The actual question for America Noonan should be, "Does America have the wisdom to use the power, for the good of Terra," not just merely do they have the wisdom to go to war. Terra exists today not because of wars fought but because of wars not fought.

By 2020, it could be that the United States faces the rest of the world with the sort of power differential Europe had against Asia and Africa in the 19th century.

Do we have the wisdom to use this power?

Posted by Mark Noonan at August 28, 2007 05:58 AM

Dear Lord, Mark, I hope you mean 'Do you have the wisdom NOT to use this power?'

Most of the world today believes that the United States of America now poses the greatest threat to global peace. If the U.S. continues to build and expand its armament unimpeded, what will that mean for us all tomorrow?

Posted by: Canadian Observer at August 28, 2007 07:21 AM

You beat me to the punch. I thought the same thing as I read Mark's thread. It is as if Republicans root for perpetual war.

CO, I think he means the wisdom to know when (and when not) to use such power.

If the U.S. continues to build and expand its armament unimpeded, what will that mean for us all tomorrow?

It'll mean folks like you will be safer and the bad guys will be less safe.

Most of the world today believes that the United States of America now poses the greatest threat to global peace.

You know what, CO, FU*K you and most of the world. I'm reminded of a great quote by a commentor at CQ a while back:

At the end of all this, someone is going to have to lead. Someone is going to have to inspire. Events won’t save us or drive us to take the right course. At some point soon, WE are going to have to “suck it up” and do what we have to do, and let the world opinion go where it will. I learned a long time ago that it’s always better to be respected than liked. Remember, everybody likes the girl in high school who can’t say “No”. (CQ comment by Lew responding to post about Iran 9/6/06)

Mark,

I don't know what type of gun they're talking about that has a range of 100 miles. It could be THIS, and they simply got their specs wrong. As the article says, rail guns could be deployed on the Zumwalt Class by 2019.

Well, for Canada it will mean no change in the Status Quo. We'll still provide protection to you with our defense department and soldiers, and you'll still complain we're horrible imperialists who are a danger to the world. Funny how we horrible imperialists have yet to take over our northern neighbor with its vast wealth of natural resources. But I can see why you're scared. All those Americans who've come to Canada and insisted you change your culture so as not to offend us. American houses of worship (read Starbucks) being built in every major Canadian city. A billboard praising American terrorists being erected in Windsor. Forcing Canadians to spell Check without a "que".

The mere existence of this military capability is "use". Refraining from sending this destroyer is every bit a use as is sending it. Finally, you may not want to believe this, but sometimes force is necessary to protect a country and its citizens. Not having the ability to project this force will mean more deaths than this Destroyer is ever likely to cause.

This new ship looks remarkably like the CSS Virginia, the very first ironclad, which fought the USS Monitor to a draw at Hampton Roads in March 1862.

CO, as Teddy R once said:

"walk softly but carry a BIG STICK"

CO,

Are you really that naïve? Have you ever heard the phrase; “Carry a big stick and talk softly”?

There will ALWAYS be someone or some group with total disregard for human rights and take or attempt to take whatever it is they want with no regard for those who suffer as a result of those actions. This situation would escalate if there were no repercussions for these aggressions and no one to stop you. On the other hand, these thugs are more likely to hold back and use restrain if “big brother” is watching. “Big brother” could be any one of a number of entities, whether it is an individual, a militia, a police department, a military or a group of other countries. Just knowing there is a possibility that someone else with a “really big stick” might stomp on your party often provides enough consideration for restraint.

But I guess YOU would rather just rely on the good will of the thugs to not harm you or your family or friends, how incredibly naïve.

God bless those willing to take the front in the war of aggression and terrorism. May God keep them strong, ready and safe so that they may provide protection to all of Gods children.

” Most of the world today believes that the United States of America now poses the greatest threat to global peace.”

First or all, YOU have no idea what “most of the world” believes. This is an absurd statement. Second of all, I’m going to guess that many of those who consider the US a threat feel that way because they are the ones with total disregard for human rights and are desperately afraid of losing their control and power over an oppressed people. Sad you can’t even se that.

