Just some more news about how China has really been ramping itself up as a major military power.

(Reuters) - China is building some "fairly amazing submarines" and now has more diesel- and nuclear-powered vessels than the United States, a top U.S. Navy admiral told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, although he said their quality was inferior.

Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for capabilities and resources, told the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee that China was also expanding the geographic areas of operation for its submarines, and their length of deployment.

For instance, China had carried out three deployments in the Indian Ocean, and had kept vessels out at sea for 95 days, Mulloy said.

"We know they are out experimenting and looking at operating and clearly want to be in this world of advanced submarines," Mulloy told the committee.

U.S. military officials in recent months have grown increasingly vocal about China's military buildup and launched a major push to ensure that U.S. military technology stays ahead of rapid advances by China and Russia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-usa-china-submarines-idUSKBN0LT2NE20150225

More at link.

China needs 'just enough' weapons and tech to get its neighbours tetchy and squeamish about siding with the US in the event of hostilities or diplomatic crises.

a modern quiet diesel sub based on a the kilo or recent german designs could prove a useful addition alongside nuclear boats.

China can also sell them.

Submarineinvestment are a sign of a local power fleet, not a global power.
Hwever Chinas primary global power is through economic means, and is flexing military muscles only locally, but is doing so concentrically.

China demands total hegemony rather than a thinner wider spread of global power. China aims to annex local ocean zones, even area classified under current law as international waters, and thereby dominate territories neighbouring 'Chinese seas'. They will likely get their way.

Its also easy to police as it allows control of sea and airspace but doesn't require boots on the ground. Phillippines, Vietnam etc can be 'free' but if they want to go anywhere other than by overland route they will have to pay obesience to China.
Taiwan probably wont remain free long term.

This can only be enacted once the west is sufficiently in Chinas pocket that western powers esp the US wont intervene. China i well on the way to achieving this too, but can only do so with our short term political and economic thinking as complicit help.

Submarines are half of stage 2 of this, the other half of the requirement being local air supremacy, which China already has AFAIK and is the hidden power behind stage 1, the annexation of oceanic territories, which is ongoing.

If we didn't have the Chinese or the Russians, military leaders would almost certainly reference the Crab People as a clear and present danger that requires a response of additional military spending.

Too bad most of those chinese subs suck eggs.

News Flash:

Skaven outnumber Warriors of Chaos.

Panic!

There are some who would think that submarines don't matter:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-submarines-about-become-obsolete-12253

Hypersonic Missiles - Meh...
Rapid increases in military funding - So what?
New aircraft carrier, with intent to build more - But it's so tiny
Sub-fleet sized rapidly increasing, and already outnumbers our own - But their diesel.


Eventually folks are going to see the writing on the wall... probably will be the same time missiles are falling on Taiwan/Korea/Japan...

Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

Who says we are? Our military forces are forward staged to serve our nations interests. Not just to keep one idiot from killing another. We have forces in Japan and Korea because our interests in that part of the world necessitate it.

That's a pretty good answer actually.

 Ouze wrote:
That's a pretty good answer actually.

Well... thank you.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

When you forget that existential defensive wars are much better fought overseas than on US territory.

NEVER FORGET!

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

Who says we are? Our military forces are forward staged to serve our nations interests. Not just to keep one idiot from killing another. We have forces in Japan and Korea because our interests in that part of the world necessitate it.

What interests are there beyond generalised power projection? There aren't pirates surfing the China sea anymore, the trade ships will keep sailing regardless of if there's a US base next door or not, and South Korea/Japan are unlikely to become aggressive hostile enemies at this stage.

The only reason those bases still exist is because they're a historical legacy combined with America's desire/structural need to have the biggest military genitalia substitute in the world.

Which I for one am fine with, but handwaving it away as 'because US interests' is just a bit vague.

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

Wow I agree with Ouze. I'm scared.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

Sounds like an opportunity to sunset our treaties and be out of there in the next five years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

When you forget that existential defensive wars are much better fought overseas than on US territory.

Unless you don't have enemies of course.

 djones520 wrote:

Eventually folks are going to see the writing on the wall... probably will be the same time missiles are falling on Taiwan/Korea/Japan...

That's more than a bit hyperbolic.

At any rate, what would you have the US do that it is not already doing?

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

I think the Japanese are under the impression that the states will back them up should they be invaded or bombed/ect due to the U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement

If any us troops were caught up in it, as is quite likely, I think the states would care.


also, korea makes most of the internet "stuff" that telcos and so on use to make the internet work, losing them would have severe impacts globally, south korea is a huge player in advanced electronics


dont get me wrong, I dont like the US playing world police either, and I dont approve of the involvement in many wars, but responding to china bombing those countries would be appropriate, IMO at least.

