F-22 production termination is premature

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 5820
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:00 am

Intelligence is much more crucial than striking capability. If North Korea mobilizes for a strike against South Korea, then the US spy satellites will see that. You dont mobilize an army in a few hours. You can see their movements, artillery being brought into position, tanks being refueled, jets coming out of hangers. Simply put, you can see all that happening with Satellites. Even before the attack goes off, the US intelligence probably gets to hear something. That would probably trigger increased surveillance.
By the time North Korea has brought their artillery into position, US forces should already by in position as well. At least there would/should be UAVs and more surveillance equipment and some fast response forces in the area. Then all it takes is some cruise missiles (could probably be launched from submarines or warships near the coast, as well as planes and bases in South Korea) to take out the artillery positions as soon as North Korea raises as much as an ear.
In any case, in a situation like this, intel is crucial. You dont want to start a war because your oponent is doing a military exercise (or because you think he has weapons of mass destruction, that he does not have, gggggg). That does not make you look to good in the eye of the general public, you know.
So, again, I think that anything related to intelligence is more important than striking power. After all, you will want to know where to send your F22s, or F35s when the time comes. If they are just flying arround in circles, searching for those artillery positions that they are supposed to attack, they wont do much good, would they?

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Postby djolds1 » Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:10 am

Skipjack wrote:
One more good swift kick to the family jewels will be necessary to keep Russia down permanently.
Why? I think they are behaving pretty well right now (aside from some smaller issues that are not even newsworthy anymore).
Because when you put an enemy down you make sure he stays down, or he comes back at you. Basic power politics and strategy for the last 4000 years. See Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and the consequences of letting Germany go revanchist after WW1 in the last century. Especially in the case of a peer competitor with a proven track record of pushing you to the edge. Parallel with the Punic Wars; this cycle's Carthage isn't dead yet, and Rome doesn't rest easy until Carthage's walls are toppled, its temples burned, its wells ruined and its earth salted.

Skipjack wrote:I would be careful with your ideas. The next war with Russia might be hot and we all would be the losers of that one. Besides, the world economies are tied to closely already. A war between two major entities like the US and Russia would result in a worldwide economic catastrophe (supply lines cut, markets lost, etc).
Care to guess which nation was France's largest trading partner in 1913, just before the outbreak of WW1? Economic determinism is a comforting illusion gifted to us by Marx, but when the eternal human game of status & Will to Power rears its head, economics go out the window.

The world power that is on the top of the heap gets to make the world system in its image. That is worth a LOT of disruption if you are either a challenger trying to become hegemon, or a hegemon trying to maintain that hegemony.

Skipjack wrote:
You have to consider the alternatives. Invest in a small war now. Avoid a bigger war later.
What "small war" do you want to fight? I cant see any immenent agressors at the moment, just small countries that think they can do some sabre rattling with nothing to show for it.
The Lesson of Munich indicates that it is best to snuff threats when they ARE small and inconsequential. By the time they become large and noticeable, the cost to snuff those threats goes up geometrically. The UK lost its world hegemony following exactly the course you prescribe.

Skipjack wrote:
Great Britain slit its own throat over the course of two World Wars; the US merely stood back and let the Empire die.
I think the Germans might disagree with that.
The UK could've ceded the continent to Germany, or cut a deal. One of the more interesting tangent "what ifs" of history is "what if Germany had won WW1?" Regardless, the UK bled white its treasury, the flower of its manhood, and its societal self-confidence in the two generation suicide pact it engaged in with Germany. After WW2 the US added a few extra pressures to push the British Empire over the edge into irrecoverable status, culminating in the Suez crisis.

Skipjack wrote:
Staying on top is a good thing. But that requires vigilance and preparation to keep the challengers one-down.
Again, the question was more, about what war material you need. Do you need UAVs, or do you need F22s?
You don't necessarily need hot war for a hegemon to keep its potential challengers down, but the hegemon does need the military capacity to threaten credibly. So long as the capabilities are there they do not necessarily need to be used often. Infrequent object lessons are sufficient.

