US Air Force wants Cold War Scale Forces and Global Arms Race

The Secretary of the US Air Force presented a plan to grow the Air Force from 312 squadrons today to 386 by 2030. This is 24% larger. The strategy is based on estimates of the expected threat by 2025 to 2030. At the end of the Cold War, the Air Force had 401 operational squadrons.

The claim is that the Air Force is too small for what the USA wants to do. We have 312 operational squadrons today. The Air Force We Need has 386 operational squadrons by 2030.

The Military industrial complex is saying that China and Russia’s forces justify going back to 96% of the Cold War level air force.

This buildup, stepped up investment in hypersonic weapons work and deployment of weapons in space would be ramping up for a global arms race.

Talk of $20 billion for one thousand space-based interceptors and sensor satellites

Hypersonic weapons are weapons and vehicles that can move faster than 5 times the speed of sound. Russia and China have both deployed new rockets that are tipped with hypersonic warheads. The US has had hypersonic weapons development for decades but is now speeding offensive and defensive systems.

Michael Griffin, the undersecretary of defense said a rough estimate for deploying space-based interceptors can be calculated on the $20,000 per kilogram is costs to send material into low earth orbit. Griffin talked about a force of 1,000 space-based interceptors each weighing 1,000 kilograms would cost $20 billion.

In 2017, the congressional defense authorization bill directed the Pentagon to draw up proposals for space-based missile defenses.

DARPA Blackjack project for 90+ Low earth spy satellites and then hundreds

Mr. Paul “Rusty” Thomas, Program Manager, DARPA Tactical Technology Office presented at the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group Telecon. He described the “DARPA Blackjack Demo Program – Pivot to LEO & Tactical Space Architecture”. This would be 90+ low-earth orbit spy satellites. DARPA plans a 20 satellite demo and then full deployment could start in 2022.

Many low-earth orbit spy satellites would be tougher for Russia and China to take out. A constellation of low-earth orbit spy satellites could be less expensive and more powerful than a single larger geosynchronous satellite.

195 thoughts on “US Air Force wants Cold War Scale Forces and Global Arms Race”

  1. America wants to protect the world from another wave of totalitarianism. Only China soothsayers don’t see it. God help America and its allies prevail again.

    Reply
  2. Of course they want a new ‘cold war’. All the Neocons and many Dem ‘DINO’ corporate sellouts want this. It’s why both align themselves in opposing Trump, along with Deep State sabateurs. What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. Starting with Taiwan and NATO. Then channel the savings into Project Blackjack and some other, judicious strategic realignment investments to make America more secure at far, far less risk. But the corrupt pork barrel crooks would rather impeach Trump, instead. So Libtârds! Remember this the next time you jump onto the impeachment bandwagon.

    Reply
  3. America wants to protect the world from another wave of totalitarianism. Only China soothsayers don’t see it. God help America and its allies prevail again.

    Reply
  4. Of course they want a new ‘cold war’. All the Neocons and many Dem ‘DINO’ corporate sellouts want this. It’s why both align themselves in opposing Trump along with Deep State sabateurs.What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. Starting with Taiwan and NATO. Then channel the savings into Project Blackjack and some other judicious strategic realignment investments to make America more secure at far far less risk.But the corrupt pork barrel crooks would rather impeach Trump instead.So Libtârds! Remember this the next time you jump onto the impeachment bandwagon.”

    Reply
  5. Hey, China builds ghost cities and America builds ghost weapons. At least ours will be safely stored in a boneyard in Arizona in case we need them.

    Reply
  6. Hey China builds ghost cities and America builds ghost weapons. At least ours will be safely stored in a boneyard in Arizona in case we need them.

    Reply
  7. Got that? ” I get you don’t know any history or what an Empire is or looks like, and that you want blood spilled here instead of elsewhere.

    Reply
  8. What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. ” No moron. Who’d be stupid enough to think that when we have to have a war, we should have it here? You are, of course.

    Reply
  9. WarrenTheApe makes a fine positional conjecture: America’s NeoCons and DINOs¹ want a raging “cold competition” in the military materiel production branch of commerce. To pad the “GRP” (gross regional product) of the various jerrymandered constituencies are, have or will receive contracts to build stuff. The grist of a politician’s mill: votes. Jobs → votes. Big-wigs getting wealthy → growing businesses → influencing employees → delivering votes → keeping offices with porcine swamp critters AKA encumbants, reëlected. He’s right in that. WarrenTheApe also goes on to counter that the better use of pölïtical will and tax-payers funds might better be disengagement-with-our-conventional-ally structure. [i]NATO[/i] hardly seems to have significant purpose, but it takes up a bunch of funds and resources. Taiwan, once fearfully in the greedy eye of a much-then-more-communist/Maoist China, now sees the last 50 years of China’s rapid commercialist revolution as heartening; maybe a recrudescence is possible. And less expensive. Indeed, just about the only “old, cold war” foes left a’going are Venezuela, North Korea and who knows… Cambodia? The ideological war has changed face enormously. I — for one — feel strongly that the TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE is missing a key word. I’ll use ALLCAPS: “US AirForce wants Cold-War scale forces and EXPECTS A RETURN to global arms race”. Got that? I really don’t think we generally want a global arms race. I think we’re expecting it, as China especially is ginning up its mills to stamp out jet fighters, hypersonic missiles, secret-squirrel spacecraft and blue-water navies. I think we’re expecting it further from an India that while still woefully behind China, is also ramping up both ideologically and financially to enter the fray. So we are expecting a period of much-heightened military readiness investment and personnel outfitting. This will be costly, yet “what’s an Empire to do?” Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  10. Got that? “”I get you don’t know any history or what an Empire is or looks like”””” and that you want blood spilled here instead of elsewhere.”””

