Monday, December 30, 2019

The Pentagon Is Preparing To Fight The Wrong War

David Axe, Daily Beast: This Is What War Looks Like in 2029

America has the most military hardware of any country—but experts say the nature of war is shifting underground and online, and the U.S. may struggle to keep up.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 11 passed its version of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, clearing the way for the U.S. Senate to approve the measure. If President Donald Trump signs the bill, it will channel a staggering $740 billion into the Pentagon’s accounts.

That’s by far the biggest military budget of any country. The United States lavishes on its armed forces more than twice as much as No. 2 spender China does, and more than 10 times what No. 6 Russia does.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This is one of those must reads.


Bob Huntley said...

Very interesting article.

Note this little gem.

“Victorious nations are very hard to change their minds strategically,” McFate said. Usually they have to lose a battle or an entire war to convince them that they’re no longer the winners they thought they were. “They have to lose a lot of blood.”

Anonymous said...

And Bob saw what Bob wanted to see. Not surprising given that Bob has a rigid mindset and a blind side you could comfortably fit Andromeda through.

Local Packers And Movers Bangalore said...

I have recently started a blog, the information you offer on this website has helped me greatly. Thanks for all of your time & work.
Local Packers And Movers Bangalore

Mike Feldhake said...

I gave up after the 6th para, nothing I read was right. America is setup to manage multiple fronts, adapt to new tech and battlefield changes and confront terrorists where they sleep. What I read is that everything was wrong. Foolish article.

B.Poster said...

In order to properly analyze American defense needs and to map out a proper strategy, it is vital to properly understand the threats America faces. The author of this article appears to have trouble here. I will help out.

The main threats in order of likelihood are as follows: 1.) an Islamic terrorist attack involving the use of WMD detonated simultaneously across multiple metropolitan areas very likely involving the use of suitcase sized nuclear weapons and possibly an assortment of "dirty bombs. Millions and very likely 10s of millions of Americans would die in such an attack. 2.) An all out nuclear attack by Russia. Due to our lack of focus on this area in recent decades the Russian attack could come so quickly before we are able to respond. President Trump once said the first thing he did upon assuming office was to address this issue, upgrade the arsenal, and fix this. I hope and pray he did!! 3.) An invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, Russia and China, or Russia, China, and some combination of their allies.

It should be noted that threat number one while more likely than number 2 threat number 2 is the most dire. As such, top priority needs to be given to upgrading and expanding the nuclear arsenal to ensure we are able to respond to such a situation. If the adversary knows we have a viable deterrent, they should be less likely to actually attack us in this fashion.

Now that the threats have been identified and properly categorized we are able to properly formulate strategies and are able to make the proper investments in military technology. Unfortunately the author of this article fails in this area but I do agree that is a "must read" in the sense that it provides a window into what the so called "experts" are thinking. As unfortunately they currently have a large influence over foreign policy it is important to at least know what they are thinking so that at least we the people can properly plan!! Suffice it to say the "experts" have utterly failed us in multiple areas. This is why a number of us elected Trump and will do so again!!

First of all it should be understood that much of the military equipment that the author speaks so highly of and is so confident that we have an edge over adversaries with will likely be rendered useless by cyberattacks within the first minutes of an actual conflict with Russia or China. As such, they are like very expensive paper weights and hold little value to deal with the threats we actually face.

The author does mention information and its importance. First of all if one is to engage in an information campaign it actually helps to have a truthful message. The author does nothing to confront the twin myths of Russian interference in our elections and Trump collusion with Russia. Not only does the author not confront these lies but actually appears to reinforce them!! An information campaign based upon such misinformation is unlikely to end well.

Bob Huntley said...

Good post Mike

Because the article dealt basically with America and future wars it did not identify the possibility of an internal attack by Americans for whatever cause they represent, or, injustice they perceive, perhaps even inspired by international sources. Any defensive plan needs to address this to avoid a misguided response that might result in major nuclear destruction everywhere.

It reminds me that iniitialy the only aircraft response to 911 headed out to sea believing such an attack would come from offfshore.

Also, Timothy McVeigh immediately came to mind and I imagine if he had had access to a nuclear bomb he would have used it.


"A Gulf War veteran, McVeigh sought revenge against the federal government for the 1993 Waco siege that ended in the deaths of 86 people, many of whom were children, exactly two years before the bombing, as well as the 1992 Ruby Ridge incident and American foreign policy. He hoped to inspire a revolution against the federal government, and defended the bombing as a legitimate tactic against what he saw as a tyrannical government."

Perhaps the most effective means of defending against a massive nuclear attack might be to stop pissing people off and start making amends for previous wrongs done. Remember that if you bomb a facility to kill Taliban you feel are present it is likely that as a result you are killing innocents who agree with your and hate the Taliban. Such events could help Taliban recruiting.

Anonymous said...

"Because the article dealt basically with America and future wars it did not identify the possibility of an internal attack by Americans for whatever cause they represent, or, injustice they perceive"

You can tell Bob is positively giddy with the idea. Better than sex for him.

Bob Huntley said...

It speaks.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps the most effective means of defending against a massive nuclear attack might be to stop pissing people off and start making amends for previous wrongs done."

Bob Huntley, the Lord Haw Haw, of this blog.