As Hussein Obama downsizes the US military, China gets an opportunity the Soviets never had. Lajes Field on Terceira Island in the Azores. The airfield, while not heavily used provides 5% of the jobs on Terceira. The Chinese have been sucking up to the Portugeuse, whom they see as a way into Europe and the Atlantic. Look at a map. The Azores are to the Atlantic what the Hawaiian Islands are to the Pacific - an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332454/red-flag-over-atlantic-gordon-g-chang
The fallacy is thinking that increased military spending is going to maintain our hegemonic position .. our status as the sole world empire. Increased military spending will only speed up our Journey from "only world empire" to just another face in the crowd. The ability to push every other nation around on the basis of military power is soon becoming a thing of the past. This is already the case with Russia and has been for many years. Nukes ensured that threat of military force of either nation on the other was deminished. China has joined this club so will many others in the near future. This has always been the case with the spread of technology. Even lesser countries like Pakistan already have stealth cruise missiles. Nobody's like N. Korea have bought themselves security by developing nukes. The real power in todays world is "economic". It has been our economic clout that has been our major coersive tool against the other major powers over the last couple of decades .. not military. The rash military spending of the last decade (increasing from 300 Billion in 2000 to 900 Billion) has diverted money from strengthening our economic power. While we were wasting out money on insignificant and useless wars .. China and Russia and many other countries have made great strides economically which has put our long term security at risk.
Hahahah, unsinkable aircraft carrier about 1,000 miles away from Europe, it's much good really is it. I am more worried about the Chinese building ports in Greece.
What is really humorous about the article is "The Atlantic would no longer be secure" Did this guy fall asleep in 1942 and just wake up or something ? There is no security in the Atlantic unless modern powers want it to be secure. Last time I checked there we were not at war with any major power.
The seeds of victory and defeat in war are often planted years before the war begins. Maintaining Lajes costs the US very little. Taking it back might cost a lot more.
I recall cows grazing near the flight line as a regular occurrence at Lajes...not something you usually see on most Air Force bases.
Since Portugal is a member of NATO........the whole idea is pretty nutty. Well and the idea that China would want to position it planes in the middle of the Atlantic for no apparent reason at all, where they could be easily cut off from all resupply
Fair enough but my broader point was that we are focused in the wrong direction. Let me give you a historical example of a previous empire that fell into the same trap. The British had the gatling gun. With this technology they could take over an entire African nation (fighting back with sticks and stones) with one Gunship and there was a tremendous return on investment (ROI) The natural tendency of technology is to spread... eventually the African nation gets the gatling gun which has historically proven itself to be a better defensive technology than offensive. Now .. the British have to send in not just one gunship .. but an armada. This is expensive and they are going to take massive casualties. Historical Lesson: The cost of projecting power increases over time as technology expands. Re-watch the first few minutes of Gladiator and you can see the major technological advantage of the Roman military machine. As time progressed the "barbarians" obtained similar technology .. warfare became much more expensive (a money losing proposition instead of having an ROI) We are in the same predicament .. after the collapse of "the wall" Russia started focusing their efforts on building missiles (very cheap compared to other things such as planes, carriers and subs). Russian anti-ship missiles are way more advanced than US technology for example. They are now selling this technology all over the world which puts our massive floating cities at serious risk. That aside .. current estimates of Total Military Spending exceed 1 Trillion dollars per year. I took the low end of the estimate given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States When you consider that "Real disposable income" is at about 1.7 Trillion (2.1 Trillion in income - 450 Billion in interest payments) Military spending amounts to 59% of our Real disposable income and we gain almost no ROI. We need to divert much of these resources into economic expansion "pronto". There is no maintaining a strong military without a strong economy. Military spending in 2000 was 300 Billion .. and we were just as safe. The extra 700 Billion has done little to enhance our national security. In fact .. I would argue that the extra money spent on wars and so forth has weakened our security. All the while China, Russia, and a host of other nations are eating our economic lunch. We spend all this money "liberating .. cough cough hack hack" Iraq .. and we end up with Shia (Iran loving folks) in power and Iraq giving contracts to the Russians. http://www.minnpost.com/global-post...ollar-russian-arms-deal-defense-minister-says We harass Iran ... Russia sells them arms We harass Syria.. Russia sells them arms Russia sells to China .. India.. Pakistan .. Africa, Indonesia and so on.