    Reply
  11. What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. “”No moron. Who’d be stupid enough to think that when we have to have a war”” we should have it here?You are”” of course.”””

    Reply
  12. WarrenTheApe makes a fine positional conjecture: America’s NeoCons and DINOs¹ want a raging cold competition”” in the military materiel production branch of commerce. To pad the “”””GRP”””” (gross regional product) of the various jerrymandered constituencies are”” have or will receive contracts to build stuff. The grist of a politician’s mill: votes. Jobs → votes. Big-wigs getting wealthy → growing businesses → influencing employees → delivering votes → keeping offices with porcine swamp critters AKA encumbants reëlected. He’s right in that. WarrenTheApe also goes on to counter that the better use of pölïtical will and tax-payers funds might better be disengagement-with-our-conventional-ally structure. [i]NATO[/i] hardly seems to have significant purpose but it takes up a bunch of funds and resources. Taiwan once fearfully in the greedy eye of a much-then-more-communist/Maoist China now sees the last 50 years of China’s rapid commercialist revolution as heartening; maybe a recrudescence is possible. And less expensive. Indeed”” just about the only “”””old”””” cold war”””” foes left a’going are Venezuela”””” North Korea and who knows… Cambodia? The ideological war has changed face enormously. I — for one — feel strongly that the TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE is missing a key word. I’ll use ALLCAPS:””””US AirForce wants Cold-War scale forces and EXPECTS A RETURN to global arms race””””.Got that? I really don’t think we generally want a global arms race. I think we’re expecting it”” as China especially is ginning up its mills to stamp out jet fighters hypersonic missiles secret-squirrel spacecraft and blue-water navies. I think we’re expecting it further from an India that while still woefully behind China is also ramping up both ideologically and financially to enter the fray. So we are expecting a period of much-heightened military readiness investment and personnel outfitting. This will be costly”” yet “”””what’s an Empire”

    Reply
  13. Except for the character denigration bit, I also take-to-heart what you’re going on about. Of course An Empire doesn’t want battles, war raging in the center of its heartland, its Imperial homeland. Of course it prefers — if it has druthers — to wage its military campaigns on the peripheral lands, far, far from “home”. Nothing new there, old onion. I also know that my prior comment captures my feeling rather well. The TITLE of this article is missing the key phrase “Expects a return”. That’s what got me to draft a reply to begin with. Agreeing in form with WarrenTA’s sentiments regarding relaxing our focus on old enemies and old alliances I hold is also very likely warranted as History moves into the mid 21st century. In that — to your critique of it being a naïve position — perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should just continue strengthening our alliances and our world-spanning military presence, scaling our blue water navy, our submarine secret-squirrel force, and with Trump’s innovation of a Space Force, the competition in space too, apace. Certainly that position doesn’t require either imagination or much strategic depth. Build it bigger, keep doing mostly the same course, bleeding hearts be dâhmned. But if we recognize also that the Economy of the World — if it were a pie — has yea, grown in size and is almost certain to grow again by as much in the next 50 years as the lsat 50, AND we recognize that America’s share of that pie has, and will continue to diminish relative to the new Great Powers rising in the East, AND if we wish to geopolitically maintain our stance as the protectors of … well, you name it: commerce, domestic tranquility, democracy, individual freedom to hold beliefs independent of the nation-state, and so on … with a decreasing bit of the Pie, this becomes more troublesome to accomplish. Should we try? Sure! Remember me not for saying otherwise. But would refocussing our effort(s) on the new challenges ahead instead of the

    Reply
  14. I have read them, that’s how I know he’s not nearly as smart or wise as he pretends to be. No such thing as avoiding or minimizing war by not having allies or bases overseas, and having those is not the same as having an Empire. Claiming anything different is ahistorical idiocy.

    Reply
  15. If you have ever read any of Goats previous entries you would see you are the one that doesn’t know as much as he thinks. Whipper-snapper!

    Reply
  16. Except for the character denigration bit I also take-to-heart what you’re going on about. Of course An Empire doesn’t want battles war raging in the center of its heartland its Imperial homeland. Of course it prefers — if it has druthers — to wage its military campaigns on the peripheral lands far far from home””. Nothing new there”””” old onion. I also know that my prior comment captures my feeling rather well. The TITLE of this article is missing the key phrase “”””Expects a return””””. That’s what got me to draft a reply to begin with. Agreeing in form with WarrenTA’s sentiments regarding relaxing our focus on old enemies and old alliances I hold is also very likely warranted as History moves into the mid 21st century.In that — to your critique of it being a naïve position — perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should just continue strengthening our alliances and our world-spanning military presence”” scaling our blue water navy our submarine secret-squirrel force and with Trump’s innovation of a Space Force the competition in space too apace. Certainly that position doesn’t require either imagination or much strategic depth. Build it bigger keep doing mostly the same course bleeding hearts be dâhmned. But if we recognize also that the Economy of the World — if it were a pie — has yea grown in size and is almost certain to grow again by as much in the next 50 years as the lsat 50 AND we recognize that America’s share of that pie has and will continue to diminish relative to the new Great Powers rising in the East AND if we wish to geopolitically maintain our stance as the protectors of … well you name it: commerce domestic tranquility democracy individual freedom to hold beliefs independent of the nation-state and so on … with a decreasing bit of the Pie”” this becomes more troublesome to accomplish. Should we try? Sure! Remember me not for saying otherwise. But would refocussing our effort(s) on the new challenges ahead instead of”

    Reply
  17. I have read them that’s how I know he’s not nearly as smart or wise as he pretends to be. No such thing as avoiding or minimizing war by not having allies or bases overseas and having those is not the same as having an Empire.Claiming anything different is ahistorical idiocy.

