It ain't World War II and we don't have the industrial base. How Fast Could America Build More Aircraft Carriers?
See also this: Russia Military Flame-Throwing System Under Development Amid Rising Regional Tensions.
And this: U.S. Told Ukraine to Stand Down as Putin Invaded.
And this: China's Missile Program the Greatest Long-Term Threat to U.S. Security.
That's right...it ain't WWII .. carriers are no longer needed and they are too high a value assets to actually put in harms way .. in other words, useless against any true adversary.
WWIII has the potential to utterly destroy the world as we know it. Only the brain-dead would argue against that.
WWI was a trench war, introducing the machine gun, tank, sub-marine and airplane.
WWII saw the expanded use of devices from WWI and introduced the blitzkrieg, the demise of Battleships and the rise of carriers as force projection to reaches previously unheard of. Devastating. Let us not forget the introduction of the ICBM by the NAZI's, and of course, the splitting of atoms.
WWIII will likely combine technologies from previous wars by a quantum leap in efficiency. I.e., drones. Carriers are slow and vulnerable to air attack off the horizon and possibly an Nuclear ICBM MIRV that would only have to detonate 'in the neighborhood' to incapacitate or destroy. Not to mention sub attack by torps or cruise missiles. Starting triggers are numerous, but the root of any trigger is the combination of man's anger and pride with the ability to remotely run a war could be man's undoing.
WWIII will likely be a 'run whatcha brung' as there will be no time for manufacturing the instruments of war. Proper preparation will prevent piss poor performance.
We ain't supposed to win. Think a little outside the box here. The elite are looking for a one world government. The u.S. is to be taken down to third world level and basically emptied of population in rural areas. China is to be the dominant power. So militarily speaking, we are right on course..
The pla came over here and bought up entire factories and moved them brick by brick back to China. From iron works and smelting plants to cement plants, they took away pretty much anything that could be used for creating infrastructure or war materials whose owners were only too glad to be rid of them. I know of a cement plant, took up city blocks, huge kilns etc etc that had been disused for a decade or so and was dangerously decayed, the pla came in and took every bit of it no matter what condition it was in. Wich leads me to another deal with China, they don't have 4 intelligence agencies, they have 4 thousand. The pla goes up to some poor Chinese businessman and says "you have x time to get this information/data/design/chip/technology, and the poor businessman has no choice but to try to merge his company with some western company to get the mandated items. So not only is the infrastructure gone but also tech secrets, not to mention the klinton regime selling icbm guidance technology to the pla.
We won ww2 because we made 12k b17s and 50k shermans, 19k b24s and had a much larger population than Japan and Germany combined, not because our stuff was better. I figure the next big war will go the same way, whoever makes the most stuff to fight with and can lose zillions of guys without decreasing combat effectiveness will come out on top.
Russia and China are our friends, don't ya know?
The greatest long term threat to the security of the United States is disarmament of the citizen militia. The greatest threat posed by China is their control of U.S. debt instruments and the capability of undermining the global economy, followed by information warfare capabilities including both conventional propaganda/espionage and digital information capabilities. Ballistic missile developments are probably not going to be significant in the long term, even if the U.S. were still going to have one. They are probably only to enhance deterrence against a potential U.S. strike retaliating for the tens of millions of American deaths resulting from a global economic collapse instigated by China (their first defense, plausible denial of responsibility, has already been badly compromised). An American nuclear strike in retaliation for economic warfare is significantly less likely than Chinese planners believe, making the intercontinental strike ability almost irrelevant.
China will almost certainly adhere to a "no first use" nuclear policy, but U.S. military planners should keep in mind that this policy might be interpreted "creatively". For instance, the deployment of nuclear powered carriers and submarines (with nuclear missiles) into active combat occurring in waters contested by the Chinese will probably be eligible for consideration as a nuclear "first use" if they cannot be countered with conventional weapons (China probably can't counter American nuclear subs, and their ability to counter carriers is still only theoretical). Beijing fully intends to be in control of the recorded history of the coming conflict, but they have a grasp of the necessary elements for successful revisionism.
Post a Comment