"Military spending amounts to 59% of our Real disposable income and we gain almost no ROI." Taxcutter says: You make that one up yourself or did you steal it from some left-wing source? According to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2013USrn which uses US government figures, defense costs about 24% of federal outlay - about the same as Medicare/Medicaid. The Russians sell these nations their schlock because it is cheap and comes with no strings attached. There's a lot of MiGs falling out of the sky on their own these days. The Syrians got and air defense system that never detected the Israelis at all. Iran got three subs they cannot/will not submerge. The Israelis and other US allies get expensive US-made stuff and they kick butt.
Advances in air-to-air refueling have decreased the strategic importance of Lajes AFB... The biggest threat from China is based in economics...certainly not this sleepy little island.
24% of the Federal outlay on defense is correct. The federal outlay is about 3.5 Trillion = 875 Billion. The term I used was "Total Military Spending" which includes stuff like Homeland security, and other Military spending which is totaled for you in the previous link. Here is the link again as you appear not to have used it ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States .. it is one of the first links that comes up when you google "Total Military Spending" and I used the low end of the figure given. Im not sure why you want to bring politics into this discussion (Left/Right .. whatever) .. I am a fiscal conservative by political stripe but why should this matter ? The second term I used was "Read Disposable Income" .. as opposed to the "Federal outlay" These are two completely different things. RDI = Income - interest on the Debt (2.1 Trillion - 450 Billion in interest on our Debt) .. Like any household .. this is a measure of what the house has to spend without borrowing money. If one is going to be financially prudent .. this is what needs be paid attention to, at least on some level. Total Federal Outlay is .. all money spent .. Income + borrowing/deficit (2.1 Trillion + 1.4 Trillion) = 3.5 Trillion Like any household .. if your spending exceeds your income you have to borrow the difference. If your spending consists of 40% borrowed money (1.4/3.5) soon you will be broke and the bank will not lend you any more money. At some point .. our creditors will cease to lend us more money. I previously gave you a number of historical parallels .. this is another. " At some point massive deficit spending catches up to you and then you have to live within your means" If we were living within our means = 1.7 Trillion in income .. Total Military spending is a massive chunk be it the 875 Billion for DOD as you cited or the slightly higher "Total Military Spending" number that was cited in the link I gave you. Migs falling out of the sky or a flawed air defense system have nothing to do with my argument that the cost of projecting power has increased and the return on military investment has decreased. Further .. that because of these things we should be focusing more on the economic war rather than military might.
"...we should be focusing more on the economic war..." Taxcutter says: More regulations and more taxation is the WRONG kind of attention.
Depends .. The Regulations put on the books in the 20's that stopped banks from taking excessive risk with deposits worked great. (Glass Steagall Act). Prior to this banks were going under every couple of decades due to excessive leverage and speculation (gambling) with depositors money. Phil Gramm repealed these regulations and guess what happened ? This and a few other factors led to the 2008 crash. I agree that some kinds of lower taxes are good for investment. The problem then however is how to pay for the out of control government spending. That said .. the excessive regulation and paperwork and legal bs to do business in this country is a problem. As a fiscal conservative I am on the side of massive Government spending cuts. This can not be done in one year however without killing the economy. It must be done over time. Unfortunately there is no political will to cut spending. Dems want to keep all their precious social programs and Reps refuse to cut military spending. Cuts need to be made on both.
China doesn't need to expand its forces into the Atlantic in order to subdue the US. America is foolishly trying to be strong everywhere. The cost of doing so will break America's back fiscally.
Obama subscribes to an environmental dogma which forces him to take ideological actions which have the practical effect of weakening the country.
Right. Military spending alone will not make us popular or influential. BUT, combined with good policies worldwide, a strong military will help us to enforce good policies and remain a threat in the eyes of those who would see us as an enemy. We didn't get to where we are today through just one form of leadership and/or dominance; it has been the combination of these things. Still, who knows whether this can last forever? Can we maintain world leadership? It may be possible, though in the end we may shrink down to being more even players among superpower peers such as China and, eventually, a renewed Russia.