    Reply
  18. If you have ever read any of Goats previous entries you would see you are the one that doesn’t know as much as he thinks. Whipper-snapper!

    Reply
  19. What war? Let Asia blow up in war. Let Europe. All we care about is some hegemon winning. Which we can easily prevent by aiding the other side just short of war. The only reason we had a Cold War was because we failed to do so with the USSR. There is NOTHING like the USSR presently nor will there be in the foreseeable future. Regional powers will rise, but so what?

    Reply
  20. No. This doesn’t have to happen. At all. What we need to do is simply downsize our military commitments that we are currently overextended on. There is no ‘Cold War 2’.

    Reply
  21. The world once negotiated a treaty to reduce the arm races for battle ships. Maybe it is time for the US and China to come to some agreement for capping their armaments.

    Reply
  22. Russia doesn’t have the economy to actually build large quantities of new weapons. And the Chinese don’t have the global ambitions like the old Soviet Union. There is no reason to expand our air force.

    Reply
  23. I spent some time in the Air Force and one of the things they reiterate over and over again is that there is no such thing as second place in an air war. By which, of course, they mean that the winner of an air war is the only side that still has an air force when it ends. Also, when the shooting starts, it’s way too late to run back and design and order more planes, and train the personnel you will need. Consider that the first contract for the B-52 was let in in 1946, it was 9 years later before we fielded the first one, and we are STILL using them. A thought though, how many of these squadrons in 2030 will be UAVs? I think China and India will have a whole lot on their plate that should distract them from military adventurism but history points up a lot of cases where governments with serious internal problems seek to create external ones to distract their people. Even so, I expect the real arms race is going to be supercomputers/AI and, as in an air war, winner take all, as it can be assumed that a sufficiently powerful AI could dominate world economics and, through that, everything else. Kind of like Sauron winning Middle Earth . . . success just might be forever. One thing, you hinted at Cambodia. I was living in that part of the world when Phnom Penh fell and Pol Pot began the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields. Mercifully, Pol Pot is dead now, and the Khmer Rouge dissolved. Perhaps you meant to say Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

    Reply
  24. We couldn’t/wouldn’t defend Taiwan if China attacked it today. And we definitely could not defend it ten years from now even if we wanted to.This is because China cares far more about Taiwan than the American public does. By the same logic we stood by as the Soviets crushed East German Czech Hungarian and Polish uprisings. We will do the same over Taiwan.This is another reason why we should reduce our ‘commitment insolvency’. Better now than when push comes to shove and our credibility as an ally will take severe damage.

    Reply
  25. What war? Let Asia blow up in war. Let Europe. All we care about is some hegemon winning. Which we can easily prevent by aiding the other side just short of war. The only reason we had a Cold War was because we failed to do so with the USSR.There is NOTHING like the USSR presently nor will there be in the foreseeable future. Regional powers will rise but so what?

    Reply
  26. No. This doesn’t have to happen.At all.What we need to do is simply downsize our military commitments that we are currently overextended on. There is no ‘Cold War 2’.

    Reply
  27. The world once negotiated a treaty to reduce the arm races for battle ships. Maybe it is time for the US and China to come to some agreement for capping their armaments.

    Reply
  28. Russia doesn’t have the economy to actually build large quantities of new weapons. And the Chinese don’t have the global ambitions like the old Soviet Union. There is no reason to expand our air force.

    Reply
  29. I spent some time in the Air Force and one of the things they reiterate over and over again is that there is no such thing as second place in an air war. By which of course they mean that the winner of an air war is the only side that still has an air force when it ends. Also when the shooting starts it’s way too late to run back and design and order more planes and train the personnel you will need. Consider that the first contract for the B-52 was let in in 1946 it was 9 years later before we fielded the first one and we are STILL using them. A thought though how many of these squadrons in 2030 will be UAVs?I think China and India will have a whole lot on their plate that should distract them from military adventurism but history points up a lot of cases where governments with serious internal problems seek to create external ones to distract their people. Even so I expect the real arms race is going to be supercomputers/AI and as in an air war winner take all as it can be assumed that a sufficiently powerful AI could dominate world economics and through that everything else. Kind of like Sauron winning Middle Earth . . . success just might be forever.One thing you hinted at Cambodia. I was living in that part of the world when Phnom Penh fell and Pol Pot began the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields. Mercifully Pol Pot is dead now and the Khmer Rouge dissolved. Perhaps you meant to say Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

    Reply
  30. We couldn’t/wouldn’t defend Taiwan if China attacked it today. And we definitely could not defend it ten years from now even if we wanted to. This is because China cares far more about Taiwan than the American public does. By the same logic, we stood by as the Soviets crushed East German, Czech, Hungarian and Polish uprisings. We will do the same over Taiwan. This is another reason why we should reduce our ‘commitment insolvency’. Better now than when push comes to shove and our credibility as an ally will take severe damage.

    Reply
  31. Tom is Luca’s sch1zophrenic split personality when he feels more “conservative” about an issue or wants to lay into the wise goat.

    Reply
  32. Tom is Luca’s sch1zophrenic split personality when he feels more conservative”” about an issue or wants to lay into the wise goat.”””

    Reply
  33. So many meaningless words. Concision would better occur to you. It is not only Empires which would rather fight what wars must be far away from home–any sane person wants that. As opposed to “expected” it is seen, I’s not myth little green men went into Ukraine or that Baltic border guards were kidnapped from the posts, or that Chinese soldiers claim international waters as Beijing’s inland sea. ” this becomes more troublesome to accomplish

    Reply
  34. However, the Chinese seem to have regional ambitions and that is not something which can be ignored since SE Asia is an economic tiger and Chinese intervention there would harm the World economy.