 Alpharius wrote:
NEVER FORGET!

Not enough coffee in my blood yet. Not getting it unless referencing Pearl Harbor?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Eventually folks are going to see the writing on the wall... probably will be the same time missiles are falling on Taiwan/Korea/Japan...

That's more than a bit hyperbolic.

At any rate, what would you have the US do that it is not already doing?

Not cutting our military to the point that we can't stand up to them anymore? Our involvement in the middle east is not ending anytime in the foreseeable future, and our military right now is incapable of fighting a full scale war on another front, and there are just more shrinkages on the way. While China has done nothing but make their military grow, we've been making ours smaller and smaller.

Oh-no, better increase funding to the US armed forces! It's only 55% of our tax revenue!


*sigh*


The idea that china would ever attack Korea or japan is rediulous. Japan in the 3rd largest economy in the world, and is going to almost definitely have America behind it (unless there is some severe fallout between the governments). It would be stupid for China to delare war on anyone that would stop trade to and from china).

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

Clearly we need more military nearby to defend the military we have nearby defending things.

Soooo you want us to make sure that our military has the capability to continuously waste vast amounts of resources in the middle east while simultaneously fighting a full-scale war on the other side of the planet?

Nah. You get to pick one.

It cost money to keep an edge on US Military forces. What good is a military if they just sit in the barracks soaking up pay. Training cost money and since we have a lack of funding quite a bit of training has to be postponed to provide funding to prep a unit rotating in Afghanistan.

Only in America is "We are no longer spending more on defense than the ten most powerful countries below us" somehow equivalent to "we are no longer spending any money on defense- let the military rot lol".

Lack of funding isn't the issue with our military. Misappropriation of funding is the issue with our military.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Only in America is "We are no longer spending more on defense than the ten most powerful countries below us" somehow equivalent to "we are no longer spending any money on defense- let the military rot lol".

While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

I think the point isn't advancement, but size.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Only in America is "We are no longer spending more on defense than the ten most powerful countries below us" somehow equivalent to "we are no longer spending any money on defense- let the military rot lol".

While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.

 djones520 wrote:

Not cutting our military to the point that we can't stand up to them anymore? Our involvement in the middle east is not ending anytime in the foreseeable future, and our military right now is incapable of fighting a full scale war on another front, and there are just more shrinkages on the way. While China has done nothing but make their military grow, we've been making ours smaller and smaller.

Do you honestly believe that the US is on the cusp of "full-scale war" with China?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Not cutting our military to the point that we can't stand up to them anymore? Our involvement in the middle east is not ending anytime in the foreseeable future, and our military right now is incapable of fighting a full scale war on another front, and there are just more shrinkages on the way. While China has done nothing but make their military grow, we've been making ours smaller and smaller.

Do you honestly believe that the US is on the cusp of "full-scale war" with China?

Only a fool would think we are. Do you think it's a wise idea to continually make yourself weaker when potentially belligerent states also make themselves stronger? To tap into the geek culture here, China is playing the Game of Thrones, and they are playing it to win. We aren't. So to speak.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

That's a false dilemma. You can lower the amount of spending on defense while still maintaining a level that will keep your military healthy. Your assessment hinges on the implication that we haven't been mismanaging a huge sum of our defense budget on crap like the F-35.

It's a true statement that if you lose too much weight you'll die, but if you're 100 pounds past the obesity line then that's not a real concern.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

That's a false dilemma. You can lower the amount of spending on defense while still maintaining a level that will keep your military healthy. Your assessment hinges on the implication that we haven't been mismanaging a huge sum of our defense budget on crap.

It's a true statement that if you lose too much weight you'll die, but if you're 100 pounds past the obesity line then that's not a real concern.

We haven't. Our conflicts in SW Asia have been coming from funds from other appropriations. DoD funds though, have seen massive declines over the last 5 years. 2010 - $721 billion. 2015 - $637 billion.

 djones520 wrote:

Only a fool would think we are. Do you think it's a wise idea to continually make yourself weaker when potentially belligerent states also make themselves stronger?

It depends on the balance of power.

 djones520 wrote:
And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.

You just made a compelling argument for, essentially, welfare.

Conservatives believe we need less government, unless it's military spending, because then we can use tax dollars to inflate our military not because of strategic need but because lots of Americans need paychecks.

I mean, there is sort of a disconnect there.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Oh-no, better increase funding to the US armed forces! It's only 55% of our tax revenue!


