Fed to the fiscally sane: drop dead

[Tuckerfan]

@Discordia

Al Qaeda can’t be defeated with tanks and bombers. None of America’s enemies, current - or future IMO - can be.

Social work alone can’t defeat AQ, either.

Even if China disentangles it’s economy, and it’s nowhere close to doing so, I find it inconceivable they will ever attack the US. There’s simply no benefit. Worst case is another sort of Cold War, with economic control being the number one battleground. Again, something that tanks and bombers aren’t going to help you with.

Some estimates have the Chinese economy overtaking that of the US before 2020 (of course, those were all made before the global economy started headng towards a death spiral, so they may well be off), and if you don’t think that building up conventional weapons wasn’t an intigral part of the strategy used by both sides during the Cold War, you’re sorely mistaken.

Do you really think China is going to invade the mainland US? And do what? Occupy it with millions of soldiers while guerrillas pick them off? What on earth is the point?

Germany and Japan never invaded the US (well, not in significant numbers, at any rate), by your logic they were never a threat to the US. HIstory would disagree with your assessment, then. Taiwan is a close ally of the US, and were China to invade them, we’d quite possibly go to war over the matter. The battle would not be fought on US soil (just like WWI and WWII wags not fought on US soil). Suppose the US or China decide that the other side shouldn’t have access to the oil in the Mid-East, you think a lot of the fighting is going to be concentrated here? Of course not (though if the Chinese have some long range bombers, we could well get hit, assuming a “best case” scenerio and the war doesn’t go nuclear), we’ll fight it in the Mid-East, and bomb China (and possibly attempt to occupy key points of Chinese territory). The standard rule of thumb for military engagements is that you need at least a 3:1 ratio of your forces to those of the enemy to assure victory, for the US to be able to do that is going to require a much larger military.

I suppose the world could change in the future, where some sort of conventional war for the US is actually conceivable, but there should be plenty of time to deal with that if it ever looks possible.

“Conceivable”? Its already a reality. We’re involved in two of them at the moment, in case you hadn’t noticed, and the reason they’re both going on has a great deal to with the fact that we didn’t commit the level of military forces necessary to accomplish the job. Yes, yes, I know, I know, there’s a number of non-military things that we should have done as well (like staying out of Iraq), but the fact remains that we should have put more forces in the field than we did. Nor is it like we’ve got much reserve capacity when it comes to the military, at the moment. Our forces are straining to the breaking point, not only in terms of personnel, but also in terms of equipment, what happens if we have to deal with another “brushfire” in another part of the world? You think that peace, love,and understanding will break out in Iraq and Afghanistan? We don’t necessarily need to have forces in those countries at this point to ensure that AQ doesn’t come to power, but we’d damned well better be able to put forces back into those countries if things turn to shit after we leave (and in Afghanistan, at least, AQ might decide that because the US is tied up elsewhere, it would be a good time for them to try and retake the country).

[Brunhilda]

Here’s a few of the other war scenarios that could break out (and necessitate us keeping more than just our automanufacturers in the United States):
-Pakistan. Right now, the Pakistani government is rather unstable, and it would not take much for them to fall into the hands of the Taliban. Recently, their government began firing at US Commandos who crossed the border to track down Taliban warlords. This is not the act of a stable ally, but one which has a large potential to flip sides on us.
-Russia. They made a veiled threat about nuking Poland a couple weeks ago (have we forgot Poland?), and their ownership of important reserves of oil and natural gas has allowed them to play bully politics with their neighbors. Conceivably, it is a situation which can expand into Russia bullying Western Europe.
-Africa-namely, the Somali-Ethiopia area has been becoming increasingly destabilized, and could become a major staging ground for terrorists.

All of these situations make me very nervous about doing anything which could reduce our ability to make products here. We may need to convert additional resources in the United States to up military production. Furthermore, we need to emphasize providing food here from home rather than importing grains from elsewhere. Furthermore, we are still highly unprepared for the civilian-level response we need for disasters- not just terrorist, but natural- so we need every bit of useful stuff we can make to keep ourselves afloat.

Additionally, we need the jobs in this country that manufacturing provides. That’s why we should be concerned about the health of the various auto giants. Personally, my car is Korean, but still, they should be propped up just for these reasons.

The fewer supply lines that are involved, the better. If important things are being made in India, and the Indian Ocean gets destabilized, or a land route through pakistan, we could be in deep dog doo if we need something.