A friend of mine jokes that the US national symbol should be the grizzly bear, not the bald eagle. He's not wrong. Basically a wandering loner, sometimes crushes other life forms without even noticing simply because its so big, will gut you with fury if you annoy it, but would mostly like to be left alone. Other contenders for world hegemon would be far more intrusive and dictatorial by nature.

Skipjack wrote:In the current wars the US is fighting, you need more UAVs than F22s. That is pretty clear to me at least.
The current type of UAVs are useful for colonial/constabulary pirate wars. They are not useful for intimidating potential peer competitors into subordinate positions.

Beyond that, the F22/F35 generation will be the last generation of manned fighters. The next generation of aerospace superiority fighters will be not only unmanned, but autonomous. The Chinese would be wise to skip the F22-equivalent generation and move directly to Autonomous Kill Vehicles.
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Postby djolds1 » Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:14 am

Skipjack wrote:
though in the current climate we'd probably just let China have Taiwan
I doubt that they will take Taiwan. I really doubt that they would dare to do that. The US nukes are enough a deterrend to gurantee that.
Last time there was a crisis in the Taiwan Straits, the Chinese threatened to nuke the US' West Coast cities. They didn't do so, but the threat was levied. Last I checked the PRC had 24 nuclear tipped ICBMs as a token force. OTOH, its "civilian" Long March boosters are impressive, technologically mature, and ICBMs in all but name.
Vae Victis

Skipjack
Posts: 5820
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:12 am

Last time there was a crisis in the Taiwan Straits, the Chinese threatened to nuke the US' West Coast cities. They didn't do so, but the threat was levied.


When was that?
I must have missed that one. I think that most is sabre rattling.
Their long march rockets are good, yes. The Chinese are technologically advanced. They could target any nation on earth with their nukes. But they wont. They could just as well aim the nuke at their own country. It would not make a difference. Their economy depends on us, as much as our economy depends on them. Unless they are suicidal, they wont do something like that. They are a little crazy, but not that crazy.
Besides, I am sure that the next generation of leaders there, will be very different. They grew up playing World of Warcraft and eating at McDonalds. It is the globalized world. In this world countries can not survive long on their own. They need others to survive. Anyone who has some brains knows that. The Chinese are not stupid, nor is their ideological background that strong anymore that they would make that suicidal decisions. I asess their thread as small.
Biggest threads I see at the moment: Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran, North Korea.
Turkey is becoming worrysone too. Their current president is a religious right hardliner. I dont like him at all. Luckily right now the turks rather fight the war with the pregnant bellies of their women, than with weapons. That might take longer, but is more effective.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Postby MirariNefas » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:32 am

All this talk of China and nukes is silly. If China invaded Taiwan, even a hawkish president would limit us to providing air and sea support. Our nukes would be useless. The current administration would probably just push through some resolutions in the UN.

And even if we landed full fighting forces on Taiwan, China wouldn't nuke anything. Neither of us is suicidal enough to do something that would push the other to the edge. Nobody will be making any attacks on each other's mainland.

And as for China not daring to take Taiwan...

Yep. I guess they wouldn't, or they' have done so already. Right now is the perfect time. The US is tired of war with a pro-peace administration, and everybody's economies are hurting too much for anyone to really get on board with sanctions. Russia just proved that nobody is really willing to engage in punitive measures for that sort of thing. So China could get away with it, they know it, and they still aren't doing so. I guess their current round of leadership just doesn't care that much and figures they can spare themselves a few bucks by not doing so. Taiwan will probably fold and join up on its own anyway.

kunkmiester
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:39 am

Right now isn't the perfect time. They can still bleed us a little more. Squeeze a little more gold out of the goose, then roast the poor bird for lunch. They'll consider the economic front, but they know that there will be a time when the arrangement is no longer practical, and then they'll show their true face. They also have internal problems. Lots of young men, and not enough young women, and also a similar demographical crisis to the one we're facing with the baby boomers--the Ponzi scheme of the social programs is about to collapse as the payees start to outnumber the payers. This will force them to fight soon. Nothing like a good war--cut down the male population, expand your territory, relieve some of the social tension by directing it outside.