*sigh*


The idea that china would ever attack Korea or japan is rediulous. Japan in the 3rd largest economy in the world, and is going to almost definitely have America behind it (unless there is some severe fallout between the governments). It would be stupid for China to delare war on anyone that would stop trade to and from china).

So explain how a budget of approximately $500B is 55% of our $3B Federal tax revenue ?

The thought that trade and economic links would stop a country from declaring war has never been true in the past so why would it be true in the future ?

Jerram wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Oh-no, better increase funding to the US armed forces! It's only 55% of our tax revenue!


*sigh*


The idea that china would ever attack Korea or japan is rediulous. Japan in the 3rd largest economy in the world, and is going to almost definitely have America behind it (unless there is some severe fallout between the governments). It would be stupid for China to delare war on anyone that would stop trade to and from china).

So explain how a budget of approximately $500B is 55% of our $3B Federal tax revenue ?

The thought that trade and economic links would stop a country from declaring war has never been true in the past so why would it be true in the future ?

Bleh, it appears I mixed up discretionary spending. I just saw a graph that said 55% and thought that is what it meant.
Still, huge budget.

And because China's economy is based on trade.




Edit:

I looked at this graph:


and thought it was this graph:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.

You just made a compelling argument for, essentially, welfare.

Conservatives believe we need less government, unless it's military spending, because then we can use tax dollars to inflate our military not because of strategic need but because lots of Americans need paychecks.

I mean, there is sort of a disconnect there.

As a South Park Conservative™ I don't think there's a disconnect.

We need "less government" isn't simply that... it's really that in many things, Government is not always the solution. So, by extention government would *be* smaller if our society isn't so dependent on Government.

Granted, there are certain things only the Government should do... such as the Military to defend our nation and our interests. As such, I'd want the biggest, badassed military on the planet. And if the local economies benefit from this... that's just gravy man.

As a corollary, I want our Governments to get fething serious on our borders... fences, man-power, high tech surveillance, increases in Coast Guards. That's a biggie too that'll make that piece of the Government "large"... again, if the local border economies benefits from this? Cool Beans!

 Jihadin wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
NEVER FORGET!

Not enough coffee in my blood yet. Not getting it unless referencing Pearl Harbor?

Ha ha - no!

I was making a joke based on what Kilkrazy wrote just above me!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

When you forget that existential defensive wars are much better fought overseas than on US territory.

 Alpharius wrote:
NEVER FORGET!

what's the breakdown of that 55% of military spending

 Jihadin wrote:
what's the breakdown of that 55% of military spending

Probably the best breakdown I have found:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

But when people talk about 55% of our spending is on the military they need to realize that there are differences between mandatory spending and discretionary spending:







I agree that our military spending is pretty out of whack, but there is no real benefit of making it sound worse than it is.

Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

US generals run this con job all the time, a worried announcement that some country somewhere has more of a certain weapon platform than the US, at the same time underplaying the massive difference in quality. The only solution is more of your higher end platforms, and military budgets forever climbing bigger and bigger. At some point people need to call bs on it, and start a conversation about how the US should balance it's national defence needs against a long term sustainable military budget.

One of the reasons that conversation never happens, strangely enough, is because these kind of conversations are typically flooded by people who question any kind of military spending. So the debate becomes one of whether the US should offer any kind of check on China at all.

Instead of all the nonsense, we should just agree that yes, of course the US needs to have capability to check China, and get on with discussing exactly what capability is really needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
As a South Park Conservative™ I don't think there's a disconnect.

We need "less government" isn't simply that... it's really that in many things, Government is not always the solution. So, by extention government would *be* smaller if our society isn't so dependent on Government.

Granted, there are certain things only the Government should do... such as the Military to defend our nation and our interests. As such, I'd want the biggest, badassed military on the planet. And if the local economies benefit from this... that's just gravy man.

No, the disconnect isn't between wanting smaller government overall but a bigger military. That's logically consistent. Not necessarily something everyone agrees with, but a viable political position.

The disconnect comes when you oppose government spending in general, but then one of your arguments for a bigger military is that it's a steady paycheck for millions of people, and the lifeblood of many towns. That piece of logic applies to any piece of government spending.

It's also a terrible, terrible argument. Money spent on any stupid nonsense will be a steady paycheck. Pay people to dig holes, and pay other people to fill them in, and you've created jobs just as much as if you've paid them to be in the army. The point being, of course, that if you'd given the money to a poor person they would have spent it, creating just as much economic activity as the army pay cheque. Or if you hadn't taken that money from the taxpayer they would have spent it on something for themselves, the effect again would be as much economic activity*.