    Reply
  35. So many meaningless words. Concision would better occur to you.It is not only Empires which would rather fight what wars must be far away from home–any sane person wants that. As opposed to expected”” it is seen”” I’s not myth little green men went into Ukraine or that Baltic border guards were kidnapped from the posts”” or that Chinese soldiers claim international waters as Beijing’s inland sea.”””” this becomes more troublesome to accomplish “””” “””

    Reply
  36. However the Chinese seem to have regional ambitions and that is not something which can be ignored since SE Asia is an economic tiger and Chinese intervention there would harm the World economy.

    Reply
  37. Actually no. Money misspent on welfare, green subsidies, and high speed trains too few people want to use–and exploitative, corruptly bargained for public employee pensions–those diminish the society they parasitically rely on.

    Reply
  38. Think the US will be better served as a regional power, we don’t need to overextend our resources, no need to act as the World’s police, and certainly it will be better to divert the extra resources domestically.

    Reply
  39. Actually no. Money misspent on welfare green subsidies and high speed trains too few people want to use–and exploitative corruptly bargained for public employee pensions–those diminish the society they parasitically rely on.

    Reply
  40. Think the US will be better served as a regional power we don’t need to overextend our resources no need to act as the World’s police and certainly it will be better to divert the extra resources domestically.

    Reply
  41. Whether you try or not, this is irrelevant War is already lost Military goes had in hand with the GDP If you do not have the highest GDP you can not have the f the notch military and the US is losin` it a big time So whether you try or not, does not change much China is going to rule, not the US And the ditch of the US dollar has just begun

    Reply
  42. Goat Guy of course does not understand the point with competition with China The more China becames strong, the more China can impose Yuan instead of dollars It is all about the dollars as the reserve currency my friends If the US loses their uberlord status (and they are losing it) they will not be able to impose the petrodollar Which means, China and the Yuan will at least partially take over and it will be over for the US egemony This is the point of the discussion US dollar s the reserve currency

    Reply
  43. There actually is The more money is spent on program s like the F35 is great news for the world More US dollars go down the toilet and the sooner China + India will take over as no 1 It is a great thing !!

    Reply
  44. I disagree the US needs to spend more and more on programs like the F35. They need to increase the deficit at least up to 15 trillion dollars more than the level they have today

    Reply
  45. Whether you try or not this is irrelevant War is already lost Military goes had in hand with the GDP If you do not have the highest GDP you can not have the f the notch military and the US is losin` it a big time So whether you try or not does not change much China is going to rule not the US And the ditch of the US dollar has just begun

    Reply
  46. Goat Guy of course does not understand the point with competition with China The more China becames strong the more China can impose Yuan instead of dollars It is all about the dollars as the reserve currency my friends If the US loses their uberlord status (and they are losing it) they will not be able to impose the petrodollar Which means China and the Yuan will at least partially take over and it will be over for the US egemony This is the point of the discussion US dollar s the reserve currency

    Reply
  47. There actually is The more money is spent on program s like the F35 is great news for the world More US dollars go down the toilet and the sooner China + India will take over as no 1 It is a great thing !!

    Reply
  48. I disagree the US needs to spend more and more on programs like the F35. They need to increase the deficit at least up to 15 trillion dollars more than the level they have today

    Reply
  49. Our force need projections don’t have any damn thing to do with military commitments.” Yes they do. As in: Those projections are based upon the need to make good on our military commitments. Reduce the commitments and you reduce the projections. When you pull out all our troops from Europe and South Korea, guess what? You don’t need to project spending for that money in future budgets! Wow! What a concept!

    Reply
  50. Green subsidies diminishes the demand for oil and hence the cost of oil” Unbelievable! Spend money on subsidies to diminish money spent somewhere else so NOT saving money. And we are soon to become net oil exporters. So there goes your geopolitical risk ‘argument’.

    Reply
  51. Our force need projections don’t have any damn thing to do with military commitments.””Yes they do. As in: Those projections are based upon the need to make good on our military commitments. Reduce the commitments and you reduce the projections.When you pull out all our troops from Europe and South Korea”””” guess what? You don’t need to project spending for that money in future budgets! Wow! What a concept!”””

    Reply
  52. Green subsidies diminishes the demand for oil and hence the cost of oil””Unbelievable!Spend money on subsidies to diminish money spent somewhere else so NOT saving money. And we are soon to become net oil exporters. So there goes your geopolitical risk ‘argument’.”””

    Reply
  53. All treaties work for some time. people don’t normally break them at day one. No treaty works forever. The fact that no treaty works forever is not a good reason to never enter into one. It is like why have laws if people break laws. The answer is that it reduces the number of people breaking laws.

    Reply
  54. All treaties work for some time. people don’t normally break them at day one. No treaty works forever. The fact that no treaty works forever is not a good reason to never enter into one. It is like why have laws if people break laws. The answer is that it reduces the number of people breaking laws.

    Reply
  55. All treaties work for some time. people don’t normally break them at day one. No treaty works forever. The fact that no treaty works forever is not a good reason to never enter into one. It is like why have laws if people break laws. The answer is that it reduces the number of people breaking laws.

    Reply
  56. All treaties work for some time. people don’t normally break them at day one. No treaty works forever. The fact that no treaty works forever is not a good reason to never enter into one. It is like why have laws if people break laws. The answer is that it reduces the number of people breaking laws.

    Reply
  57. All treaties work for some time. people don’t normally break them at day one. No treaty works forever. The fact that no treaty works forever is not a good reason to never enter into one.

    It is like why have laws if people break laws. The answer is that it reduces the number of people breaking laws.

