Yeah, didn’t think so.
trabi if you could drag yourself away from the beauty of your own opinions, could you maybe address the points we’ve all brought up?
Grey, 
Furt. Happy to oblige. Weapons of this kind do not exist yet. There is a vast difference between having to send your own countrymen to war and being able to do it completely by remote control. It’s far easier to go to war if your population isn’t worred about people dying. I think it will make the US far more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. Also, the only justification for being able to bomb something thousands of miles away as an act of defence is probably going to be some mumbo jumbo about that country supporting terrorists or whatever. Certainly not that they’re about to attack you with their army, navy and airforce. And the one thing you probably aren’t going to hit is the terrorist that’s right now planning to put anthrax in your breakfast cerial
Whatever. Yes, I do believe that America is bent on world domination. So do a lot of people.
trabi, your last statement contains an uncomplimentry characterization of a fellow board member which is entirely irrelevant to the question you have posed in the OP. Great Debates happens to be the most serious forum at these boards. Your comment appears to be in direct violation of the policies you agreed with in order to participate here. I strongly urge you to remedy this egregious lapse in judgement. I’m confident that a mod will be along shortly to show you the error of your ways.
Zenster
Zenster, a smiley was intended but accidentally left out. I have since indicated this. If grey is still offended I offer my sincere apologies, but I don’t think that lightheartedly using an outmoded expression left over from the cold war era would offend anyone but the staunchest Republican. (Not even in a serious forum such as this.)
Lets start by saying I doubt the sincerity of the smilie. No big loss.
You are confusing the weapon’s application.
It looks like it’s planned to replace strategic bombers. It would be faster and not require the current network of airfields around the world. I.e. replace slow manned bombers with fast unmanned drones. It is hardly the critical weapons system to hold the world hostage. That role could easily be played by the American nuclear deterrent.
Secondly, you are doing yourself a disservice by not looking beyond the past 2 years. Did you worry about American might in 1997? Why not? Was it due to the foreign policy choices of the previous administration? It’s equally likely that the policy will change again as the current administration is replaced and/or becomes more involved with foreign issues.
I also note that you’ve failed to address my PRC/Taiwan scenario. This weapon platform would provide a means of deterring the PRC from even attempting such a move. It would do it without the current infrastructure involved with moving carrier groups around the world. Several years ago the PRC began war games just off Taiwan. The US moved 2 carrier groups into the area and the PRC backed down. The CAV provides the same deterrent without the need for ships.
Finally I think you need to separate your disquiet with an assertive US from the paranoid believe that GW et al are out to overthrown any government they desire.
That’s a shame. I’m not in the habit of thinking malicious thoughts about strangers (I reserve them for politicians and participants in reality show mostly), and genuinely didn’t mean to cause offence. I’m sorry to have given that impression.
Yes, you are probably right. If America wants to “assert its will” then it is capable of doing it right now.
No, I never said that. That’s exactly what I’m scared of: What happens if REAL lunatic gets control?
Fair enough.
Let’s recap
- The new CAV weapon system is no worse than ICBMs and is seems to be an effort to replace/compliment strategic bombers/carrier groups by projecting power from a save location.
- This projection can be used for offensive/defensive and, and most likely in my view, preventative operations.
- Nations historically, and currently, attempt to assert their interests on the world stage through economic and military power projections.
- Other nations have similar weapons (ICBM) and the US is not coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
- Other nations continually develop weapon systems that improve on the current state of the art. I.e. The Eurofighter Typhoon.
You seem to be fearful, that the US will continue down its current policy path of “muscular diplomacy” and use this system as an uber-weapon to install itself as a world tyrant. I submit that the US has had the capability to do such as thing since mid 90’s and has not done so. I also submit that the ability to so existed prior to the ‘90s and was not used by any lunatics, even in a global situations much more tense than currently exists. From these I say that fears that this weapon system will become a global club used by the US are tenuous to say the least.
I’d also say your ideas of a) “pissing yourself if it accidentally hit the White House” and b) passing out similar weapons to tyrants (Libya) are depressing and dangerous on their own.