So it becomes necessary to justify any government spending only the grounds that it is a better use of money than alternatives, and a better use of money than leaving it in the hands of the taxpayer. Obviously, there is a level of military spending where it is the best use of the funds - no point everyone having extra money for more netflix when the Canadians can pour over the border with no military to stop them... but the point is always what that level of spending needs to be overall.




*Note this argument changes when you hit a very deep recession. In this case people aren't spending their own money, and so government needs to spend money on anything just to maintain economic activity. In this case paying people to dig ditches and other people to fill them in actually becomes a reasonable thing. But that circumstance has happened twice in the last 100 years, and so shouldn't be made in ordinary circumstances. It's just that for strange reasons that argument has escaped its proper context and gets brought up to justify government spending whenever it's a program people like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

The trick there is that it's only showing Federal spending. Most education spending in the US is done at State and Local level. The US spends about 800 billion on education in total, compared to about 600 billion on its military.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.

You just made a compelling argument for, essentially, welfare.

Conservatives believe we need less government, unless it's military spending, because then we can use tax dollars to inflate our military not because of strategic need but because lots of Americans need paychecks.

I mean, there is sort of a disconnect there.

I did nothing of the sort. I was just pointing out that defense spending is not some black hole that we never see the money come back from. I am not at all saying that the money is being given away for nothing. It's not like we service members are sitting on our asses as collecting a paycheck for mearly being alive or anything.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

You do realize that's a federal budget chart right ? And that the overall government spending on Education in the US is a little over $900B i.e more than we spend on defense. And since I'm in a hurry I'll have to rely on a 2013 article "http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/" Sorry but the problem with our education system is not about the amount of money going into it despite what some people think.

 djones520 wrote:

I did nothing of the sort. I was just pointing out that defense spending is not some black hole that we never see the money come back from.

Yes, you did. You did it the moment you referenced indirect employment, and consumer spending.

 sebster wrote:
when the Canadians can pour over the border with no military to stop them...

I'd like to think there is a binder, deep in the recesses of the pentagon, that explicitly deals with just this eventuality. Maybe it's called "Operation: Black Maple Leaf".

 sebster wrote:
US generals run this con job all the time, a worried announcement that some country somewhere has more of a certain weapon platform than the US, at the same time underplaying the massive difference in quality.

Well, I could tell that you don't love America even before I saw your country flag.

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

Personally, I think the citizenry is more than capable of homeschooling their children about "intelligent design" without the government getting involved.

Just imagine the entire Chinese army in those, invading California.

The problem is. While china is investing sea warfare, the rest of the world is moving towards aircraft carriers with only drones.

China just shot itself in the foot as submarines have been outdated since with the advent of aircraft and hypersonic missiles and certain technologies called radar. Also there is currently testing of a certain weapon that could technically change warfare for good. (aka Railguns)

China's way of war is to throw as many troops at a problem as possible until the problem is solved.


Though on terms of the struggle between the US and China, there will never be an outward war between the two countries. China is smart enough to know, if they attack the united states, they would essentially be attacking NATO and the European Union. China would not want to deal with the economic power of the EU or its combined military strength.

Think of hegemonic power like a pendulum it swings back and forth but instead of just swinging back and forth, it swivel to it, allowing it to move in circles. Currently the hegemonic power is the United States. And every country wants that pendulum to swing their way.

China wants economic dominion, The EU wants to grow to become bigger and to rival quite a few countries.

Though I do possibly see that the US and China will one day go into an armed conflict over something equally stupid. Until that day though both sides would likely not want to encounter each other.


On Military spending, yes our military gets a lot of spending, but there is no race currently for us to do that. We need our military to still have force projection across the world. Once we lose that we are basically screwed on the world stage and china takes over as hegemonic power.

 gorgon wrote:

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.

A nation capable of fielding millions of submarines would indeed be scary, thankfully no such nation exists.

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.

A nation capable of fielding millions of submarines would indeed be scary, thankfully no such nation exists.

You don't say.

Knowing that a war is illogical doesn't really allow that it is not going to happen.


The US defense budget could be much, much more efficient. If only there were people in power who not afraid of their military (whether fear of loss of votes for any sort of criticism or fear of loss of votes for lack of hostility to military.)

 Scrabb wrote:
Knowing that a war is illogical doesn't really allow that it is not going to happen.


The US defense budget could be much, much more efficient. If only there were people in power who not afraid of their military (whether fear of loss of votes for any sort of criticism or fear of loss of votes for lack of hostility to military.)

While I don't disagree that there are inefficiencies, could you please expound on what you think they are?