    Reply
  58. Our force need projections don’t have any damn thing to do with military commitments.” Yes they do. As in: Those projections are based upon the need to make good on our military commitments. Reduce the commitments and you reduce the projections. When you pull out all our troops from Europe and South Korea, guess what? You don’t need to project spending for that money in future budgets! Wow! What a concept!

    Reply
  59. Our force need projections don’t have any damn thing to do with military commitments.””Yes they do. As in: Those projections are based upon the need to make good on our military commitments. Reduce the commitments and you reduce the projections.When you pull out all our troops from Europe and South Korea”””” guess what? You don’t need to project spending for that money in future budgets! Wow! What a concept!”””

    Reply
  60. Green subsidies diminishes the demand for oil and hence the cost of oil” Unbelievable! Spend money on subsidies to diminish money spent somewhere else so NOT saving money. And we are soon to become net oil exporters. So there goes your geopolitical risk ‘argument’.

    Reply
  61. Green subsidies diminishes the demand for oil and hence the cost of oil””Unbelievable!Spend money on subsidies to diminish money spent somewhere else so NOT saving money. And we are soon to become net oil exporters. So there goes your geopolitical risk ‘argument’.”””

    Reply
  62. “Our force need projections don’t have any damn thing to do with military commitments.”

    Yes they do. As in: Those projections are based upon the need to make good on our military commitments. Reduce the commitments and you reduce the projections.

    When you pull out all our troops from Europe and South Korea, guess what? You don’t need to project spending for that money in future budgets! Wow! What a concept!

    Reply
  63. “Green subsidies diminishes the demand for oil and hence the cost of oil”

    Unbelievable!

    Spend money on subsidies to diminish money spent somewhere else so NOT saving money.

    And we are soon to become net oil exporters. So there goes your geopolitical risk ‘argument’.

    Reply
  64. Whether you try or not, this is irrelevant War is already lost Military goes had in hand with the GDP If you do not have the highest GDP you can not have the f the notch military and the US is losin` it a big time So whether you try or not, does not change much China is going to rule, not the US And the ditch of the US dollar has just begun

    Reply
  65. Whether you try or not this is irrelevant War is already lost Military goes had in hand with the GDP If you do not have the highest GDP you can not have the f the notch military and the US is losin` it a big time So whether you try or not does not change much China is going to rule not the US And the ditch of the US dollar has just begun

    Reply
  66. Goat Guy of course does not understand the point with competition with China The more China becames strong, the more China can impose Yuan instead of dollars It is all about the dollars as the reserve currency my friends If the US loses their uberlord status (and they are losing it) they will not be able to impose the petrodollar Which means, China and the Yuan will at least partially take over and it will be over for the US egemony This is the point of the discussion US dollar s the reserve currency

    Reply
  67. Goat Guy of course does not understand the point with competition with China The more China becames strong the more China can impose Yuan instead of dollars It is all about the dollars as the reserve currency my friends If the US loses their uberlord status (and they are losing it) they will not be able to impose the petrodollar Which means China and the Yuan will at least partially take over and it will be over for the US egemony This is the point of the discussion US dollar s the reserve currency

    Reply
  68. There actually is The more money is spent on program s like the F35 is great news for the world More US dollars go down the toilet and the sooner China + India will take over as no 1 It is a great thing !!

    Reply
  69. There actually is The more money is spent on program s like the F35 is great news for the world More US dollars go down the toilet and the sooner China + India will take over as no 1 It is a great thing !!

    Reply
  70. I disagree the US needs to spend more and more on programs like the F35. They need to increase the deficit at least up to 15 trillion dollars more than the level they have today

    Reply
  71. I disagree the US needs to spend more and more on programs like the F35. They need to increase the deficit at least up to 15 trillion dollars more than the level they have today

    Reply
  72. Whether you try or not, this is irrelevant
    War is already lost
    Military goes had in hand with the GDP
    If you do not have the highest GDP you can not have the f the notch military and the US is losin` it a big time
    So whether you try or not, does not change much
    China is going to rule, not the US
    And the ditch of the US dollar has just begun

    Reply
  73. Goat Guy of course does not understand the point with competition with China
    The more China becames strong, the more China can impose Yuan instead of dollars
    It is all about the dollars as the reserve currency my friends
    If the US loses their uberlord status (and they are losing it) they will not be able to impose the petrodollar
    Which means, China and the Yuan will at least partially take over
    and it will be over for the US egemony
    This is the point of the discussion
    US dollar s the reserve currency

    Reply
  74. There actually is
    The more money is spent on program s like the F35 is great news for the world
    More US dollars go down the toilet and the sooner China + India will take over as no 1
    It is a great thing !!

    Reply
  75. Actually no. Money misspent on welfare, green subsidies, and high speed trains too few people want to use–and exploitative, corruptly bargained for public employee pensions–those diminish the society they parasitically rely on.

    Reply
  76. Actually no. Money misspent on welfare green subsidies and high speed trains too few people want to use–and exploitative corruptly bargained for public employee pensions–those diminish the society they parasitically rely on.

    Reply
  77. Think the US will be better served as a regional power, we don’t need to overextend our resources, no need to act as the World’s police, and certainly it will be better to divert the extra resources domestically.

    Reply
  78. Think the US will be better served as a regional power we don’t need to overextend our resources no need to act as the World’s police and certainly it will be better to divert the extra resources domestically.

    Reply
  79. Actually no. Money misspent on welfare, green subsidies, and high speed trains too few people want to use–and exploitative, corruptly bargained for public employee pensions–those diminish the society they parasitically rely on.

    Reply
  80. Think the US will be better served as a regional power, we don’t need to overextend our resources, no need to act as the World’s police, and certainly it will be better to divert the extra resources domestically.