The ICBMs would be nothing if we had an ABM system. And I'd imagine that most here know enough of the math to realize it's a lot easier than the naysayers want to make it look. That just leaves airbreathing threats, which the F-22 was designed for.

People here also seem for forget that the next war is rarely fought like the last. This has been true throughout history. The problem isn't just arguing about hardware, it's also a reluctance to change. The brass on top have decided that COIN is the future, and won't consider the Dragon with a soldier pool of literally hundreds of millions, which is not only running towards social and economic crises, but is building up the military to externalize those forces.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

glemieux
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Postby glemieux » Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:41 am

MirariNefas wrote:All this talk of China and nukes is silly. If China invaded Taiwan, even a hawkish president would limit us to providing air and sea support.


I think it's particularly silly as it would sound the death nell for China's economy right now as they're so wrapped up in the flux of the US dollar. Look to Thomas P. M. Barnett for commentary on our future relationship with China:

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett ... peace.html

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

Cheers.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:42 am

glemieux wrote:
MirariNefas wrote:All this talk of China and nukes is silly. If China invaded Taiwan, even a hawkish president would limit us to providing air and sea support.


I think it's particularly silly as it would sound the death nell for China's economy right now as they're so wrapped up in the flux of the US dollar. Look to Thomas P. M. Barnett for commentary on our future relationship with China:

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett ... peace.html

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

Cheers.


Very good stuff. Blogged it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:17 am

One thing to keep in mind: all the major powers of the wold these days are for the most part status quo powers.

WW1&2 followed by the Cold War and everyone has had a belly full.

The problem is places like North Korea.

Why? Evey one in the neighborhood hates to see them continue on in the same fashion. No one wants to take a hit from their collapse.

The Re-unification problems of Germany are still fresh in people's minds. That is not just a ten or twenty year project. It is a three or four generation project to get the cultures realigned.

Why are there Chinese troops on the North Korean border? To defend against an invasion of China? Hell no. To keep NKs from flooding China. When ever the Norks want to threaten China they threaten to open the border.

===

An economy under forced draft can grow at around 10% a year. Current NK GDP/per capita - $1,800.

Compare that to South Korea about $18,000 growing at about 3% a year.

It would take 35 years to close the gap. Probably longer than that. But it gives you the idea.

Calculation:

GDPpC = GDP per Capita
GR= Growth rate = 1.xx per year i.e. 3% = 1.03
l = larger (economically) s = smaller (economically)

log(GDPpC-l/GDPpC-s)/log(GR-s/GR-l) = number of years

And that has to be done in about 1/3rd the world outside the first and second world powers.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Postby UncleMatt » Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:44 am

MSimon wrote:
UncleMatt wrote:
MSimon wrote:The money is needed for social programs.

I think you meant to say the money is needed to bail out the wealthiest, greediest people in our economy. You know, the ones that caused our current economic mess?


Our new President is a man of the people. He grew up disadvantaged, abandoned by his father, in a racist society. I resent your insinuations.

The fact that the white grandma who actually raised him was a banker has nothing at all to do with it. Nothing at all.

And re: the greediest people in our economy were you referring to Congress? The only people in the country with a license to steal? Of course they only do it to help their friends. Friends helping friends to other people's money. And they swear they are only going to steal from the rich. And I believe them. Totally.

====

Iraq cost us about $100 bn to $160 bn a year over regular DoD spending. Not large by American standards and % wise considerably below Cold War peaks.

If Iraq continues to improve its economy in 20 years it will look like a very wise decision. Just as South Korea was a debacle for Truman and is now considered a success story that helped the whole Asian region.

The pull out in Afghanistan (it is coming) will have an effect similar to our first pull out - dark forces will take over once we leave and new problems will emerge from that region. Possibly leading to the fall of Pakistan and nuclear weapons in the hands of the most crazy.