Congress appropriating funds for equipment the military doesn't want.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

Then there's the fact all the branches of the military want all their own stuff. I don't think the marine corpse should have it's own aircraft.



I am actually more forgiving of R&D money mistakes than other inefficiencies.

That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Sure, congress is the one responsible for the military budget, by and large.

In discussing problems with said budget plenty of the blame will go to the lawmakers.

It's still a problem with the military budget.


Also, another inefficiency is the increasing number of officers.

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/90s/ns-wds-19980301.html


"This report shows that our military has almost twice as many officers per enlisted personnel than at the end of World War II. In short, officer inflation in the U.S. military has reached an all-time high. At a time when pay for enlisted personnel is so low that some are on food stamps, money is being squandered on an excessively large officer corps."

(said article is not far from 20 years old. I'm willing to bet the problem hasn't gone away yet)

Officers and NCO's are being "Pink Slipped" while in Afghanistan due to draw down. Anyone catch that past year?

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.

A nation capable of fielding millions of submarines would indeed be scary, thankfully no such nation exists.

When they surface the fiendish pontoon bridge they carry will span across the Pacific and deliver the Chinese hordes into California.
Only by increased funding of the Pentagon can this nightmare be stopped.

Bering Straight is better

 Scrabb wrote:
Sure, congress is the one responsible for the military budget, by and large.

In discussing problems with said budget plenty of the blame will go to the lawmakers.

It's still a problem with the military budget.


Also, another inefficiency is the increasing number of officers.

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/90s/ns-wds-19980301.html


"This report shows that our military has almost twice as many officers per enlisted personnel than at the end of World War II. In short, officer inflation in the U.S. military has reached an all-time high. At a time when pay for enlisted personnel is so low that some are on food stamps, money is being squandered on an excessively large officer corps."

(said article is not far from 20 years old. I'm willing to bet the problem hasn't gone away yet)

The officer number has to do with Warrant Officers, and officer Pilots. The Army has grown increasingly reliant on helicopters, and as such they need larger numbers of warrant officers to fly them. It's why they have such a disparity in the number of "officers" to enlisted. The Army alone has a over 3,000 helicopters. Everyone of those has 2 bodies (minimum) per air frame. It's not like the Army is just trying to make a good ole boy system. Is there officer bloat? Possibly, but it's hardly as bad as the pure numbers make it out to be.

Why do you have to be an officer to fly a helicopter?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you have to be an officer to fly a helicopter?

I don't know why, honestly. They got rid of enlisted aviators just before WW2 if I recall correctly. The only air frame that an enlisted person can "fly" in the US Military is a drone. And I think only in the Army does that happen.

That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

Take that up with the folks who make that decision. I'm just explaining how current doctrine warrants the increased number of officers compared to 60-70 years ago.

Edit: To make a point. Most Army Warrant Officers were prior enlisted. And I know more then a few current pilots in todays AF who started out as enlisted as well. I will say though, as a man who has everday dealings with pilots, and have a pretty good view of what their job entails, it is definitely a job that warrants more then enlisted pay.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

Take that up with the folks who make that decision. I'm just explaining how current doctrine warrants the increased number of officers compared to 60-70 years ago.

Edit: To make a point. Most Army Warrant Officers were prior enlisted. And I know more then a few current pilots in todays AF who started out as enlisted as well. I will say though, as a man who has everday dealings with pilots, and have a pretty good view of what their job entails, it is definitely a job that warrants more then enlisted pay.

I don't doubt they deserve more pay. Does the army not have different payscales based on your job? Or is it everyone of same rank gets paid the same?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

Take that up with the folks who make that decision. I'm just explaining how current doctrine warrants the increased number of officers compared to 60-70 years ago.

Edit: To make a point. Most Army Warrant Officers were prior enlisted. And I know more then a few current pilots in todays AF who started out as enlisted as well. I will say though, as a man who has everday dealings with pilots, and have a pretty good view of what their job entails, it is definitely a job that warrants more then enlisted pay.

I don't doubt they deserve more pay. Does the army not have different payscales based on your job? Or is it everyone of same rank gets paid the same?

I thought you were someone who had served before...

Nope. My grandpa served in WW2 and I have many friends who are/were in the military. Thats as close as it gets.

I did consider signing up for ROTC, but its a little late now that I'm less than a year from graduating.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nope. My grandpa served in WW2 and I have many friends who are/were in the military. Thats as close as it gets.

I did consider signing up for ROTC, but its a little late now that I'm less than a year from graduating.

Not sure why I thought that..

But no, to answer your question. Pay is standardized across all ranks, across all branches. An E-5 in the AF makes the same as an E-5 in the Army.