Just like to get a couple of things straightened out. First of all I realise now that my OP was not really suitable for great debates, I should have posted in INMHO. “Scares the shit out of me” doesn’t really give much to go on.
In the absence of any specific issues to debate, posters to this thread have focused on the question of whether or not these weapons represent any real escalation of military power on the part of the USA.
I disagree. Forget “worse” for a minute, as the US military is no doubt saying “better,” i.e. more advanced, more effective etc. They are obviously far more advanced than current ballistic weapons and - being weapons - better means capable of doing more damage, killing more people etc. In this sense they are “worse” from the point of view of anyone who objects to this type of thing, and better from the point of view of Dr. Strangelove types at the Pentagon. Certainly, if they were no different from current weapons it wouldn’t take so much time and money to develop them. Again, this is what is so worrying: What’s the range of an ICBM? Surely far enough to defend America. So why the need for one that goes even farther?
Maybe the question here is really: should the US be focusing so intensely on military development at all? There is probably already a thread about this.
The other points brought up are almost certainly also the subject of other threads, so I don’t know if it’s worth thrashing them out again here.
One was US foreign policy:
Yes, but is this reassuring? The US may develop…? Of course, but what if it doesn’t? What if it goes the other way?
I really don’t see much difference between preventive and offensive - that’s my subjective view.
Yes, but doesn’t it worry you when one nation becomes disproportionately powerful? To be able to wipe out any country in the world at the push of a button is pretty powerful. To put it another way: who polices the police?
- Other nations have similar weapons (ICBM) and the US is not coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
Like I said, I don’t agree that these are the same as today’s ICBMs, but maybe to phrase it differently: The US doesn’t take kindly to being told what it can or can’t do. In contrast, it’s very good at dishing out the advice (or regime changes where necessary). My point here was merely that I find the application of a double standard worrying.
- Other nations continually develop weapon systems that improve on the current state of the art. I.e. The Eurofighter Typhoon.
This is true. I stand corrected. In fact, this is worrying in itself. Just how much of a good idea is it to start another arms race?
No. Petulant, childish, I admit, but not dangerous.
Advocating the allocation of advanced hypersonic weaponry to a loon like Ghadaffi is most definitely dangerous. Such weapons are safer in Shrub’s possession, and that’s pretty bad to begin with.
Anybody who is seriously prepared to act on such ridiculous advice from a poster on an internet forum is:
a) Unlikely to be in possession of such weaponry, and therefore incapable of carrying it out
b) Already two cogs short of a gearbox and liable to do such things without any extra prompting from me
So I think the world is safe for the time being 
At least, as safe as it was before… :eek:
Well Trabi these things don’t appear to be able to drop more than 5000 kg, which compares to a B-1 bomber’s payload of 24 940kg bombs. Now, the B-1 is the only supersonic bomber the US has and requires some sort of base near by to operate out of. For Afghanistan these bombers were based out of a tiny island in the Indian Ocean. So what do we have then? A new platform that carries 20% of the B-1 payload, moves faster, requires no forward base (which is expensive and occasionally politically difficult to operate out of) and requires no pilot. Being based in America it makes maintenance and operation easier on the US military. So it seems better in this context means more flexible/cheaper. The damage that it can inflict is likely less than what a carrier group could do, but compare that 1 fast moving drone with some bombs to a small fleet of ships.
For preemptive read deterrent to maybe clarify my meaning. There will be nasty things happening in the world in the future. Not all of them will be triggered by the US. The threat of use of these platforms would deter obvious aggression from other states. Take my PRC/Taiwan example as a case in point. The invasion could not happen as the US could instantly project power in to the strait.
I wouldn’t worry about the European Typhoon starting a new arms race or being evidence of one. The point is that upgrading military hardware is inevitable and not necessarily a sign of impending doom.
