Cut the defense spending, just not in my district

[roo_ster]

@Scout

My understanding of Rooster's point is that we have to maintain as strong a defense as possible otherwise we lose ground and lives to an aggressor too quickly. You support that by giving numerous examples of the US's unique cold war approach of maintaining a huge standing army failing to achieve precisely that goal. So that we still have to resort to the WW2 and pre-WW2 behavior of retreating defense (trading lives for time) until additional nation support is organized.

So it seems lives are condemned to death whether we sped the money or not. Money, which we do not have.

You may be reading Scout, but you are not understanding Scout. 

There was no huge standing Cold War military when the Norks invaded SK.  Demobilization after WWII was quick and profound, from 12mil to 1.5mil.  Top that off with the sorry state of training and readiness of the troops available to get to Korea in time to do anything.  Those troops were the American occupation troops in Japan.  They were in terrible shape from being essentially garrison troops / MPs.  Physically, training-wise, and equipment-wise; they just plain were in no way ready to fight when the balloon went up.  But we sent them because they were what we had.  And many, many of them died.

Code: [Select]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–20111
Year Army Air Force Navy Marine Corps Total
1940 269,023   160,997 28,345 458,365
1945 8,266,373   3,319,586 469,925 12,055,884
1950 593,167 411,277 380,739 74,279 1,459,462
1955 1,109,296 959,946 660,695 205,170 2,935,107
1960 873,078 814,752 616,987 170,621 2,475,438
1965 969,066 824,662 669,985 190,213 2,653,926
1970 1,322,548 791,349 691,126 259,737 3,064,760
1975 784,333 612,751 535,085 195,951 2,128,120
1980 777,036 557,969 527,153 188,469 2,050,627
1985 780,787 601,515 570,705 198,025 2,151,032
1990 732,403 535,233 579,417 196,652 2,043,705
1991 710,821 510,432 570,262 194,040 1,985,555
1992 610,450 470,315 541,886 184,529 1,807,177
1993 572,423 444,351 509,950 178,379 1,705,103
1994 541,343 426,327 468,662 174,158 1,610,490
1995 508,559 400,409 434,617 174,639 1,518,224
1996 491,103 389,001 416,735 174,883 1,471,722
1997 491,707 377,385 395,564 173,906 1,438,562
1998 483,880 367,470 382,338 173,142 1,406,830
1999 479,426 360,590 373,046 172,641 1,385,703
2000 482,170 355,654 373,193 173,321 1,384,338
2001 480,801 353,571 377,810 172,934 1,385,116
2002 486,542 368,251 385,051 173,733 1,413,577
2003 490,174 376,402 379,742 177,030 1,423,348
2004 494,112 369,523 370,445 177,207 1,411,287
2005 488,944 351,666 358,700 178,704 1,378,014
2006 (June) 496,362 352,620 353,496 178,923 1,381,401
2007 (Aug.) 519,471 337,312 338,671 184,574 1,380,082
2011 (Sept.) 565,463 333,370 325,123 201,157 1,468,364

Read more: Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–2011 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html#ixzz2muTXpKtp

The Norks invaded S Korea in June of 1950, at the nadir of our post-WWII readiness. 

Between JUN1950 & JUL1951, 13 months:
1. Norks pushed SK, USA, & others back from pre-war border ~38th parallel into the Pusan perimeter.
2. USA & UN forces fought way back up the peninsula almost to China.  Includes Landing at Inchon.
3. China entered the war, pushing us back to roughly the 38th parallel.

After that bloody battles still occurred until JULY1953, but little territory was lost or won.

It was the experience in Korea that spurred America to craft the Cold War military.(1)  By 1955, we had doubled the size of the military, increased training/readiness, and stuffed many equipment contracts into the hopper.

Oh, BTW, those troops China used in Korea?  They were originally slated to invade Taiwan.  We had enough of a Navy to stop that, but could not stop and did not believe the rumors that China would intervene in Korea.  And we did not have enough of a force in Korea, numbers or readiness-wise, to keep the Norks or Chinese form thinking they could take us.