Hmm, interesting. Seems like something that could use a change.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Seems like something that could use a change.

I'm not so sure that would be a good idea.

Not for all jobs, but some jobs. You get paid according to the technical skill required for the job. Or if its particularly hazardous.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Seems like something that could use a change.

I'm not so sure that would be a good idea.

No, it would not be. The military works in large part because of its uniformity. Some jobs require more experience/better skilled/etc... folks to do it. That is why the job slot has to be filled by folks who are higher rank, and hence better paid. Officer pilots have to juggle the extreme job of being a pilot, while still being a leader. That is why they get better pay then Warrant Officers, who are just pilots, not leaders. Just as an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not for all jobs, but some jobs. You get paid according to the technical skill required for the job. Or if its particularly hazardous.

There are things that account for that. Hazardous duty pay. Special Duty Pay. Flight Pay. Sea Pay. All special allowances that are paid to folks who do "different" jobs. I currently get special duty pay because I'm an AF Weather Forecaster supporting the Army. Weather Forecasters supporting the AF don't get it, because the job that we get paid for is less "intensive" then my job. So I get the special incentive pay.

They may outnumber us, the our submarines are not powered by teams of rowers lead by a guy with a drum

Warrant Officers are specialized in their MOS's.
Warrant Officers (Pilots) are pro-rated in flight pay by the hours flown in the Air Frame.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They may outnumber us, the our submarines are not powered by teams of rowers lead by a guy with a drum

Nah they are powered by a team of isotopes lead by a guy with 3 eyes.

Uh, last time I looked in a history book, aren't Subs strategically useless outside of being spooky, and only real use in modern warfare is as mobile nuclear launch-pads? Otherwise the only thing you can use Submarines for is sinking enemy ships.... which missiles do far better job at, and are cheaper.

It's U-Boat Electric Boogaloo edition.

Subs carry missiles too. They're also stealthy. Good tools for inserting covert op teams.

Subs were hardly strategically useless in WW2, they sank a lot of supplies during the war. Even the threat of sinking your enemy's supplies is a good one.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Uh, last time I looked in a history book, aren't Subs strategically useless outside of being spooky

Fleets are strategically important, and any one ship outside of that sense can be called strategically useless. So it's a good thing no one really things of submarines in a vacuum but rather as an extension of a fleet's ability to operate.

and only real use in modern warfare is as mobile nuclear launch-pads?

No.

Otherwise the only thing you can use Submarines for is sinking enemy ships....

Even if that were true, how is that a bad thing? Most ships in a fleet serve (in varying degrees) 2 roles; the ability to protect the fleet from attack, and the ability to project firepower from the fleet onto a target. Submarines can fill both these roles in varying ways;

-Submarines can scout ahead of the fleet from a position of relative safety
-Submarines can attack an opposing force from a position of relative safety, and a position of strength as they can move more freely than surface ships
-Submarines can hunt and sink other Submarines which is both offensively and defensively significant
-Submarines can move independently of a fleet's main body and still support that fleet without becoming overly exposed

I'd expect subs to become even more significant as time goes on given advancements in drone technology (underwater drone carrier subs that can launch and retrieve drones without surfacing and control them from underwater for example).

which missiles do far better job at, and are cheaper.

Submarine's can launch missiles. And what is a torpedo, but an underwater missile?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Uh, last time I looked in a history book, aren't Subs strategically useless outside of being spooky

Fleets are strategically important, and any one ship outside of that sense can be called strategically useless. So it's a good thing no one really things of submarines in a vacuum but rather as an extension of a fleet's ability to operate.

and only real use in modern warfare is as mobile nuclear launch-pads?

No.

Otherwise the only thing you can use Submarines for is sinking enemy ships....

Even if that were true, how is that a bad thing? Most ships in a fleet serve (in varying degrees) 2 roles; the ability to protect the fleet from attack, and the ability to project firepower from the fleet onto a target. Submarines can fill both these roles in varying ways;

-Submarines can scout ahead of the fleet from a position of relative safety
-Submarines can attack an opposing force from a position of relative safety, and a position of strength as they can move more freely than surface ships
-Submarines can hunt and sink other Submarines which is both offensively and defensively significant
-Submarines can move independently of a fleet's main body and still support that fleet without becoming overly exposed

I'd expect subs to become even more significant as time goes on given advancements in drone technology (underwater drone carrier subs that can launch and retrieve drones without surfacing and control them from underwater for example).

which missiles do far better job at, and are cheaper.

Submarine's can launch missiles. And what is a torpedo, but an underwater missile?

