Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

to gerald and Trevor:

thank you for your input. I value all of your comments. As I stated earlier, I was hung-up on the "how", not so much on the outcome. I have also been to Russia. Three separate occasions, three different regions. As a matter of fact, the only continent that I have not set foot upon is Antarctica (and have no desire to). I have been to too many places to list without boring you to death......and this is all before the age of 30. And like you Trevor, I come from a long line of veterans. Both sides of my family. My mother and father's parents and siblings all fought WW2 (yes even the women were either commissioned or enlisted, no drafts all volunteer). I am so glad that I spent the time with each of them that I did when I was younger. I was told of first-hand accounts what the beaches of Normandy looked, sounded and smelled like. I was told of the unnatural cold of the Ardennes, of the extreme heat in S.E. Asia. About half went to Europe and the rest went to the Pacific. I eventually went on to visit some of the places they had been, both hemispheres. This does not necessarily mean that I always know what I am talking about, but I usually have a pretty good idea. When I am in doubt, I reach out to a trusted resource like Professor X and ask.
So, needless to say, I have served in numerous areas of operation in both hemispheres, so I have a unique knowledge of not only all of our armed forces capabilities but many NATO countries capabilities also. Well, in reference to our military, perhaps "all" is a bit of a stretch, but a huge chunk if it. To witness, from a command center, numerous Air Force flights coordinating with Naval Battle Groups and land Armies is nothing short of awe inspiring. Then sprinkle-in some NATO units, dump all of it into a war game off the coast of some third world hellhole, and the screens start to resemble a very sobering L.E.D. nightmare. But I personally witnessed numerous exercises of this scope. Why do I even mention this? Because I want to point out that the U.S. has been doing this type of training since the end of WW2. The tempo would increase and decrease over the years, but we have NEVER allowed or sabers to rust. Why is this important? Because our enemies HAVE NEVER trained like this individually let alone with their allies. This is a crucial reason that the U.S. continues to overwhelm the enemy with ungodly firepower never-heard-of-before accuracy...and do so in very short order. "Shock-and-awe" does not happen all by itself. Advanced technology does not operate and maintain itself. You can conduct your own investigation, if you wanted to, and find out what types of missile defense Iraq had prior to each conflict. You can also discover the types of aircraft they possessed and what type of armor they had in the field. If you obtained this information, and you really understood what you were looking at (don't mean that in a demeaning way), you would quickly realize that advanced technology is of no use what so ever if you don't know how to use it! So all of the training over all the years will be a MAJOR factor. Not to mention all of the updated lessons-learned over the last 15 years.

Now, as for as all of the many factors possible in any given military scenario.....before I start to jump to my old conclusions (which were never correct) I am trying to plug the (given) scenario into G.D. That's what I meant when I told John that he is always two or three steps ahead of me. This is because he is a subject matter expert and he automatically runs the scenario through G.D. It's natural for him.......I'm still a grasshopper. My goal is to try to catch up. I want to memorize as much G.D. as I can so that I too can apply it on the fly. So to speak. Sadly, I have no education or experience with the Financial Sector, so I will always be at a loss for explanations there. It is difficult for me to guage how much I may have learned so far in reference to finances but I do understand everything I read at G.D. because John dumbs-it-down to very plain language. All I have to do is read it. He takes years of education and experience and serves it up for free. In my world, this is the most valuable site on the internet.

windestaringeyes

Thank you.

I agree with your take on things, however I think there are secrets and abilities that will be unleashed when needed. I have read that the US uses technology that is just good enough to do the job, and saves the good stuff for when needed.(alien or otherwise) I have to clarify that I am not military, but I understand and appreciate the necessity's of its roll. The military deserves the appropriate respect and support. It is like the white corpuscles in ones body, they do not build,--- they protect.

A reason for that is that we learned that not being prepared could have deadly consequences. We had our face rubbed in it during Pearl Harbor and while military spending varies, we've never again gutted it to the extent we did after the First World War.