(1) Few troops, old/obsolete/insufficient equipment, poor training/readiness)



These days, China is on the ascendance.  They constantly push, prod, and probe, testing our and our allies' readiness and resolution.  THAT is why the Filipinos want us back, not because they have a newfound love of Uncle Sam.  They have first-hand experience with asiatic hegemons and seek a means to contain China.  Vietnam is making nice noises toward us, even.  Japan is having serious internal debates as to expanding thei military and increasing its power projection capabilities. 

Heck, just the other day, China declared a great chunk of international airspace for their own and asserted their authority to dictate what goes on in it.  We then sent some  (~50 year old) B-52s directly across it to show them what we thought of that.  If our capacity or resolve falters, China will act.  They will back it up with a nuclear threat, and we will then not dispute the fait accompli.  We didnt use nukes in the Korean War, when we had a POTUS with some real stones.  We will not use them if China steals a march on us.  All one has to do is read China's history to see what is coming.


The "So what" question is this: "So what if China becomes the East Asian hegemon?  Why should we care?" 

I can think of several reasons:
1. Allies would drift into China's sphere of influence and no longer be our allies.
2. Economic stranglehold on East Asia.  China could dictate terms regarding not just its own production, but all of East Asia's (given that Japan, Taiwan, SK, PI & such are resource-poor manufacturies that rely on the import of raw materials and export of finished goods).
3. Many of our military components are sourced from E Asian allies.  We may no longer have access to them or we would face greater risk of their corruption.
4. Loss of basing in E Asia for our military would make any action in the future more difficult.
5. Others around the world would see our interests as vulnerable, given how we succumbed to Chinese pressure, and judge us to be fickle/weak allies.

#2 has obvious profound economic consequences.  Probably in magnitude as great or greater than the cost to field a military to prevent it alone.

[roo_ster]

Korean War Outline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/maps/koreatxt.html

[Scout26]

The other inference you can draw is

Small Military = Poor Training

Large Military = Well Trained.


Training money is the first to get cut.   I know I heard all about the 1970's Hollow Army from my 1SG's and PSG's.  They lived through it. Training $$$$ were the first to be cut, followed by equipment/maintenance, then personnel.   Didn't matter if you had several tracks down for repair, you didn't even have the people to man/maintain them.

The first three I listed showed what happened after WWII when we didn't have a large-ish enough military to execute the mission(s) given to them. 

And roo-ster is correct.  The Chinese will poke and prod.  Where they find resistance, they will retreat.  Where they find softness/lack of resolve they will push until they meet firm resolve.

That's precisely why the Filipinos are welcoming us back.  The Japanese are looking to increase their ability to defend and project power.  The ROK's have first hand experience with Chinese rule and don't want to do it again.  (Along with the NORK issue).  And Taiwan posts look-out on the beaches awaiting the Million Man Swim. 

Oh, and the PRC is working on getting that old Soviet/Ukrainian Carrier up to speed.  (Which is simply a Navy Cross waiting to be awarded.  )

It operates under it own power and there have been landings conducted on it.  Carriers are power PROJECTION platforms.  Not really needed for defending your own coast. 

[Hawkmoon]

The "So what" question is this: "So what if China becomes the East Asian hegemon?  Why should we care?" 

I can think of several reasons:
1. Allies would drift into China's sphere of influence and no longer be our allies.
2. Economic stranglehold on East Asia.  China could dictate terms regarding not just its own production, but all of East Asia's (given that Japan, Taiwan, SK, PI & such are resource-poor manufacturies that rely on the import of raw materials and export of finished goods).

Make that economic stranglehold on the world and you're closer. China already has a near stranglehold on our economy. How much of our national debt is owned by China? What bunch of morons decided it might be a good idea to let our natural enemies buy our country? What percentage of our manufacturing capability remains in the U.S. and how many American companies do all their manufacturing in China?