You act as if spending $160 BILLION a year on a foreign country is a good thing. Lets see, what could we do with that money AT HOME? That sure would pay for a lot of honeywell design R&D, now wouldn't it? Let alone all of the other things that need funding in our nation, like our crumbling infrastructure, new roads, health care, green technology investment, the list goes on and on. But no, its better to try to "give" foreigners something they haven't earned in the most socialistic way possible by redistributing Amerfican wealth to Iraq? Gee, I recall over a BILLION dollars going missing in Iraq around 2006. I guess thats no big deal either, right, as long as it promotes your political agenda...

And NO, I wasn't referring to Congress when I referred to greedy people in America. I was referring to those who felt it necessary to take risk that violated their own corporate policies in an attempt to gain ever more wealth and power. Never mind the consequences to others, never mind the impact it would have on our economy if they guessed wrong. And what consquences did THEY suffer as a result? They floated down to their golf course on their golden parachutes, and deposited their many millions of dollars of ill gotten gain in their own bank accounts. They suffered no real consequences, that was left to the familes that had to go without a job, and without health care.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:23 am

UncleMatt wrote:
MSimon wrote:If Iraq continues to improve its economy in 20 years it will look like a very wise decision. Just as South Korea was a debacle for Truman and is now considered a success story that helped the whole Asian region.

The pull out in Afghanistan (it is coming) will have an effect similar to our first pull out - dark forces will take over once we leave and new problems will emerge from that region. Possibly leading to the fall of Pakistan and nuclear weapons in the hands of the most crazy.


You act as if spending $160 BILLION a year on a foreign country is a good thing. Lets see, what could we do with that money AT HOME? That sure would pay for a lot of honeywell design R&D, now wouldn't it? Let alone all of the other things that need funding in our nation, like our crumbling infrastructure, new roads, health care, green technology investment, the list goes on and on. But no, its better to try to "give" foreigners something they haven't earned in the most socialistic way possible by redistributing Amerfican wealth to Iraq? Gee, I recall over a BILLION dollars going missing in Iraq around 2006. I guess thats no big deal either, right, as long as it promotes your political agenda...

And NO, I wasn't referring to Congress when I referred to greedy people in America. I was referring to those who felt it necessary to take risk that violated their own corporate policies in an attempt to gain ever more wealth and power. Never mind the consequences to others, never mind the impact it would have on our economy if they guessed wrong. And what consquences did THEY suffer as a result? They floated down to their golf course on their golden parachutes, and deposited their many millions of dollars of ill gotten gain in their own bank accounts. They suffered no real consequences, that was left to the familes that had to go without a job, and without health care.


Transforming the Middle East is a good use of resources. More acceptable than bigger and better future wars. To me. You may prefer to wait until those future wars will materialize. The costs will be higher.

You can't avoid the issues. You can only postpone them.

You might like to watch the video here to see why:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... rfare.html

I can't wait until Obama pulls out of Afghanistan and the videos of women being shot in stadiums start trickling back. Of course we could do nothing and see what happens.

====

The Congress set up the game (the fannies and the CRA) to give the banks in INCENTIVE to do what was done. Blaming the bankers lets the real culprits off the hook. And Congress is going for round two of the crap that got us into round one.

Start here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... d-buy.html

and then read some of my other posts on the subject:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/sea ... uld+Buy%22

You could also search - Chris Dodd Barney Frank Mortgage Crisis - for more.

You set up bad incentives you get bad results. How hard is that to understand?
Last edited by MSimon on Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:29 am

A BILLION went missing? Is that all? It is a rounding error.

Wars and reconstruction are messy and wasteful.

The alternative is bigger messier more wasteful wars later.

Have you ever read "Strategy" by B.H.L. Hart? If you want to understand war that is the place to start.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Skipjack
Posts: 5820
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:37 pm

The Re-unification problems of Germany are still fresh in people's minds.