    Reply
  81. So many meaningless words. Concision would better occur to you. It is not only Empires which would rather fight what wars must be far away from home–any sane person wants that. As opposed to “expected” it is seen, I’s not myth little green men went into Ukraine or that Baltic border guards were kidnapped from the posts, or that Chinese soldiers claim international waters as Beijing’s inland sea. ” this becomes more troublesome to accomplish

    Reply
  82. So many meaningless words. Concision would better occur to you.It is not only Empires which would rather fight what wars must be far away from home–any sane person wants that. As opposed to expected”” it is seen”” I’s not myth little green men went into Ukraine or that Baltic border guards were kidnapped from the posts”” or that Chinese soldiers claim international waters as Beijing’s inland sea.”””” this becomes more troublesome to accomplish “””” “””

    Reply
  83. However, the Chinese seem to have regional ambitions and that is not something which can be ignored since SE Asia is an economic tiger and Chinese intervention there would harm the World economy.

    Reply
  84. However the Chinese seem to have regional ambitions and that is not something which can be ignored since SE Asia is an economic tiger and Chinese intervention there would harm the World economy.

    Reply
  85. Tom is Luca’s sch1zophrenic split personality when he feels more “conservative” about an issue or wants to lay into the wise goat.

    Reply
  86. Tom is Luca’s sch1zophrenic split personality when he feels more conservative”” about an issue or wants to lay into the wise goat.”””

    Reply
  87. We couldn’t/wouldn’t defend Taiwan if China attacked it today. And we definitely could not defend it ten years from now even if we wanted to. This is because China cares far more about Taiwan than the American public does. By the same logic, we stood by as the Soviets crushed East German, Czech, Hungarian and Polish uprisings. We will do the same over Taiwan. This is another reason why we should reduce our ‘commitment insolvency’. Better now than when push comes to shove and our credibility as an ally will take severe damage.

    Reply
  88. We couldn’t/wouldn’t defend Taiwan if China attacked it today. And we definitely could not defend it ten years from now even if we wanted to.This is because China cares far more about Taiwan than the American public does. By the same logic we stood by as the Soviets crushed East German Czech Hungarian and Polish uprisings. We will do the same over Taiwan.This is another reason why we should reduce our ‘commitment insolvency’. Better now than when push comes to shove and our credibility as an ally will take severe damage.

    Reply
  89. What war? Let Asia blow up in war. Let Europe. All we care about is some hegemon winning. Which we can easily prevent by aiding the other side just short of war. The only reason we had a Cold War was because we failed to do so with the USSR. There is NOTHING like the USSR presently nor will there be in the foreseeable future. Regional powers will rise, but so what?

    Reply
  90. What war? Let Asia blow up in war. Let Europe. All we care about is some hegemon winning. Which we can easily prevent by aiding the other side just short of war. The only reason we had a Cold War was because we failed to do so with the USSR.There is NOTHING like the USSR presently nor will there be in the foreseeable future. Regional powers will rise but so what?

    Reply
  91. No. This doesn’t have to happen. At all. What we need to do is simply downsize our military commitments that we are currently overextended on. There is no ‘Cold War 2’.

    Reply
  92. No. This doesn’t have to happen.At all.What we need to do is simply downsize our military commitments that we are currently overextended on. There is no ‘Cold War 2’.

    Reply
  93. The world once negotiated a treaty to reduce the arm races for battle ships. Maybe it is time for the US and China to come to some agreement for capping their armaments.

    Reply
  94. The world once negotiated a treaty to reduce the arm races for battle ships. Maybe it is time for the US and China to come to some agreement for capping their armaments.

    Reply
  95. Russia doesn’t have the economy to actually build large quantities of new weapons. And the Chinese don’t have the global ambitions like the old Soviet Union. There is no reason to expand our air force.

    Reply
  96. Russia doesn’t have the economy to actually build large quantities of new weapons. And the Chinese don’t have the global ambitions like the old Soviet Union. There is no reason to expand our air force.

    Reply
  97. I spent some time in the Air Force and one of the things they reiterate over and over again is that there is no such thing as second place in an air war. By which, of course, they mean that the winner of an air war is the only side that still has an air force when it ends. Also, when the shooting starts, it’s way too late to run back and design and order more planes, and train the personnel you will need. Consider that the first contract for the B-52 was let in in 1946, it was 9 years later before we fielded the first one, and we are STILL using them. A thought though, how many of these squadrons in 2030 will be UAVs? I think China and India will have a whole lot on their plate that should distract them from military adventurism but history points up a lot of cases where governments with serious internal problems seek to create external ones to distract their people. Even so, I expect the real arms race is going to be supercomputers/AI and, as in an air war, winner take all, as it can be assumed that a sufficiently powerful AI could dominate world economics and, through that, everything else. Kind of like Sauron winning Middle Earth . . . success just might be forever. One thing, you hinted at Cambodia. I was living in that part of the world when Phnom Penh fell and Pol Pot began the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields. Mercifully, Pol Pot is dead now, and the Khmer Rouge dissolved. Perhaps you meant to say Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

    Reply
  98. I spent some time in the Air Force and one of the things they reiterate over and over again is that there is no such thing as second place in an air war. By which of course they mean that the winner of an air war is the only side that still has an air force when it ends. Also when the shooting starts it’s way too late to run back and design and order more planes and train the personnel you will need. Consider that the first contract for the B-52 was let in in 1946 it was 9 years later before we fielded the first one and we are STILL using them. A thought though how many of these squadrons in 2030 will be UAVs?I think China and India will have a whole lot on their plate that should distract them from military adventurism but history points up a lot of cases where governments with serious internal problems seek to create external ones to distract their people. Even so I expect the real arms race is going to be supercomputers/AI and as in an air war winner take all as it can be assumed that a sufficiently powerful AI could dominate world economics and through that everything else. Kind of like Sauron winning Middle Earth . . . success just might be forever.One thing you hinted at Cambodia. I was living in that part of the world when Phnom Penh fell and Pol Pot began the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields. Mercifully Pol Pot is dead now and the Khmer Rouge dissolved. Perhaps you meant to say Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