As I've said before, those who complain about American imperialism seem to have had no problem with the former communist imperialism (the USSR taking over five European countries after WW2, North Korea invading South Korea, North Vietnam invading South Vietnam, Cuba exporting their "revolution" to places such as Angola, etc.) and don't seem too concerned about the current jihadi imperialism (other than worrying that our actions might provoke them), whose aim is to convert the entire world into a sharia-based theocracy. (Don't be fooled by the small current size of the areas controlled by jihadis. Their goal is nothing less than the world itself on its knees, facing Mecca.)

Mark, as impressive as this new ship is, you should remember one thing. The jihadis have a weapon that can lay it low in one stroke, or at least cause serious damage, as the crew of the USS Cole found out. So let's hope the ROE have been changed to allow sailors to destroy anything that gets too close and does not heed warning shots.

Most of the world today believes that the United States of America now poses the greatest threat to global peace.

While some will undoubtedly blame our invasion of Iraq, this charge is decades old, and comes from the belief among the left, that strength itself, the very ability to defend yourself, is a form of provocation. We saw that during the Cold War "disarm" movement, which urged the U.S. to get rid of all its nukes (yet, curiously never bothered to ask the USSR to do the same), and more recently with Congressman Lantos, who stated that our proposed missile shield would be a provocation against North Korea.

Here is the dilemma that the U.S. faces: Lefties both foreign and domestic who consider strength to be provocative, at the same time that jihadis attack when they perceive weakness. One group damns us when we do one thing. Another group damns us when we do the opposite.

There was a nice article in Harper's this month describing the sorts of attitudes that Mark exposes here. Mark glorifies war and its instruments. Mark hopes for an era where the United States can use military power to rule the world with an iron fist and tries to disguise it wrapping it in his idea of patriotism. Its sad really. Ultimately the author of the article concluded that such attitudes are like the flies stuck in amber forever stuck in a different era. Like a mammoth stuck in the tar pits Mark's conception of the world is stuck in the nonsense of another era. What how romantically he describes guns whose only purpose is to destroy.
Don't get me wrong - we live in a dangerous world and do need the ability to defend ourselves. But Mark and those like him are like the five year olds playing with GI joes in the sandbox

Mark hopes for an era where the United States can use military power to rule the world with an iron fist

Gee, LT, I've been on this blog for, oh, I don't know, about 3 years longer than you have, and I don't recall Mark EVER saying that, or even hinting at it. And in all my 62 years on this earth, I can't recall any actions of the United States that would suggest that that's what our goal is. I assume you must have some particular posts of Marks in mind to have made such a statement. And I also assume you must have some military actions of the United States in mind where we conquered other nations and "ruled with an iron fist". Care to share them with the rest of us? Take your time -- I'll wait.

Bigfoot states: "The jihadis have a weapon that can lay it low in one stroke, or at least cause serious damage, as the crew of the USS Cole found out. So let's hope the ROE have been changed to allow sailors to destroy anything that gets too close and does not heed warning shots."

Are you talking about our Democrat party and their desire to diminsh our military? I don't get it Bigfoot....snicker...snicker.

I would tend to agree with bigfoot. It is acknowledged by most anyone, currently our most diabolocal enemy only needs some fertilizer, a cement truck and a heavy civilian population to inflict a major blow against us. Yes, new weapons are needed, we have to think of North Korea, China and again Russia. But the billions to produce what seems to be a boondoggle, the
F-22, and the like, may have been better spent on mine resistent vehicles in Iraq or provisional reconstruction teams.

I am like most other red blooded american males, I like military hardware seemingly straight out of sci-fi novels, but maybe the costs for such toys could be utilized in other areas more pressing for our national defense.