Torpedoes aren't hypersonic missiles that completely bypass any defense and are almost physically impossible to defend against, plus Subs themselves can be targeted. Unless you're looking for a discrete place to store your nukes, you're better off with Super-Carriers. Everything you stated can already be done in a superior fashion by missiles, drones, piloted aircraft, and Destroyers. And drones especially are far easier to replace en masse compared to Subs- lose one and most or all of the crew is dead.

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

 Wyzilla wrote:
plus Subs themselves can be targeted.

Relevant how? What ship can't be targeted by something? Submarines are far less vulnerable to attack than surface ships. If you think torpedoes are useless, you should go back and check up some war games. Subs have bypassed fleets and sunk US carriers in mock games on several occasions. The most famous recent example being the Swedish Gotland class which 'sank' the Ronald Reagan in the middle of its own carrier group. And no one knew it was there until after it got back out. I.E. the sub sneaked its way pass the carrier group, touched the Reagan, and sneaked back out and no one knew it was there until after the game was over.

Unless you're looking for a discrete place to store your nukes, you're better off with Super-Carriers.

If this were a poorly balanced RTS, yeah, but it's not. For the cost of one GR class carrier we can buy 6 Virginia class subs, and I think it's pretty established the Virginia class is the F35 of the US Navy (horribly over costed). If we're talking non-Nuclear, which is most of China's subs, we're looking at even lower costs, and since China is more interested in controlling their local sphere than projection across the Pacific, this isn't a weakness for them like it is for the US. Carriers are only worth their cost if you need an airbase somewhere you don't have one. China as such, doesn't quite need them like America does. They don't have global power projection as a goal and their land bases meet their local needs.

The chinese did the same thing, 9 years ago.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/?page=all

 LordofHats wrote:

I'd expect subs to become even more significant as time goes on given advancements in drone technology (underwater drone carrier subs that can launch and retrieve drones without surfacing and control them from underwater for example).

Does the US really want to emulate the Union of Yuktobanian Republics?

 Wyzilla wrote:

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

Transports are easy, and I'm sure China has more than enough capable examples to do any of the invading it may have in mind.

As to carriers: they're working on that. When you start designing carrier aircraft, acquiring carrier hulls, and have officials say more are in the future its a fair bet there is serious interest in operating carriers.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

China probably has enough transports to get them across the straits to Taiwan and enough capacity to get to some of their neighbours. They really don't want to get across the pacific, They only need enough force to prevent US intervention and to give them and their local allies pause for thought.

They can also get resources by hoofing it to Siberia and westwards if they wanted the ball ache.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

China probably has enough transports to get them across the straits to Taiwan and enough capacity to get to some of their neighbours. They really don't want to get across the pacific, They only need enough force to prevent US intervention and to give them and their local allies pause for thought.

They can also get resources by hoofing it to Siberia and westwards if they wanted the ball ache.

Yeah, transport isn't the issue. The real reason they could invade Taiwan and Japan is because their land based aircraft can still cover them.

I'm sure China could just seize all large cargo ships that are in their ports if they ever declare war and need transports.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Unless you want the military to start raising its own money to pay for itself*, then you have to accept that congressional allocation, or misallocation, is part and parcel of the process.

Or to think of it another way, in Eisenhower's last speech as president, where he mentions the 'military industrial complex'... the earlier draft mentioned 'military–industrial–congressional complex', but that was dropped to avoid pissing off congress. The whole scam is a three legged stool;

1) Generals call for more and more money to poured in to the bottomless pit of defense needs to counter whatever new fiction the enemy might one day acquire
2) Defence contractors spread out across absolutely every state, and even across every district, so everyone gets a piece of the action
3) Congress critters who worry only about 'delivering jobs' to their own districts, and not about keeping spending under control for the good of the nation.



*Have casual dress Fridays, maybe? Requires a dollar donation - so far we've raised $537 of the $1,200,000,000 needed!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Even if that were true, how is that a bad thing? Most ships in a fleet serve (in varying degrees) 2 roles; the ability to protect the fleet from attack, and the ability to project firepower from the fleet onto a target. Submarines can fill both these roles in varying ways;

-Submarines can scout ahead of the fleet from a position of relative safety
-Submarines can attack an opposing force from a position of relative safety, and a position of strength as they can move more freely than surface ships
-Submarines can hunt and sink other Submarines which is both offensively and defensively significant
-Submarines can move independently of a fleet's main body and still support that fleet without becoming overly exposed

Good answer.

