I'm sorry -- Republicans? How did Republicans get into a discussion of the missile capabilities of China and/or defensive mechanisms carrier battle groups might or might not have?
Come on, guys. Take the politics somewhere else. People of both parties have lots of differing opinions as to various threats posed by various entities. Until it gets to funding, it's a professional judgment thing, not a partisan thing. And we're not discussing funding.
I don't think we're in danger right now of unlimited war with anybody, but then again nobody is paying me to worry about it. I think the point of strategic surprise is to maneuver your country into such a position that it could launch a surprise attack and get away with it -- your opponent has no time to build a counter-measure.
Of course, believing that a dominant weapon system from the 1940s is still viable today might be completely crazy. History tells us that things change dramatically in warfare. On the other hand, if it is not total war, then who cares what systems exist that are not going to be used?
There's a very interesting discussion about military theory and history here. Let's take the politics out of it if we can please.
The article is a bid to get more funding for advanced missile programs. I went to the Naval Academy, home of the Naval Institute, where Proceedings is published. I have had my ship on the cover of Proceedings. It is an opinion rag for admirals and power brokers, with the occasional essay contest to lend an air of authenticity, nothing more. The average blog cites more sources than these guys.
In so far as it is a bid to get more money for advanced missile programs, it is entirely about getting Republicans back in power. Having been in the military under Democratic and Republican regimes, it's pretty clear which causes money to run freely.
I wasn't really trying to make a political point. I was trying to offer an object lesson in taking the wool off one's eyes. Obviously I failed.
Come on, guys. Take the politics somewhere else. People of both parties have lots of differing opinions as to various threats posed by various entities. Until it gets to funding, it's a professional judgment thing, not a partisan thing. And we're not discussing funding.
I don't think we're in danger right now of unlimited war with anybody, but then again nobody is paying me to worry about it. I think the point of strategic surprise is to maneuver your country into such a position that it could launch a surprise attack and get away with it -- your opponent has no time to build a counter-measure.
Of course, believing that a dominant weapon system from the 1940s is still viable today might be completely crazy. History tells us that things change dramatically in warfare. On the other hand, if it is not total war, then who cares what systems exist that are not going to be used?
There's a very interesting discussion about military theory and history here. Let's take the politics out of it if we can please.