Now I can understand you being leery of the current administration. I think you’ve likely seen the unease some American doper have. My example of the US being more multilateralist isn’t that unlikely. Look at American involvement during the post-Cold War era. The problem is that the current administration has decided that American must assert its interests more aggressively on the world stage. Canadians love to use the image of a mouse sleeping beside an elephant, which aptly sums up the issue. The American do nothing other countries aren’t doing, it’s the scale at which it takes place that makes us nervous.
No, but are there not signs that it is moving in this direction. Maybe the word ‘tyrant’ is a bit emotive, but we have only been on this particular path since Sept 11, it’s early days yet and the US has already invaded two countries.
But what made the situations more tense? The cold war. The existance of another superpower with similar capabilities. If a single superpower obtains such advanced technology that it becomes effectively invincible, what is the guarantee that it will remain (or perhaps, become would be a better word) a benign entity.
I can’t see it being used as anything else. A club is a club, whether you actually hit someone with it or not.
There were signs the US was playing a key role in shaping the multilateralist post Cold War era (see Gulf War I, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, East Timor). You’ve had 2-3 of America making you uneasy. That’s a short time period to try to extrapolate forward. You have yet to show any evidence that this trend is likely to continue.
The past 2 conflicts the US has initiated fall fairly outside the “lets randomly pick a country and invade” mentality you seem to think exists. The Taliban refused to hand over Al Queda; the US was fully justified in going in after them. Iraq, of course, is/was different as the thousands of threads point out. There you had a belligerent country in violation of the Gulf War I cease fire agreement, violations of UN SC resolutions, actively targeting American and UK planes, unable to account for its WMD program and led by a ruthless thug with a history of taking his army into the field.
As for a club being a club, yep. Given everyone else has clubs; it seems odd the US would willingly give up its Club Mk 2. That doesn’t make it the weapon of choice for a hegemon.
You use the present tense to describe these weapons, when in fact they are only just starting to develop them. From the link I posted:
(my italics)
This strikes me as being very significant. It also frees the US of any incentive to consult with other nations before launching an attack. I hope your optimism regarding US foreign policy is borne out, but should things be left to chance in this way?
“Ultimate”? What do they mean by that, I wonder?
25 years is a long time, surely long enough to find ways of either increasing the payload or making that payload far more destructive than what can currently be delivered by a fleet of B1s, say. To say nothing of the possibility of using nuclear warheads instead of conventional ones.
Also, if one of these things is equivalent to x air-force units but is cheaper to build and maintain, what’s to stop the US from manufacturing enough of the things to make up the difference?
There is a huge difference between 'preemptive" and “deterrant,” by the way. To me at least, preemptive implies “offence is the best from of defense,” while deterrant suggests “talk softly and carry a big stick.”
I apologize for mixing tenses. The article does say that the final platform would be 2025 or so. I suppose that is the final mach 10 5,000 kg setup.
So where are we then?
- We’ve agreed that this new system is no different (in destructive potential) than an ICBM.
- We’ve agreed that other nations have destructive weapons targeted at each other
- We’ve also agreed that it’s likely to be used as long range, fast response system to project force globally like an evolved B-1 bomber, that is cheaper to operate (though possibly not cheaper to build).
So we’ll have a faster, lower maintenance weapons with B-1 capabilities in 20 years. I don’t find that particularly frightening.
Your right, my use of preemptive muddied the waters. Take the PRC/Taiwan example since we’ve got it. The PRC moves to invade Taiwan, the US says stop or the fleet is dead. The PRC says, try and get here in time. The PRC fleet finds itself at the bottom of the strait 2 hrs later. The deterrent capabilities of the weapon failed but not its preemptive strike abilities.
You still have yet to convince me with any evidence that the US is going to use these to achieve hegemony. I’ve listed numerous times in the past where the US foreign policy was likely closer to what you would like to see. You have yet to convincingly argue that it won’t swing back.
What the fuck is “ballistic speed” ? The speed pertaining to ballistics ?
Let’s hope the Pentagon has you on their team the project might take 100 years then…
Oops. I seem to be lagging one post behind.
