To be honest the US has always been on war footing to an extent. Europe got complacent because of it. Yes there's NATO but the US was always there - even when some complained loudly about the US sticking its nose into their business. Are we shifting? Take a peek at other threads and it's alarming how much the US is now looking at extremism. There's no real middle ground anymore. All that said, there is a line between a one-party/authoritarian-esque state, and what Putin has done/is doing. It's not ruling with an iron fist but having a stated goal of genocide. Hopefully when Putin loses/dies there may be more balance but the world has always evolved. I don't know that it's a failed American experiment yet. I'm hopeful that once Trump goes away the US will moderate some & with it some of the world. I think what Ukraine has shown is that it's dangerous to be complacent & dependent on others for defense. NATO as an alliance works but countries have realized threats never really go away and so they need to work not only with NATO, but build their own defenses. This is a wake-up call militarily for sure.
To be clear, he acknowledged that Europe's ability to view themselves as relatively peaceful depended upon us guarantees. But we went through our own Fukayama End of History moment in the 90s. And there is still decent room for legitimate debate over having an expeditionary Force and all the world bases, which somewhat ties into all of this. I also hoped and thought the Trump moment would pass but I become less certain everyday. That would of course reduce us to how much more menial power even by itself. Few realize the true sources of our power.
I’m very disturbed that the President keeps implying, intentionally or not, that an end state where Russia remains in parts of Ukraine is acceptable to the United States. Most recently he said, “sending an unmistakable message to Putin: He will never succeed in dominating and occupying all [emphasis added] of Ukraine.” If this is another situation where the White House needs to clarify meaning, then fine, clarify it. Our national policy needs to be made clear thusly: Putin will never succeed in dominating and occupying any of Ukraine. Remarks By President Biden Providing an Update on Russia and Ukraine | The White House
That probably just depends on how you define the “size” of a navy. If it’s number of vessels, then China might have more small vessels than our Navy, but then again so does our Army. If it is tonnage and capability of medium and capital warships, then I doubt it’s much of a comparison at all. Unlike our other armed services, our Navy so far outclasses our potential opponents that to have a movie where the Navy sees some realistic competition, they had to fight space aliens: Battleship (film) - Wikipedia
China has two aircraft carriers. With plans to build two more. The US has 11 aircraft carriers. China has a lot more ships than we do, but we have twice the tonnage of their fleet. They boast of 500-ish ships, but over 300 of those are coastal patrol type ships. When it comes to carrying war to others, the US has more warships capable of carrying war across the sea to other countries.
Top 10 Countries with the Highest Military Expenditures (2020): The United States — $778 billion China — $252 billion [estimated] India — $72.9 billion Russia — $61.7 billion United Kingdom — $59.2 billion Saudi Arabia — $57.5 billion [estimated] Germany — $52.8 billion France — $52.7 billion Japan — $49.1 billion South Korea — $45.7 billion for 2022: United States $750.00 Bn 334,805,269 China $237.00 Bn 1,448,471,400 Saudi Arabia $67.60 Bn 35,844,909 India $61.00 Bn 1,406,631,776 United Kingdom $55.10 Bn 68,497,907 Germany $50.00 Bn 83,883,596 Japan $49.00 Bn 125,584,838 Russia $48.00 Bn 145,805,947 Since we outspend China by x3 and Russia by x12, spending is clearly not the issue.
I want to say that even that statistic does not provide the full picture because one might infer that one of their carriers is the equal of one of ours. A career Navy man could probably provide a more accurate comparison, but my thin slice is that one of our carriers might be the equal of three of theirs in terms of firepower it could bring to the fight.
Well, if you don’t like those rates, then you really won’t like what will be necessary to contain Russia and China should Russia end up with strategic victory (and it appears to be going in that direction) and if the policy of our government does not become one of strategic retreat where we cede Taiwan and the South China Sea as well as Eastern Europe to Chinese and Russian spheres of influence, respectively (possible but very unlikely no matter who is in the White House). Our list of unpalatable options comes down to essentially to these three as I see it: 1. Do whatever is necessary to defeat Russia now and show China what is likely to happen to them, but this option would take a dramatic and unlikely shift in current policy; 2. 1980s style military buildup, sustained for decades; or 3. drawing a new red line farther back from Russia and China, which means, yes, abandoning some current allies, including some current members of NATO, whom we would have to remove from the alliance.
One armament Ukraine doesnt seem to get are higher altitude sams. They received some Russian s300s from other European countries a few weeks back but nothing else. That would seem to complete their defenses. Especially if Russia starts using long range bombers.
I sometimes think this message board couldn’t be more ridiculous. But then I see a post like this and it totally redeems itself. Outstanding, thx
I strangely and embarrassingly really enjoyed that movie. Of course, comparing the US and Chinese navies really depends on the mission. We are blue water navy they remain a brown water navy. But they have reached the point where their ability to project force in the South China Sea is sufficient that we can no longer imagine that we could win a confrontation limited to that area. And of course there is a question on how invulnerable carriers are now. They are the primary mechanism of force protection and it is no longer clear they can be protected
Israel is an insane parliamentary system where just about Everyone in the country is his or her own party.
No need to make assumptions. I make my living of those rates. Merely pointing out that the US spends a lot to maintain superior forces. And while China has made a lot of improvement with their Navy to close the gap, I would certainly not put their Naval capabilities above the US. Any kind of direct war with Russia will inflect damage to the US, even if it is non-nuclear and even if (when) we do destroy Russia. But it would leave us vulnerable. So would China consider that their best chance of defeating the US? Maybe. Regardless I don't support direct intervention in Ukraine at this point out of concern of escalation. If we do, then Russia will respond to protect themselves. At least that is my two cents.
