Forum: Off-topic

aardvark wrote:

Lets take the F-22 as an example. It's a potent weapon system. The merits of the F-22 have been argued back and forth but from a purely symbolic standpoint it's very powerful. It screams overwhelming invincibility in the air.

Obama really made a point of letting us know he was ending production. After the recent debt limit agreement there seemed to be an all assault on defense. The media having already cast considerable scorn on the F-35 now seem to be portraying it as a project facing possible cancellation.

Obama really does seem to be abdicating to China here. It' unfortunate. China's trade practices are partly responsible for the financial situation in the US.

Obama needs to be called out on his refusal or inability to confront China financially or militarily.

You have got to be kidding [Link pending approval] to confront China financially? With what? More Chinese loans to pay for your wishlist of expensive military equipment? I get [Link pending approval] satisfy your military hardware wishlist, when the country itself has:

1. Crumbling infrastructure
2. Heavy debt
3. Health care in shambles
4. education in disarray
5. Oh I forgot: 2 WARS that will likely cost 4 TRILLION bucks.

And I won't even comment on "confront China [Link pending approval]; Speaking as an active duty servicemember myself, you really need to stop wishing for wars unless you wanna join up and carry a rifle in my platoon.

We already overwhelm China [Link pending approval] don't quite need to do it a thousand times over.

F-16.net Sponsor

I have come to the conclusion that the USA is on its way out as a military and economic superpower. A military superpower can only exist if the economic might is there to back it up. Right now, what you see is just a continuous degradation of military power that will only get worse over time. Also, I do not see any possibility of a future recovery because USA's corporations have decided to send all the jobs to China regardless of what is happening in the USA. So, advanced industries that supposedly call USA home, will not create new jobs in the country therefore unemployment will not get any better.
The gap between the rich and the poor will continue to increase, slowly destroying the middle class which is what made the USA great.
This was not caused by Obama, it was caused by successive governments defending the interests of their rich mates and not looking after the hard working American people, and allowing institutionalised rorting and corruption to go on to the point were the economic stability of the world is at risk.
Do not get me started.....

Sadly I would agree with neutronstar and F16VIPER 110% on this, the United States economic might is definitely fading. And the national debt needs to be addressed and is becoming a defense problem (as well as an economic one) in it's own right. And I fear China, seeing the long view on this will be at least one country ready and willing to exploit that weakness. We have a way to go before China or anyone else catches up to us militarily, but economically and over the long haul it doesn't look good. Shrug

Aside from paying more attention to paying off U.S. debts I see no real answers to this problem either.

So many of our politicians aren't just an economic threat, they're a threat to national security. This idiocy just proves my point.

I'm not so sure about sending Taiwan F-16s that might well be part of the PLAAF in 20 years. They have fewer and fewer reasons to remain separate if Hong Kong is to serve as an example. Still, it's a humiliating position for the US to be so frightened of economic retaliation that we can't aid a long time ally. Maybe a cynical exchange can be worked out. China gives up support for N Korea and we stop propping up Taiwan.

As an interesting note, I once read a goofy scenario on APA in which the US was forced to sell excess F-35s to Taiwan in the wake of a global economic crisis that ruined EU purchases.

When it's time to retire the Harrier 2's wouldn't they offer something desirable to Taiwan? Pretty much an aircraft in the same power class as their F-16s. Not much less a2a capability than they have now, but can be dispersed safely in the field. In some ways it might be an increase in capability.

:: Post removed by moderator. No politics please! ::

With all due respect, is the whole premise of this discussion about the politics of selling F-16s to Taiwan?

Ronald Reagan was a good president, but his tactics of outspending adversaries simply won't work when we have nothing to spend with, except more loans from China. Did I mention that Reaganomics led to some serious economic troubles in the early 90s?

Also, what strategic value does Taiwan have for us? Is this simply a political issue of abiding to the law? Is China about to launch missiles and roll tanks into Taiwan?

I really have to agree with neutronstar and F16VIPER.

Quote:

madrat
When it's time to retire the Harrier 2's wouldn't they offer something desirable to Taiwan? Pretty much an aircraft in the same power class as their F-16s. Not much less a2a capability than they have now, but can be dispersed safely in the field. In some ways it might be an increase in capability.

That's an interesting idea. I wondered if at some future point if Taiwan might purchase some STOVL F-35B Lightning II's on a different thread for much the same reasons (not tied to airfields, forward dispersed). Although with the current administration balking at F-16's I suppose F-35B's are out of the question! Sad

Disconnectedradical -

I have to mostly disagree with the intent and/or the premise. First of all, the 'Strategic' ambiguity in the region left-over from the damned Cold war has been to support stable political resolutions to any differences and not make war an acceptable option.

But with respect to your example, even when taking into account DoD's soon to hit austere budget environment, the irony and fact is that the USA arguably does have a MASSIVE baseline defense budget *capacity* to outspend a *potential* adversary. More relevant to the issue though, as one shouldn't be an 'us vs them' antagonist imho, when justifying policy... the USA has a HUGE forward-looking defense budget even after substantial cuts from which to spend on significant levels of 'deterrence' - that which is sufficient to maintain ANY so-called 'balance of power' until the diplomats can better demilitarize and de-escalate the greater geopolitical scene.

Take both FY11 and FY12 base defense budgets of $515bn!! Hello? Now let's say these budgets are gradually reduced down to $450bn by 2018 give or take. Does one not understand how much actual Deterrence the USAF and USN *could have* purchased over the past 5-6 yrs (including FY12) and *could* purchase for the next 5-6 yrs?