    Reply
  99. Except for the character denigration bit, I also take-to-heart what you’re going on about. Of course An Empire doesn’t want battles, war raging in the center of its heartland, its Imperial homeland. Of course it prefers — if it has druthers — to wage its military campaigns on the peripheral lands, far, far from “home”. Nothing new there, old onion. I also know that my prior comment captures my feeling rather well. The TITLE of this article is missing the key phrase “Expects a return”. That’s what got me to draft a reply to begin with. Agreeing in form with WarrenTA’s sentiments regarding relaxing our focus on old enemies and old alliances I hold is also very likely warranted as History moves into the mid 21st century. In that — to your critique of it being a naïve position — perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should just continue strengthening our alliances and our world-spanning military presence, scaling our blue water navy, our submarine secret-squirrel force, and with Trump’s innovation of a Space Force, the competition in space too, apace. Certainly that position doesn’t require either imagination or much strategic depth. Build it bigger, keep doing mostly the same course, bleeding hearts be dâhmned. But if we recognize also that the Economy of the World — if it were a pie — has yea, grown in size and is almost certain to grow again by as much in the next 50 years as the lsat 50, AND we recognize that America’s share of that pie has, and will continue to diminish relative to the new Great Powers rising in the East, AND if we wish to geopolitically maintain our stance as the protectors of … well, you name it: commerce, domestic tranquility, democracy, individual freedom to hold beliefs independent of the nation-state, and so on … with a decreasing bit of the Pie, this becomes more troublesome to accomplish. Should we try? Sure! Remember me not for saying otherwise. But would refocussing our effort(s) on the new challenges ahead instead of the

    Reply
  100. Except for the character denigration bit I also take-to-heart what you’re going on about. Of course An Empire doesn’t want battles war raging in the center of its heartland its Imperial homeland. Of course it prefers — if it has druthers — to wage its military campaigns on the peripheral lands far far from home””. Nothing new there”””” old onion. I also know that my prior comment captures my feeling rather well. The TITLE of this article is missing the key phrase “”””Expects a return””””. That’s what got me to draft a reply to begin with. Agreeing in form with WarrenTA’s sentiments regarding relaxing our focus on old enemies and old alliances I hold is also very likely warranted as History moves into the mid 21st century.In that — to your critique of it being a naïve position — perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should just continue strengthening our alliances and our world-spanning military presence”” scaling our blue water navy our submarine secret-squirrel force and with Trump’s innovation of a Space Force the competition in space too apace. Certainly that position doesn’t require either imagination or much strategic depth. Build it bigger keep doing mostly the same course bleeding hearts be dâhmned. But if we recognize also that the Economy of the World — if it were a pie — has yea grown in size and is almost certain to grow again by as much in the next 50 years as the lsat 50 AND we recognize that America’s share of that pie has and will continue to diminish relative to the new Great Powers rising in the East AND if we wish to geopolitically maintain our stance as the protectors of … well you name it: commerce domestic tranquility democracy individual freedom to hold beliefs independent of the nation-state and so on … with a decreasing bit of the Pie”” this becomes more troublesome to accomplish. Should we try? Sure! Remember me not for saying otherwise. But would refocussing our effort(s) on the new challenges ahead instead of”

    Reply
  101. So many meaningless words. Concision would better occur to you.

    It is not only Empires which would rather fight what wars must be far away from home–any sane person wants that. As opposed to “expected” it is seen, I’s not myth little green men went into Ukraine or that Baltic border guards were kidnapped from the posts, or that Chinese soldiers claim international waters as Beijing’s inland sea.

    ” this becomes more troublesome to accomplish ” <-- But not less important. Putting a very little of our resources on space exploitation turns the trend of those number quite around.

    Reply
  102. ” Which we can easily prevent by aiding the other side just short of war. ” <-- We already know you were deeply deluded, you can stop trying to convince us. " The only reason we had a Cold War " <-- Is we did not let Patton get his tank's tread wet in the Pacific by going East.

    Reply
  103. However, the Chinese seem to have regional ambitions and that is not something which can be ignored since SE Asia is an economic tiger and Chinese intervention there would harm the World economy.

    Reply
  104. I have read them, that’s how I know he’s not nearly as smart or wise as he pretends to be. No such thing as avoiding or minimizing war by not having allies or bases overseas, and having those is not the same as having an Empire. Claiming anything different is ahistorical idiocy.

    Reply
  105. I have read them that’s how I know he’s not nearly as smart or wise as he pretends to be. No such thing as avoiding or minimizing war by not having allies or bases overseas and having those is not the same as having an Empire.Claiming anything different is ahistorical idiocy.

    Reply
  106. If you have ever read any of Goats previous entries you would see you are the one that doesn’t know as much as he thinks. Whipper-snapper!

    Reply
  107. If you have ever read any of Goats previous entries you would see you are the one that doesn’t know as much as he thinks. Whipper-snapper!

    Reply
  108. We couldn’t/wouldn’t defend Taiwan if China attacked it today. And we definitely could not defend it ten years from now even if we wanted to.

    This is because China cares far more about Taiwan than the American public does.

    By the same logic, we stood by as the Soviets crushed East German, Czech, Hungarian and Polish uprisings. We will do the same over Taiwan.

    This is another reason why we should reduce our ‘commitment insolvency’. Better now than when push comes to shove and our credibility as an ally will take severe damage.