China buys American companies and American properties with impunity. It doesn't work the other way -- China does not allow foreign interests to own more than 49 percent of anything Chinese/

It ain't just the USA. My wife is from South America. If you think most of the stuff we buy in the U.S. comes from China, take a vacation to South America. Other than Brazil, South American countries have very little manufacturing capability, and virtually everything is made in China.

[drewtam]

@Rooster
Sure, but it worked. The US eventually launched a major counter offensive and won. We were not nuked, we weren't threatened by nukes in a conventional war.

Your argument had two components to my mind
1 - we get steam rolled with a small force (I never doubted that. In fact, I consider it a feature that we become more defensive and less Team America: World Police).
2a - the US gets threatened with nukes to lock in the conventional gains by the aggressor and
2b - the US acquiesces to such nuke threats and launches no counter-offensive

Part 2 is what I continue to see no evidence for in any of your arguments. I still say none of the historical examples nor logical deductions support that essential part of the objection of continued draw down.

[roo_ster]

@Rooster
Sure, but it worked. The US eventually launched a major counter offensive and won. We were not nuked, we weren't threatened by nukes in a conventional war.

Your argument had two components to my mind
1 - we get steam rolled with a small force (I never doubted that. In fact, I consider it a feature that we become more defensive and less Team America: World Police).
2a - the US gets threatened with nukes to lock in the conventional gains by the aggressor and
2b - the US acquiesces to such nuke threats and launches no counter-offensive

Part 2 is what I continue to see no evidence for in any of your arguments. I still say none of the historical examples nor logical deductions support that essential part of the objection of continued draw down.

Just because you are not looking, doesn't mean the evidence is not there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2484334/China-boasts-new-submarine-fleet-capable-launching-nuclear-warheads-cities-United-States.html

    State-run media claims the Chinese military has missiles capable of hitting cities all across the U.S.
    China's submarine fleet currently is on 'routine patrol.'
    According to Chinese media, this is the first time China has possessed 'effective underwater nuclear deterrence against the United States'

Chinese news agencies also reported on the Army's lethal intentions should it ever use the nuclear weapons the submarines are capable of launching.

'Because the Midwest states of the U.S. are sparsely populated, in order to increase the lethality, [our] nuclear attacks should mainly target the key cities on the West Coast of the United States, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego,' the Global Times said. 'The 12 JL-2 nuclear warheads carried by one single Type 094 SSBN can kill and wound 5 million to 12 million Americans.

But West Coast cities aren't the only metropolitan areas in the U.S. that face the threat of a nuclear attack from the Chinese, according to the country's state-run media.

'If we launch our DF 31A ICBMs over the North Pole, we can easily destroy a whole list of metropolises on the East Coast and the New England region of the U.S., including Annapolis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Portland, Baltimore and Norfolk, whose population accounts for about one-eighth of America’s total residents,' the Global Times said.

The JL-2 missiles have a range of about 8,700 miles and could hit almost the entire continental U.S. with independently targetable re-entry  vehicle warheads. The Type 094 Jin Class submarine was developed in 2010 and is capable of launching 12 to 16 JL-2 missiles.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/china-unveils-strategic-map-for-a-nuclear-submarine-attack-on-u-s-cities/


This is not the first time Chinese-language sources have spoken openly about targeting the USA.  There has been such talk since the first Chinese ICBMs could range the west coast.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/11/20/2003577276

“When considering how China’s nuclear forces may impact the security of Taiwan, or more precisely how they might deter the US from coming to Taiwan’s military defense in the event of a Chinese attack, it is crucial to consider the number of China’s strategic and theater/tactical nuclear weapons,” International Assessment and Strategy Center senior fellow Rick Fisher told the Taipei Times.

“I would offer the estimate that numbers in both categories are growing and that this should concern Taiwan, the US and all other democracies in Asia,” Fisher said.