The USAF alone could be entering into a Multi-year mixed buy of 40-45 fully-equipped (e.g., AESA + IRST), upgraded and operational F-16 and F-15E+ jets per year with procurement budgets it has! Does one not understand the maintained level of deterrence that employs, when adding next-gen stand-off ordnance and munitions and next-gen EW systems, etc? Moreover, with a fraction of the next-gen bomber budget, does one not comprehend how many new-build FB-22, as well as UCAV could be procured w/ next-gen stand-off munitions?

With respects to USN budgets, it's ridiculous to consider how many stealthy frigates, UCAV, stealthy cm and next-gen conventional powered subs could be procured, e.g. even under decreasing budgets as part of maintaining 'balance of power' and maintaining deterrence, whathaveyou.

No, it's not a matter of whether US is or will be able to out-spend a potential adversary with today's budgets, but rather, how hollow a future force structure and illusionary a deterrence the US can instead decide to acquire for a very sizeable budget.

And I guess, regarding the whole 'provocative' subject title of the thread to begin with rather than dealing with the raw issue as a discussion point, for what it is... I'd recommend we try to steer clear of 'us vs them' mind-sets and keep things such as deterrence and F-16 recapitalization requirements, etc, as general as possible. imho.

Respects to Tawain in their coming heated general elections and for continued peace, developing cooperation and success in the region.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... aiwan.html

Soon we shall see if China really succeeds in forcing the worlds only superpower to its knees.. After that anything is possible..

geogen wrote:

Off-topic.... but as for the post asking: what comes after 50 yr old in the tooth minuteman? Fair question in terms of maintaining balance of power until balance of power is no longer the rule. So perhaps it could be something offered by Orbital Sciences? A future new-build Minotaur family rocket, based on peacekeeper?

And start another Cold War type arms race. Read the lates t treaty - it is balanced. Not only Russia but the USA can't afford that now. A waste of money - parity and balance is good - spend the money at home and try to get those 46million USA citizens out of the poverty area. Education etc.
I as an Australian am happy to see the paranoia go in this area. Russia has no plans to try and dominate in this area. They virtually pleaded with the USA from 2000 on for the current treaty that basically limits each to 1500 active Nukes.
I as a world citizen am happy to see parity and balance in the area of Nuclear weapons. The USSR was a very responsible Nuclear Power. No secrets or technology escaped from there.

geogen wrote:

Duplex-
Give Obama admin credit where credit is due for truly being a strategic thinker in this one aspect. Credit this as a strategic win for US being influential at the lead.

I agree - respect and trust in the USA is now on the rise in Asia after decades of the opposite - it is good to see the USA administration show this type of Leadership and and balance. China has never been an agressive nation for thousands of years. There is no reason to think that will change. Up until about 1800 they were the richest and most powerfull country in the world but never abused that power. Hopefully O'Bama can change the paranoid thinking of many in the USA towards China. "If you want respect the best way to get it is to show some respect yourself"

duplex wrote:

Soon we shall see if China really succeeds in forcing the worlds only superpower to its knees.. After that anything is possible..

Absolute crap - China does not want the USA to fail in an Economic sense. If you listen there leadership is urging the the USA to take steps to get your economy sorted - they want you to pay your loans back etc. and keep buying there goods.
The Chinese think in very broad terms. If they wanted to take Taiwan back I am certain they could tomorrow and there is not much anybody could do. They are not that stupid though - it would be the end of there Economic revival - they are too pragmatic to do something as stupid as that. They would lose most of there Export Markets. The Chinese more than anybody realise we now have a World Economy - we are all more or less dependant on each other. All China really asks is the USA stop trying to make Taiwan a puppet of the USA - another base for the USA to project power - you can't afford them anyway. The people of Taiwan will decide in there own time. Historically Taiwan was part of China and always has been - those ties run deep.

rkap -

Thanks for your comments. We may have minor disagreements over one's perception of the historical and political aspects of things you discuss, in relation to today's current geopolitics, etc and we may have minor disagreements as to how both Taiwan and mainland China come to an eventually negotiated agreement in deciding how both PRC and Taiwan relate to a 'one China' definition.

But I fully respect your reply and agree with the core intent of your message, as I read it (as you may disagree with my more 'peripheral' political points as well). However, I would concur with your reply to duplex; as basically being 'not appropriate', especially given the overall spirit of the realities and necessary multi-lateral cooperation required, going forward.

Also, regardless of any nation desiring to maintain their current strategic deterrence and so-called 'balance of power' - be it by modernizing a current F-16 force structure or whatever - nobody today should be seeking a new arms race, as this should certainly not be in a 21st century world's interest, that is very true. Sure, the first interest is naturally to guard against political intimidation and antagonism and secure mid-term deterrence, but our mutual long-term interest is to chill-out and focus on the true dangers and threats to global humanity over the next 50-100 yrs.

And, p.s. to discofishing - I'd have to agree with him that under US's definition of 'poverty' @ $22,000+ income per year, for a family of 4, plus additional food stamps (worth $1,000s/yr), this is the last on the list of world concerns with regards to global poverty. Where the effort is needed now, is for more global coordination more than ever, in order to defeat true poverty and increase global stability/security, going forward. God speed..

Forum: Off-topic

U.S. denies Taiwan's request under Chinese pressure