What I am concerned about with China, however, is that much of the world seems blind to their threat. Their smaller neighbors realize it and to some extent, so does India, but the rest of the world does not. I've mentioned it many times and I'm usually blown off as someone who's young and naive. The only person i was able to convince was a late Silent.

And I admit, I'm not as well-versed about economics, at least not to the extent that some of the people here are. The only thing I do know is that you cannot escape the consequences of reality forever, even if the people in power think that they can.

Also, I'm actually working on a fictional scenario of a U.S.-China conflict that I'm hoping to get published. Hopefully, the CCP will be willing to refrain from attacking until I actually get a publisher.

widestaringeyes wrote:to gerald:

My question was how would it be possible to end up with an alliance when I see the Russians as our enemies. When I feel that Russia would stab us in the back at the very first opportunity.

Today we are probably more an enemy of Russia, than Russia is an enemy of the U.S.

Between World War II and the break up of the Soviet Union it was probably the opposite.

Russia viewed our trying to move Georgia and the Ukraine into Nato as depriving them of their natural Christian allies against the descendents of the Central Asian hordes who are now mostly Sunni Muslim. These Sunni Muslims live both in Russia and in the Caucuses outside Russia. The lack of those Christian allies could be the difference between Russia winning and losing a Crisis war.

Russia no longer has the capability to overrun western Europe in a few weeks, so it is not as much of a threat to the United States as it was before the break up of the Soviet Union.

I've noticed that Russia actually has a better chance of winning a mid-cycle war against an enemy than they do a crisis war. The Great Northern War, Napoleon's invasion, WWII... all of them they managed to win by letting the enemy move deep into Russia and having their winters destroy the enemy army. However, in the Crimean War and the First World War, they lost.

Trevor wrote:.... We had our face rubbed in it during Pearl Harbor and while military spending varies, we've never again gutted it to the extent we did after the First World War.....

Re-elect Obama and see what happens.

Yeah, we're talking about severe cuts to it, and now we're considering adding another 150 billion more. Admittedly, I wouldn't spare it completely, since they've got their waste and pet projects like every other government agency. it's just that it seems like they're focused solely on the military. For all the complaints about how we spend on it, it's below historic norms. (GDP wise, anyway)

I looked at the 2012 DoD report on China and it seemed to talk mostly about diplomatic issues, rather than the threat they pose to us militarily. It's why I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeasement strategy used.

Trevor wrote:Yeah, we're talking about severe cuts to it, and now we're considering adding another 150 billion more. Admittedly, I wouldn't spare it completely, since they've got their waste and pet projects like every other government agency. it's just that it seems like they're focused solely on the military. For all the complaints about how we spend on it, it's below historic norms. (GDP wise, anyway)

I looked at the 2012 DoD report on China and it seemed to talk mostly about diplomatic issues, rather than the threat they pose to us militarily. It's why I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeasement strategy used.

You are talking about rational cuts.

The options being discussed in the Obama administrations include taking the United States down to the same number of strategic nuclear weapons as Pakistan and eliminating the Submarine based portion of our nuclear Triad. Obama is already retaining military civilians while discharging young commissioned officers and young non-commissioned officers.

The Military Civilian work force was vastly expanded during the Iraq and Afghanistan war build up so that uniformed members filling those jobs at lower cost could go off to war. In previous draw downs the cheaper, more critical ( to war fighting ), young commissioned officers, and young non-commissioned officers were retained and the civilian DOD employees reduced. Obama is doing the exact opposite which increases costs and strips the military of the critical training and leadership cadre of young leaders that will be needed if a national emergency arises.

I remember that we did something similar after the First World War. We ended up regretting it as well, but we can always do it again.

As for Russia, I don't see the Ukraine ever allying with them. There's still a lot of anger involving the Russian Civil War and the Holomodor. Those fault lines are still around and this one will likely be a component of it. I could easily see Russia having to fight an external war and a civil war at the same time.

I may be wrong, but I believe a pro-Russian government took over in the Ukraine a couple of years ago and they have been using criminal prosecutions to purge the opposition leaders from the countries political class.