In other news, I was expecting this thread to come up with the old 'subs are the only thing that matters and carriers are white elephants argument'. Seeing an argument that subs are outdated through me for a loop

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Unless you want the military to start raising its own money to pay for itself*, then you have to accept that congressional allocation, or misallocation, is part and parcel of the process.


*Have casual dress Fridays, maybe? Requires a dollar donation - so far we've raised $537 of the $1,200,000,000 needed!

Just go back to a loot and plunder model of warfare. When we go back into Iraq instead of throwing tons of money into "rebuilding" that the locals will just steal anyways, we take everything that isn't nailed down. The US Army becomes a for-profit venture.

 Bromsy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Unless you want the military to start raising its own money to pay for itself*, then you have to accept that congressional allocation, or misallocation, is part and parcel of the process.


*Have casual dress Fridays, maybe? Requires a dollar donation - so far we've raised $537 of the $1,200,000,000 needed!

Just go back to a loot and plunder model of warfare. When we go back into Iraq instead of throwing tons of money into "rebuilding" that the locals will just steal anyways, we take everything that isn't nailed down. The US Army becomes a for-profit venture.

There is something to be said for that.

 Bromsy wrote:
Just go back to a loot and plunder model of warfare. When we go back into Iraq instead of throwing tons of money into "rebuilding" that the locals will just steal anyways, we take everything that isn't nailed down. The US Army becomes a for-profit venture.

Bring in the old hunting rule that you are only allowed to kill it if you intend to eat it, and it sounds like a workable model for the new century.

http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/11/14/billions-in-pentagon-spending-down-a-bla?videoId=274544480


A short video on how the pentagon is wasting massive amounts of money on simply storing weapons and materials, and how inefficient the system is. Since we're on the subject of the budget.

No matter what the west thinks I highly doubt China would ever really use this new model army to invade anywhere. Talk about Taiwan is rhetoric, The only objective I can see them taking is the DIaoyu Islands which they would need to arm for a longer period. China in her history rarely attacks other nations, if anything the states the smallest it's been since Qing dynasty and I doubt the CCP wants to disable the already rocky geopolitical situation.

The Qing dynasty did claim sovereignty over a fairly vast area, you know.

That's what I'm saying, smallest since the Qing. But I don't see it takes no back these lands in our lifetime.

 sebster wrote:

Bring in the old hunting rule that you are only allowed to kill it if you intend to eat it, and it sounds like a workable model for the new century.

...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

squidhills wrote:
...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

Quite intentional. The suggestion that armies fund themselves with plunder was an excellent means of reducing costs, but I don't think it could fully control the costs of supply. So if a rule was brought in that you eat what you kill, well that'd halve the challenges of supply, at least.

However, if this became internationally accepted then the advantage would go to the hungriest soldiers, giving an opening for North Korea to take over the world. But that's the only possible concern I can think of.

Don't eat people bro, you don't know where they've been.

 sebster wrote:

squidhills wrote:
...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

Quite intentional. The suggestion that armies fund themselves with plunder was an excellent means of reducing costs, but I don't think it could fully control the costs of supply. So if a rule was brought in that you eat what you kill, well that'd halve the challenges of supply, at least.

However, if this became internationally accepted then the advantage would go to the hungriest soldiers, giving an opening for North Korea to take over the world. But that's the only possible concern I can think of.

That's certainly a modest proposal.

This thread got dark, man.

 Hordini wrote:

 sebster wrote:

squidhills wrote:
...er.... did you just accidentally endorse cannibalism during wartime? Or did you purposely endorse cannibalism during wartime?

Quite intentional. The suggestion that armies fund themselves with plunder was an excellent means of reducing costs, but I don't think it could fully control the costs of supply. So if a rule was brought in that you eat what you kill, well that'd halve the challenges of supply, at least.

However, if this became internationally accepted then the advantage would go to the hungriest soldiers, giving an opening for North Korea to take over the world. But that's the only possible concern I can think of.

That's certainly a modest proposal.

Damnit, I was going to say that!

 daedalus wrote:
There are some who would think that submarines don't matter:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-submarines-about-become-obsolete-12253

The future is space man. Used to be control the seas and control the world, then control the air control the world, next is control space. All modern armies require satellites to function properly and compete with other advanced armies. maintain space superiority and nothing can touch you.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
There are some who would think that submarines don't matter:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-submarines-about-become-obsolete-12253

The future is space man. Used to be control the seas and control the world, then control the air control the world, next is control space. All modern armies require satellites to function properly and compete with other advanced armies. maintain space superiority and nothing can touch you.

Except lasers. Space is awesome, but has terrible cover.

 Hordini wrote:
That's certainly a modest proposal.

All my best ideas are stolen...