Under Clinton…
Yes, it’s been a short but extremely eventful time period. What evidence would you accept regarding something that you yourself maintain is extremely difficult to extrapolate? All I have to go on are statements by the US administration which suggest that they are intent on continuing their world reforms. Of course I can’t predict the direction that US foreign policy will take over the next 25 years. Can anyone? All I’m saying is that in the most extreme scenario, with no checks and balances, a single superpower in possession of an invincible superweapon puts every single country in the world at the mercy of one government. An oft-used argument is that America’s consitution, system of government and the structure of its society makes it immune from turning despotic. For me, this isn’t enough.
I never said it was random. I do not believe in the existance of such a mentality. Maybe the “randomly pick a justification for attacking” mentality would fit the bill though. Like you say, the reasons for the war in Afghanistan and especially Iraq have been (are being?) thrashed out elsewhere. Suffice it to say that on the whole I subscribe to the ‘business interests were the real motivation’ school, but you probably guessed that already
[QUOTE]
As for a club being a club, yep. Given everyone else has clubs; it seems odd the US would willingly give up its Club Mk 2. That doesn’t make it the weapon of choice for a hegemon.
[QUOTE/]
Weeell. It’s pretty handy one for a hegemon to have though, isn’t it? Definitely on the shopping list, just below the laser beam used by the villain in Dr No. Granted, there are people who say that they use their AK47s exclusively for clay pidgeon shooting… :rolleyes:
Okey doke.
[QUOTE]
- We’ve agreed that this new system is no different (in destructive potential) than an ICBM.
[QUOTE/]
Have we? If by destructive potential you mean the amount of explosives it carries, maybe so. But in terms of effectiveness - range and speed - it’s likely to be a vast improvement, end result: the US can inflict far more damage on someone else than that person can on it. (Although I can’t imagine it would do much to prevent lo-tech terrorism).
Your own example illustrates this:
[QUOTE]
Take the PRC/Taiwan example since we’ve got it. The PRC moves to invade Taiwan, the US says stop or the fleet is dead. The PRC says, try and get here in time. The PRC fleet finds itself at the bottom of the strait 2 hrs later. The deterrent capabilities of the weapon failed but not its preemptive strike abilities.
[QUOTE/]
As long as the PRC fleet ends up at the bottom of the strait, does it matter how much explosives the missiles are carrying? The thing is still a much more effective weapon.
[QUOTE]
2. We’ve agreed that other nations have destructive weapons targeted at each other
[QUOTE/]
The operative word being ‘at each other,’ not one nation with vastly superior military capabilities to all the rest (although I admit, the US is probably the strongest single military power in the world already).
[QUOTE]
3. We’ve also agreed that it’s likely to be used as long range, fast response system to project force globally like an evolved B-1 bomber, that is cheaper to operate (though possibly not cheaper to build).
[QUOTE/]
Yes, to project force globally (is that not what you do with a global club?). An evolved B1 - in the sense that a human being is an evolved plankton?
[QUOTE]
You still have yet to convince me with any evidence that the US is going to use these to achieve hegemony.
[QUOTE/]
I don’t have to convince you of any such thing. I’m not arguing that this is a certainty, I’m saying that we should avoid a situation where the US would have the opportunity to do so in such a way that couldn’t be prevented by other nations.
[QUOTE]
I’ve listed numerous times in the past where the US foreign policy was likely closer to what you would like to see. You have yet to convincingly argue that it won’t swing back.
[QUOTE/]
Again, it might. None of us can say anything more than that with any certainty.
Sorry about the botched quote marks…
George Bush (Republican) ran Gulf War I and initiated Somalia, not Clinton. Some would argue that Somalia was a “gift” to the incoming Clinton.
I think we’d agree that the world would be a better place if there were no weapons and the community of nations was a community of democracies. Problem is, it isn’t and militaries are required.
As for the US, well what can I say? You’ve taken the actions of the past 2-3 years and looked at a scenario I find highly unlikely. From past 50 years of American policy and their national myths, I find it hard to see the current unilateral/interventionist path continuing. Let’s just keep our eyes open.