Spook,

I might have misheard, or they might have mis-spoke...at any rate, still one heck of a gun. I'm starting to feel that the only thing I'd know about these modern ships is that the pointy end is the bow and the round end is the stern...

gene,

Its a matter of this choice: do we go with perhaps less expensive, but less effective, weapons in order to save money with the understanding that we're sending the troops into battle less well equipped than we could have? Do you want the responsibility for American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines being killed because you wanted to save a few dollars out of the defense budget? One of the things FDR will always damned for was the way he didn't even make moderate provision for our troops in the Phillipines...forcing the men to fight with obsolete weapons which often didn't work at all.

If you are to have a military at all, you must build the best military you can. Anything less is criminal negligence.

Mark-

I understand your point, but my point is, how useful is this new ship against fighting Al Qaeda? Not very. If we didn't give billions to these super weapons programs we could spend it on other more pressing needs. Better armor for the boots on the ground, more incentive programs to continue to retain and recruit the best and the brightest volunteers, etc....

I was not talking about limiting the defense budget just spending it better maybe.

Mark,

Former Spruance Sailor (DD 981 and 974). Check out the test on the rail gun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54aLcC3G74

Liberal,

I beg your pardon? You know, you are quite free with the insults towards me and I've been very patient with you, but if you want to continue to comment on this blog I think you should start to show a little more respect for me, as I am your host here.

To think that I, a former sailor, would hold feelings other than love for the magnificent men and women of our armed forces is a gross insult - and to some how take out of a comment where I wonder if we have the wisdom to use our power properly that I'm some sort of buccaneer imperialist is not only insulting, but extraordinarily obtuse.

gene,

From what I gather, the guns on this ship are intended for action against land targets - the chances of the US Navy allowing an enemy warship to get within line-of-sight range (ie, gun battle range) of a US fleet are nonexistent. Our Navy is built entirely with over the horizon targeting in mind.

I also understand that this ship will be less expensive - certainly by having a crew half the size of even smaller ships in existence today will he a huge money-saver.

It isn't a matter of a choice between armoured vehicles in Iraq and new destroyers in the fleet - you do both, because both are necessary. The only debate on the defense budget really should revolve around how big a military we need - there should be no debate about whether or not we should equip the military with the very best we can make.

Good post from Wrechard at Belmont Club on the return of the Dreadnought.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/07/return-of-dreadnought-nearly-hundred.html

Ed,

Thanks for the link - it is a flabbergasting concept, this new rail gun...if there is one fleet equipped with it and the other is not, then that other fleet might as well scuttle itself in port as come out and fight...if both fleets have it, then whomever fires first will win, in seconds.

Thanks for the link - it is a flabbergasting concept, this new rail gun...if there is one fleet equipped with it and the other is not, then that other fleet might as well scuttle itself in port as come out and fight...if both fleets have it, then whomever fires first will win, in seconds.

Gene brought up this point earlier that who in the world is going to take on US firepower even as-is. I think our 1970 military could still take out anyone in the world. We live in a post 9-11 world where our enemy is not going to try to stand toe ot toe with tanks and warships to take us on. Would our resources be better spent than this? It's great for puffing out our chest but does a ship like this really make us any safer?

Great links, Ed.

Mark: The only debate on the defense budget really should revolve around how big a military we need - there should be no debate about whether or not we should equip the military with the very best we can make.

It seems to me that the debate has been, and should be, how best to organize and deploy military personnel versus how best to organize and deploy military equipment, versus how best to consider the threats against us, and to deploy our assets accordingly. It seems to me the third consideration is the most important. I'm not advocating any particular strategic posture, I'm just attempting to point out that things have changed, and that fact has to be taken into account. What the ramifications of that change predicates is beyond me to evaluate (especially at present). But the present discussion, so far, hasn't helped in that regard either. In other words, while I agree with the notion that "we should equip the military with the very best we can make", it accounts for naught if it doesn't address the perceived threat. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just saying that no evidence has been presented that it does.

"Gene brought up this point earlier that who in the world is going to take on US firepower even as-is."

Nobody -- and the reason for this is, the last time somebody said 'why do we need to get better? we're already more than good enough!', the answer they got back was 'The state of the art never stands still, and neither should we.'

