suffering we are directly causing, but it won't do jack for world peace. Why is world peace our problem? Why can't we mind our own business?

Are we leading by example? Why don't we try setting a different example? Are we unable to become self sufficient as a country?

Why would it be so wrong to simply try? I am sure if the world goes into a tail spin after we withdraw, there will be many begging for us to come back, or maybe not. Why are we interfering and preventing other countries from solving their own problems?

Maybe like a responsible and humble parent we should lead by example? Maybe we shouldn't always provide the answers (laughable, but needed as an example) but make these countries come up with their own solutions?

If our government sets that type of example, why are we so surprised to see our citizens adopt the same mindset?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Screw it, not worth it.

I feel the exact same way but it is my tax dollars that is funding this war machine. That makes me directly responsible for the taking of life by our MIC.

So instead of just running to another area or country, I am trying to change the structure here. Instead of tucking my tail and running, I am trying to clean up my own back yard. You asked 'what can be done'. This is it. Change the opinions.

I usually stay away from pro military threads and I mistakenly believed this was not one of them. Now I recognize the oorah. My apologies.



I hope the karmic cost will not be too much of a burden but I can't imagine any action costing more than what we are currently doing with our military.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: face23785

Why are we in Afghanistan? I had always thought it was to protect the poppy fields.

And this is why you have no idea what you're talking about. Listen to some more anti-military propaganda. I don't care. I don't have time for someone that deeply deluded.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Well there is no way the US will get their one world government without a fight. THe US have a one world government as a mission. That wont happened without billions of deaths. Do you really think Russia will let them selves be governed by the US? or let alone China..... hell no.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Well there is no way the US will get their one world government without a fight. THe US have a one world government as a mission. That wont happened without billions of deaths. Do you really think Russia will let them selves be governed by the US? or let alone China..... hell no.

Umm, you forget the rest of the world.

If US would want to rule the world, they would have to fight everyone at once.

The United States of America (as you know it) would perish.
The rest of the world would be in really bad shape.

a reply to: Spacespider


No. the majority of the members are in leag with the US doctrine......Just watch western media.

Non of the members of NATO dear to speak agianst the US now. Not after they have been a team member and accused russia for being the bad boy.

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Of course they would have a plan, it doesn’t mean they’ll carry it out, but it would be remiss to not have one.

It was revealed a few years ago that they have such plans for pretty much everyone, including close allies.

Thank you. I want to know why they're going to lengths such as this and I realize war is big money. Do you think they're creeping towards a world system now to set up by say 2020? People aren't going to hail it in willingly.

The US has always had a policy goal of being able to fight major campaigns in Asia and Europe simultaneously. Can they? Probably not right now. They are increasingly short of whizbangs and have long neglected the less sexy aspects like transport and support equipment. Remember how long the build up was to Gulf War I? And that was with several other allies. We've always had the benefit of nearby cooperative allies to stage from, so it has not been critical.

As for why, the United States has decided the cost is worth the ability to protect/project their interests across the globe. Is it sound? Not always in application, but a lot of people died in the forties because we figured it was not worth the cost in the thirties and reduced our armed forces to piteous levels largely with antiquated equipment.

The short answer to the question posed...

Hell NO! America couldn't win against one let alone both.

Plus they only fight countries "inferior by far" to themselves. Look at history.

US doesn't actually win any damn wars!! Take Vietnam....LOST

There isn't enough "Americans", in the "U.S.A." left, to handle a "war", on such/of that scale. (Not enough Soldier's, and still, very "few" marines). Enstead? I'd ask the OP, can you, by yourself, ..Handle a squad of either? What's the "Pentagon" got to do with your "safety"? It's not their job to "protect you". Their job is "to protect" the ground you stand on, not you. That's your job! .. OP without people like you, The U.S.A can "handle" the globe. .. Because we're awesome like that. It's sickening you ask such ignorant questions.

a reply to: watchitburn

Good for your plans. I guarantee both these countries won’t initiate warefare, it will be you the USA. Once you initiate, get ready to get your ass kicked.

a reply to: face23785

War is good for business .....

Peace is good for business ......

Ferengi Law of Acquisition