packsaddle Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Basementdweller, the US in 2011 represented more than 41% of the entire world's defense spending. China represented 8%. Their technical abilities are far more troubling with respect to their business acumen...they're already kicking butt in the marketplace. That aircraft carrier was an old Soviet ship that the Chinese bought at a Ukraine yard sale. It doesn't even have any planes yet. The place to really consider China's prowess is in the geopolitical realm of world politics and economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basementdweller Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 While that is true Pack.... It might not happen in my lifetime......They will be a military force.... I am aware that the aircraft carrier was an old soviet one, but it is a sign they are looking to expand their sphere of influence. Hopefully we get that global bomber and fighter project figured out......being about to keep our air forces based in the US and have the ability to reach anywhere on the planet in a couple of hours.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunny2862 Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 It's not the carrier even equipped and with trained up pilots that bother me. It's the Ballistic Anti-Ship missiles capable of taking out a carrier (given they solve the terminal guidance issues) that are becoming an issue. By the way, the current carrier force projections (assuming all of the carriers in the world were operational) in the world are pretty much 60/40 United States to everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 True, If that system is perfected we may have a lot of really expensive floating bullseyes. Ain't technology wonderful! We have 11 carriers in service and one in reserve. Only Italy and Spain have two in service. Everyone else who even has one only has one in service, and none in reserve. The one the UK has is basically a toy in comparison. I can only imagine what kind of archaic bucket of bolts Argentina has. And we're still building them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel947 Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 Packsaddle: I destroyed your thesis with my reply. I don't know what you are reading... Your thesis: You guys can throw around all the high-minded fantasyland reasons for military action you want. But this country has demonstrated empirically that we are willing to go to war for a reason that can be summarized with a single word: oil. It's that simple. You said empirically. Empirically would mean a MAJORITY of US Military Actions are over oil. And Beavah and I CLEARLY proved that notion to be invalid. You are correct that the Gulf War was over oil. I even granted you an extra war in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However saying that the Gulf War was over oil was not your original thesis. Again, this was your central idea: "this country has demonstrated empirically that we are willing to go to war for a reason that can be summarized with a single word: oil." Empirical data suggests that US Military actions have been very limited concerning oil, but are on the rise in the last 2 Decades. If you'd like to argue that in the last 20 years American warfare has been over oil interests, than I think that is a strong thesis to make, and I'd give your conclusion an A+. Sentinel947 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 My contention was that we are willing to go to war for oil. Now prior to Desert Storm, we might have argued over whether we were willing to go to war for something like that. It would have been hypothetical or theoretical. But Desert Storm laid that to rest. We DID it. THAT was an empirical demonstration that we ARE willing to go to war for oil. It doesn't matter if we have a hundred other reasons for going to war as well. We did it and that demonstrated the correctness of the principle. Moreover it doesn't matter if that is the ONLY time we went to war for oil. It still means we are willing to go to war for oil. Why are you so hung up on this? 'Empirical' merely means that something is observed, as opposed to theorized or hypothesized or implied or inferred. And in this case it certainly was demonstrated empirically that we are willing to go to war for oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel947 Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 I appear to have misused the term "Empirical." and that my friend would be where the hang up lies. As a matter of principle, I got hung up intially on what I perceived to be a claim that all American does is fight over Oil, and I found the notion to be insulting and inaccurate. That was not your argument, and due to my misuse of "Empirical" I misinterpreted your argument. Clearly you are correct in saying the United States has fought a war over oil. That is proved by your example of the Gulf War. My apologies for the mistake, Sentinel947 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 None needed, I understand. My reason for making that post was to show that as a people we are capable of making the decision to go to war on the basis of something as banal as 'oil' as well as the high-minded things that were being listed. I just wanted the realities of our history to temper the mood a bit. We really DO espouse high principles. We just sometimes fail to live up to them. And I wanted everyone to keep that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now