Those problems are finally over, from what I could see during my last visit. Eastern Germany is pretty much at equlibrium with the rest of Germany now. Helmut Kohl did very well with his timing, IMHO. It all fell into place rather well. The pains were less than anticipated. Some mistakes were made though (ownership over refund, e.g.).
Still in the end things were not as bad as some political opponents claimed it was/would be.

Transforming the Middle East is a good use of resources. More acceptable than bigger and better future wars. To me. You may prefer to wait until those future wars will materialize. The costs will be higher.


I doubt that the middle east can be transformed. In fact there is a trend for religious radicalisation going on in all ME countries (has been for a while). I doubt that we will be seeing the end of it any time soon.

I think it's particularly silly as it would sound the death nell for China's economy right now as they're so wrapped up in the flux of the US dollar. Look to Thomas P. M. Barnett for commentary on our future relationship with China


Exactly what I was saying. And the next generation of Chinese leaders grew up wearing Levi's jeans and playing World Of Warcraft on Intel and AMD powered computers. Do you think they want to give up on all that because of an ideology that they have no connection to anymore?
I seriously doubt that.

Because when you put an enemy down you make sure he stays down, or he comes back at you. Basic power politics and strategy for the last 4000 years. See Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and the consequences of letting Germany go revanchist after WW1 in the last century.


Sun Zi Bing Fa tought to treat the people that lost the war well and to include them into your own army.
And he tought to give them a way out. In the face of total destruction, people will fight until their last breath. Give them a hope to get out of this and you will win much more easily.
Thats what I remembered from his teachings (been a while).

Now WW1 was actually the reason why Hitler was able to take Germany so easily. The shameful "peace treaties" of Versailles and St. Germain upset the Germans. The misstreatment of the Sudeten Germans in the Czech republic was another stone. People were starving. Children were eating the chalk of the walls for calcium, while the English were firing their steamships with the wheat from our reparation pays.
Reparation pays that were set to go on until 1984! Most people that lived in WW1 never would have seen the end of it! Of course they were easy targets for Hitler! Someone who has nothing to loose is an easy target for false promises by the ruthless.
No, had WW1 been ended more fairly, there would not have been a Hitler and no WW2 either.

The ruthless request for "unconditional surrender" by the British in both wars caused more senseless deaths and more destruction than what would have been otherwise.
To request unconditional surrender is the most ruthless thing you can do. It will always make the enemy fight longer and harder and it will always cost more lives on both sides.

Care to guess which nation was France's largest trading partner in 1913, just before the outbreak of WW1? Economic determinism is a comforting illusion gifted to us by Marx, but when the eternal human game of status & Will to Power rears its head, economics go out the window.


That was almost a 100 years ago. The world is much different now. Economic ties go much deeper nowadays than they did in 1913.
Besides, the first world war had been planned by the Allies long before 1913.

Beyond that, the F22/F35 generation will be the last generation of manned fighters. The next generation of aerospace superiority fighters will be not only unmanned, but autonomous. The Chinese would be wise to skip the F22-equivalent generation and move directly to Autonomous Kill Vehicles.


I agree on this.
Still, I think that attacking a large trade partner is economic suicide, so I doubt that China would do that. Look at it! Their economy is booming now! They have everything they could want. Why sacrifice that for a small island?

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Postby Jccarlton » Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:58 pm

UncleMatt wrote:
MSimon wrote:The money is needed for social programs.

I think you meant to say the money is needed to bail out the wealthiest, greediest people in our economy. You know, the ones that caused our current economic mess?


You mean ACORN, Barney Frank, my Senator for the moment, Chris Dodd and the rest of the progressive rent seeking lowlives in Congress and the GSE's.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=512397

It wasn't the bankers who did this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 41456.html
But as usual the progressives will pin the blame as they take the money and run.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:19 pm

I doubt that the middle east can be transformed.


But it is being transformed. You will not "see" it for quite some time.

I remember growing up and wondering why are we keeping troops in S. Korea? That place is a f*ed up dictatorship that just doesn't seem to get better. And then 30 years went by and they were a mfg power house.

It will take continuity of American policy. I don't think the new guy has it in him.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests