Someone has got to re-orientate on the Chinese threat. They might sell us stuff to buy at Wal-Mart but they're a peer competitor that we might cross swords with...and soon.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
G-Man at Information Dissemination has more pics.
Galrahn has an article on the J-20 and I concur. Our intelligence services are either dropping the ball or too focused on the terrorist threat (I think the latter)....
Someone has got to re-orientate on the Chinese threat. They might sell us stuff to buy at Wal-Mart but they're a peer competitor that we might cross swords with...and soon.
Someone has got to re-orientate on the Chinese threat. They might sell us stuff to buy at Wal-Mart but they're a peer competitor that we might cross swords with...and soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
The best thing we could do for ourselves now is get our economic house in order. Unfortunately,it will be politically impossible to make meaningful cuts and reforms in entitlements without similar cuts in defense.
ReplyDeleteIs keeping 50,000 troops in Germany, funding the Paksitani, Afghan , and Iraq governments something we want to do for the forseeable future with China beating us to the chase on ecomonic and strategic allegances?
They just lowered worlwide quota for rare earth...time to restart development in that field stateside quick...the solution is "more" than just borrowing for more military equipment.
not a matter of borrowing.
ReplyDeletesell war bonds to pay for the current conflicts.
reduce the manpower of the Army and Marines.
reduce the number of aircraft carriers by one.
cancel the KC-X and re-engine all remaining tankers.
start a real infrastructure improvement program inside the US.
cancel HEALTHCARE
impose a spending freeze on all government budgets at 2005 spending levels.
cut the federal workforce by 50,000
cut general officer positions pentagon wide by 25%
Some of those are good ideas, but some are doa given the President and bi-partisan opposition.
ReplyDeleteMorever, the Presdient thinks rebuilding infrastructure is soley wind turbines and high speed rail. Health care is also going to be with us,(even with a suceesful Supreme Court decision). The Republicans have not thought through how taking back certain popular parts of health care can be used against them.
The J-20, if truly mission-capable, will certainly enhance the emerging Chinese anti-access/area-denial capabilities and prevent us from defending South Korea and Japan.
ReplyDeleteI've not researched this, however do the Chinese act in the same way as the Soviets did? Namely, revealing mock-ups or testbed programs without any real capability just to scare the bejeezus out of the West?
I've been saying this for a long, long time!
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese should have never been given the upper hand and we've forgotten the expensive lesson of the Korean War (may our Devil Dogs rest in peace).
You have some great ideas Sol, but one of them stands out because I just finished the Pacific which featured Basilone's War Bond drive. I had forgotten how essential War Bonds were to an era that lacked the massive deficit spending policy we now enjoy.
We no longer have the political will to wage war when it's only words and conscience on the line. Do you think Americans would actually buy bonds again? I don't.
Further, I don't see the American people being able to stomach a draft again, which would surely be necessary to defeat China should this move beyond the posturing stage.
hey Resident Author.
ReplyDeletei think all truly patriotic Americans would buy war bonds. all the sunshine patriots would balk until we showed them RIGHT from wrong.
i believe that we have the power to get our finances out of control and that if we can, China will go back to being the 3rd world piss ant that it truly deserves to be.
So that takes care of 50% of us! :)
ReplyDeleteIn WWII, 85M Americans bought War Bonds. Our population at the time was ~132M. That's 64% participation! For a total of $185B raised throughout the war. Annual GDP was $173B in 1945. 107% of GDP.
In today's numbers it would be...
198M Americans buying bonds for a total of just under $15T.
I'd like to think we could pull that off, but even the comments I see on "conservative" sights make me wonder...
What's also frightening is to look at how high our debt to GDP ratio is without a major conflict compared to WWII (http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif). We peaked at 120% at the end of WWII and are already approaching 100% now.
i didn't know it was that bad but i knew it was bad enough....
ReplyDeletestill, we sent a message last november and we'll have another chance in 2012 if they haven't got a clue about what we're talking about.
but heck, lets be real. if things don't change people like us will survive, i'm stacking the ammo, beans and bandages high...i kicked the shit out of my personal debt and i'm even getting some barter goods.
i hope we survive as we are but if we don't then we'll be ready.
>I had forgotten how essential War Bonds were to an era that lacked the massive deficit spending policy we now enjoy.
ReplyDeleteHuh? The WW2 deficit was massive, even by today's levels. The entire point of War Bonds was to cover the deficit. Obviously if taxation=expenditure, there would be no need to issue any bonds at all.
You guys do realize that in the long run taxation must, roughly, equal expenditure, right? Selling War Bonds is no different from selling any other debt instrument. Maybe patriotism would result in lower bond yields, but T-Bills already yield next to nothing, so unless people are just going to start paying the Govt to take their money it wouldn't make a difference.
You really think people will buy war bonds to pay for Afghanistan? For what? Thats the governments war. That isnt some patriotic cause like WW2.
ReplyDeleteI should have clarified.
ReplyDeleteThe era lacked the massive deficit spending PRIOR to the war. In 1938, still exiting a massive depression, US debt was just over 40% of GDP.
In 2010 we are close to 100% of GDP without a major (from a historical perspective) war effort.
As I stated above we peaked at 120% of GDP during WWII, an all time high.
Do we really think we could fund a major war effort with 20% of GDP (.20 * $14T = $2.8T)? Could we afford to push the deficit higher than 120% to break new records?
Could the sale of bonds, $15T in today's dollars, make up the difference? That would give us $17.8T total.
These are the things I'm not sure about...
I think Sol is right, we need to start cutting our budget ASAP if we intend to outposture China.
>Could the sale of bonds, $15T in today's dollars, make up the difference? That would give us $17.8T total.
ReplyDeleteBonds are how debt is financed, though. Selling however many trillions in war bonds to retire other kinds of obligations wouldn't have any impact. It's like taking out a loan to pay another loan, the net effect is zero.
The only difference between War Bonds and normal bonds is that the former has a lower yield. Given that War Bonds are sold domestically, that lower yield would just imply a tax on the domestic economy and a dead weight loss.
A more efficient way would be to raise taxes. Say what you want, but at least then the cost would be obvious and Americans less likely to support frivolous conflicts. American federal taxes are approximately 15% of GDP. That could go up substantially in the event of war, as happened in WW2 when the top MTR spiked to 90%.
you're missing the point here ... when it comes to solving the debt problem i like the 'all of the above' solutions.
ReplyDeleteraising taxes is acceptable as long as Congress gets the clue that cuts to entitlement programs are a no brainer and must be done.
but on the flip side, war bonds can be used in the same way as US savings bonds..yes they're still debt but it could be aimed and sold only to US citizens (not corporations or businesses looking to game the system) so that if a person wanted an alternate form of savings yet be patriotic at the same time this could be done.
additionally all funds raised must go toward the retirement of debt in foreign hands.
its a winner even if economist and others will find ways to poke holes in the idea.