He said that “at a minimum” it was unwise for the US to consider further reductions in its nuclear arsenal at a time when China’s nuclear arsenal is growing.

“The capability of the arsenal is also increasing, with liquid-fuel and relatively inaccurate maneuverable missiles being replaced by solid-fuel and more accurate road-mobile missiles,” says the report titled Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2013...

“For the foreseeable future, Taiwan is the contingency in which nuclear weapons would most likely become a major factor because the fate of the island is intertwined both with the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and the reliability of US defense commitments in the Asia-Pacific region,” the CSIS report said.

The problem with marxist and free-market fetishist analysis is that humans and groups have motivations other than economic: pride, vengeance, etc.

[Firethorn]

Oh, and the PRC is working on getting that old Soviet/Ukrainian Carrier up to speed.  (Which is simply a Navy Cross waiting to be awarded.  )

Worse than that, I've heard.  The Chinese aren't intending the carrier to be a combat platform - it's a training and test platform intended to give the Chinese the experience necessary with carrier operations for when they build their own nuclear carriers.

They're looking to build supercarriers.

[drewtam]

Chinese capabilities and intentions are irrelevant to the counter-point. It is a strawman that was never disputed.

If they attacked conventionally, we will respond conventionally. And raise an army to fight it. If they tried to lock in gains with nuke threat, we would be required to respond proportionally.

No one has actually attempted to do the 2 -step you propose: steam roll + lock in gains with nuke threats. It has never happened in the post fat man world. The Soviet Union had the capability to do exactly that since WW2... they had that opportunity in Korea, Vietnam, etc. They never tried it. Now that the Chinese are gaining that capability does not mean they will behave differently than the old Soviets. The calculus is still the same.

The first part has certainly happened (the surprise attack with an overwhelming force against a smaller guard force). And will happen again, regardless of our military readiness, that is the fundamental tactic of history. But the second part has never been attempted. It is a level of escalation that is currently taboo. The US should keep enough nuke firepower to keep it that way, and cut the rest.

[Boomhauer]

1 - we get steam rolled with a small force (I never doubted that. In fact, I consider it a feature that we become more defensive and less Team America: World Police).

This keeps getting repeated by those with the desire for a small military. The "world policing" aspect is the result of politicians at the highest level, not the military's desire. What needs to happen to stop *that* is to stop those politicians from sending the military to be the "world police" because a small military is not going to discourage that behavior at all...it'll just mean that a smaller number of troops are sent to a given country with less support.

The smaller military aspect would work better with a conscription model in which all able bodied citizens are conscripted, serve for a couple of years, and upon discharge continue in the reserve role. Unfortunately you still end up poor training but it's better than trying to raise from scratch and throwing people into the fire with a bare minimum of training. I do not favor this aspect as I think it is a poor model to follow for a large country that has large military needs. Works better for countries like Switzerland.

Another aspect is that you NEED wars to generate combat hardened troops. Keep those combat experienced troops in and give them leadership positions and you'll have a formidable military. The problem with "world police" wars is that we do not conduct them correctly due to political bullshit and we squander lives for nothing. We may not need a huge military but cutting it to the bone is a really bad idea. Much better idea to bring it to a good medium level. And for god's sake stop forcing out the combat veterans and experienced personnel. I do not understand why trained and experienced personnel are being pressed out of service while new people are still being inducted (I do not know about the Army but Parris Island down here is still pushing out graduates)

[Scout26]

Chinese capabilities and intentions are irrelevant to the counter-point. It is a strawman that was never disputed.

No one has actually attempted to do the 2 -step you propose: steam roll + lock in gains with nuke threats. It has never happened in the post fat man world.

Actually we have.  We came damn close in Korea with MacArthur demanding nuclear release when the Chicoms came in.

Chinese capabilities and intentions are completely relevant. 

What you propose and endorse are a variation of McNamara's "Graduated Response" theory and policy.  And look where that got us.