The 'boondoggles' of the 90s are why the early-21st-century US military has maintained its lead on the rest of the world. We stand still and stop working on next-gen hardware, by the time we notice that people are closing the gap, it will be too late to start up again.

"I think our 1970 military could still take out anyone in the world."

No. Not even remotely.

Ricorun and Aztec,

The larger challenge to the United States, in the long run, is China - and China would like nothing better than for us to eschew these new weapons, which they cannot make for decades, and concentrate our efforts exclusively on anti-insurgency weapons and tactics.

The United States is the global defending of liberty in the world, and we must maintain a global military capable not just of fighting any combination of enemies, but of utterly destroying them in the swiftest manner possible.

Sorry phnx. You are correct, that should read “walk” softly and carry a big stick.

China? a military threat to the US? I think you're seeing bogeymen. Not only how but why would the government of China attack the US or allies? A very large part of their economy is dependent on trade with the US, we have strong diplomatic ties, it just doesn't make any sense.

Aztec,

The Sino-US situation is similar to the Anglo-German situation of 100 years ago - massive trading partners who actually have many reasons to be in alliance, and yet the one holds the orb and mace of global power and the other feels that it is due a larger place in the sun; one is free, the other authortarian; one is self-satisfied, the other suffering from feelings of inferiority stemming from recent times of national humiliation. Most importantly is that China, like Germany of a century ago, is caught in a vise of its own making - unwilling to really take the internal political and economic steps necessary to realise the economic promise made by the government to the people in return for their subservience. As the internal crisis grows more acute, the willingness to lash out externally grows...like Germany of 1907, in China of 2007 it can be said that once the war party gets in the saddle, there will be a world war. And there is a war party in China - mostly in the People's Liberation Army, but also elsewhere in a government growing more desperate for expedients to stave off crisis.

Unless there is a radical change in China's government, we will face war with China in the by and by.

Mark: The larger challenge to the United States, in the long run, is China - and China would like nothing better than for us to eschew these new weapons, which they cannot make for decades...

China huh? Decades later huh? Pardon me for pointing this out, but if it's decades out, why should we worry about that particular threat now when there are so many obvious short-term threats? I'm just asking.

DM and phnx,
The actual quote is:
"SPEAK softly and carry a big stick." It's not even an original TR quote but an old proverb.
Does the koolaid make people ignorant, or were you guys just born that way?

Ricorun,

Because it takes a while to go from idea to commissioned ship. From what I understand, it is still a number of years before we get a DDG 1000 actually underway with the fleet - and it will take some years beyond that before there are enough of them and they are fully integrated into the fleet. It is always foolish to put off preparations because one feels that there is no immediate threat - always, always be looking at the horizon.

If China ever does decide to challenge us - and I think she will - then we want at that moment to have a military force in being which can beat her. Had we just kept our military up to scratch between 1918 and 1941, the enemy would not have gotten as far as he did, and it would have been far less costly to beat him.

"China huh? Decades later huh? Pardon me for pointing this out, but if it's decades out, why should we worry about that particular threat now [...]"

Because R&D on this scale has a /long/ lag time. The F-22's original concept research started in *1981*, to give you an idea.

When allocating the research budget, you plan for the (stuff) you anticipate needing a decade or more down the line, *because that's how long it'll take before the research project is actually finished and on the line*.

And if you know a way to speed that up, take it to Washington DC -- they'll make you chief of DARPA on the spot.

to the ASShats who can not equate 2+2 = 4
First what do you think is parked off the coast of iran, and n. korea?

US military POWER. This is the ONLY thing keeping them from attacking their immediate neighbors.
China is a potential threat and we must keep up pur strategic guard, as well as putans re-emerging russia.

As for more armor for the troops, you can NEVER protect all from harm, it is the nature of the beast. The best defense of the troops IS projected power and weapon systems.

In Viet Nam we had a "flack" jacket and a helmet.
no trucks, jeeps, choppers etc were hardened. To spend billions to protect a few grunts is a fools game and a waste of money. Keep it on the big weapons and the need for the grunts will be diminished drastically.

PS, I was a GRUNT and know what i am talking about.

Unless there is a radical change in China's government, we will face war with China in the by and by.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 28, 2007 04:27 PM

So, Mark, this war with China; will it be fought with conventional weapons or are you looking forward to using the big bad boys in the U.S. arsenal?

Will it be a 'shock & awe' invasion with unlimited years of occupation on their soil or do you anticipate total annihilation of the Chinese population as the only real solution?

If the U.S. continues to build and expand its armament unimpeded, what will that mean for us all tomorrow?

Hopefully it means we will soon invade Canada and purge that once-great land of all the dumbasses who have ruined her...

Hopefully it means we will soon invade Canada and purge that once-great land of all the dumbasses who have ruined her...

Posted by: Ted Nugent '08!!! at August 28, 2007 07:11 PM

Keefer

Our chief dumbass resides in Ottawa. He's on friendly terms with Bush. Will the invasion start there?

Salvelinus,

You are either a complete moron or have a reading comprehension problem, as well as a lack of knowledge of American history

What I quoted was attributed to Teddy Roosevelt

Who cares if there was another previous quote which was similar. Teddy's foreign policy was characterized by the statement "walk softly but carry a big stick" which seems quite appropriate to the discussion at hand.

You're not Canadian are you? That would go along way in explaining your intellectual deficit.

I'm involved in the DDG1000 or Zumwalt Class destroyer program in a small way. The system is built to be modular so different compartments with various mission packages can be plugged in. Yes, it's pretty cool.

CO,

Conventional, of course - China is shooting for domination of east Asia and the western Pacific...not much point in dominating a radioactive wasteland, now is there?

But you ought to think a bit - just why is North Korea still in existence? China could have it down in a moment if they just stopped subsidizing it...and if they were looking for peace, that is precisely what they would do. And China could easily demand, and get, a neutral Korea with a large DMZ south of the Yalu. It would cost China less money, remove a potentional flash point and contribute greatly to the peace of the world if the North Korea government was thrown over...but China props it up, and prevents real screws from being applied to stop its nuke program. Why?

Because when China moves to invade Taiwan (a continually re-declared goal of Chinese policy), they'll need something to tie down major US and Japanese forces...nothing like a mad dog attack by NK on SK and Japan to concentrate the American mind, huh? (Why would NK play along - because they'd have no choice and, of course, China would provide guarantees of NK's continued existence in a post-war world).

It is coming, CO; bank on it. Only a major change in the Chinese government can prevent it, and that looks unlikely. China is a giant on spindly legs - honeycombed with bad debt, hopelessly mired in official corruption and unable to genuinely liberate the Chinese economy for fear the people of China will get completely out of hand. It needs massive influx of US dollars via the export trade just to barely keep afloat, especially with its massive defense spending (I know that the official Chinese figures look small - but my estimate is that 20% of real Chinese GDP goes to the military...the PLA being a MAJOR power player in Chinese politics...like the German army pre-WWI, loyal to its own cloth and infused with the notion that it most accurately represents all that is best about China). The corrupt oligarchs who rule China can't advance and can't retreat - they will lash out, and a world war will happen.

Our chief dumbass resides in Ottawa. He's on friendly terms with Bush. Will the invasion start there?

I didn't know you lived in Ottawa; I thought you lived in Montreal or Toronto. lol

So, is your "chief dumbass" a dumbass because he's a conservative? So, you think conservatives are dumbasses. Fair enough; I think all libs/progressives are kooks, so we're even...

phnx,
The quote IS attributed to TR -- that's because he uttered that proverb -- the point is that what he (and the proverb) stated was "'SPEAK' softly and carry a big stick," not "WALK" softly.
If someone has a reading comprehension problem or a lack of knowledge of American history -- it's not me.
Maroons

Salvelinus:

http://www.paulmcgeheeart.com/pages/TeddyRoosevelt.htm

If, as you say, you don't have a reading problem then you must be from Canada.