    Reply
  109. What war? Let Asia blow up in war. Let Europe.

    All we care about is some hegemon winning. Which we can easily prevent by aiding the other side just short of war. The only reason we had a Cold War was because we failed to do so with the USSR.

    There is NOTHING like the USSR presently nor will there be in the foreseeable future. Regional powers will rise, but so what?

    Reply
  110. Russia doesn’t have the economy to actually build large quantities of new weapons. And the Chinese don’t have the global ambitions like the old Soviet Union. There is no reason to expand our air force.

    Reply
  111. I spent some time in the Air Force and one of the things they reiterate over and over again is that there is no such thing as second place in an air war. By which, of course, they mean that the winner of an air war is the only side that still has an air force when it ends. Also, when the shooting starts, it’s way too late to run back and design and order more planes, and train the personnel you will need. Consider that the first contract for the B-52 was let in in 1946, it was 9 years later before we fielded the first one, and we are STILL using them. A thought though, how many of these squadrons in 2030 will be UAVs?

    I think China and India will have a whole lot on their plate that should distract them from military adventurism but history points up a lot of cases where governments with serious internal problems seek to create external ones to distract their people. Even so, I expect the real arms race is going to be supercomputers/AI and, as in an air war, winner take all, as it can be assumed that a sufficiently powerful AI could dominate world economics and, through that, everything else. Kind of like Sauron winning Middle Earth . . . success just might be forever.

    One thing, you hinted at Cambodia. I was living in that part of the world when Phnom Penh fell and Pol Pot began the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields. Mercifully, Pol Pot is dead now, and the Khmer Rouge dissolved. Perhaps you meant to say Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

    Reply
  112. Except for the character denigration bit, I also take-to-heart what you’re going on about. Of course An Empire doesn’t want battles, war raging in the center of its heartland, its Imperial homeland. Of course it prefers — if it has druthers — to wage its military campaigns on the peripheral lands, far, far from “home”. Nothing new there, old onion.

    I also know that my prior comment captures my feeling rather well. The TITLE of this article is missing the key phrase “Expects a return”. That’s what got me to draft a reply to begin with. Agreeing in form with WarrenTA’s sentiments regarding relaxing our focus on old enemies and old alliances I hold is also very likely warranted as History moves into the mid 21st century.

    In that — to your critique of it being a naïve position — perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should just continue strengthening our alliances and our world-spanning military presence, scaling our blue water navy, our submarine secret-squirrel force, and with Trump’s innovation of a Space Force, the competition in space too, apace. Certainly that position doesn’t require either imagination or much strategic depth. Build it bigger, keep doing mostly the same course, bleeding hearts be dâhmned.

    But if we recognize also that the Economy of the World — if it were a pie — has yea, grown in size and is almost certain to grow again by as much in the next 50 years as the lsat 50, AND we recognize that America’s share of that pie has, and will continue to diminish relative to the new Great Powers rising in the East, AND if we wish to geopolitically maintain our stance as the protectors of … well, you name it: commerce, domestic tranquility, democracy, individual freedom to hold beliefs independent of the nation-state, and so on … with a decreasing bit of the Pie, this becomes more troublesome to accomplish.

    Should we try? Sure! Remember me not for saying otherwise. But would refocussing our effort(s) on the new challenges ahead instead of the imagined tyrannical ghosts of the past also not be warranted?

    Just saying
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  113. Got that? ” I get you don’t know any history or what an Empire is or looks like, and that you want blood spilled here instead of elsewhere.

    Reply
  114. Got that? “”I get you don’t know any history or what an Empire is or looks like”””” and that you want blood spilled here instead of elsewhere.”””

    Reply
  115. What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. ” No moron. Who’d be stupid enough to think that when we have to have a war, we should have it here? You are, of course.

    Reply
  116. What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. “”No moron. Who’d be stupid enough to think that when we have to have a war”” we should have it here?You are”” of course.”””

    Reply
  117. I have read them, that’s how I know he’s not nearly as smart or wise as he pretends to be. No such thing as avoiding or minimizing war by not having allies or bases overseas, and having those is not the same as having an Empire.

    Claiming anything different is ahistorical idiocy.

    Reply
  118. WarrenTheApe makes a fine positional conjecture: America’s NeoCons and DINOs¹ want a raging “cold competition” in the military materiel production branch of commerce. To pad the “GRP” (gross regional product) of the various jerrymandered constituencies are, have or will receive contracts to build stuff. The grist of a politician’s mill: votes. Jobs → votes. Big-wigs getting wealthy → growing businesses → influencing employees → delivering votes → keeping offices with porcine swamp critters AKA encumbants, reëlected. He’s right in that. WarrenTheApe also goes on to counter that the better use of pölïtical will and tax-payers funds might better be disengagement-with-our-conventional-ally structure. [i]NATO[/i] hardly seems to have significant purpose, but it takes up a bunch of funds and resources. Taiwan, once fearfully in the greedy eye of a much-then-more-communist/Maoist China, now sees the last 50 years of China’s rapid commercialist revolution as heartening; maybe a recrudescence is possible. And less expensive. Indeed, just about the only “old, cold war” foes left a’going are Venezuela, North Korea and who knows… Cambodia? The ideological war has changed face enormously. I — for one — feel strongly that the TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE is missing a key word. I’ll use ALLCAPS: “US AirForce wants Cold-War scale forces and EXPECTS A RETURN to global arms race”. Got that? I really don’t think we generally want a global arms race. I think we’re expecting it, as China especially is ginning up its mills to stamp out jet fighters, hypersonic missiles, secret-squirrel spacecraft and blue-water navies. I think we’re expecting it further from an India that while still woefully behind China, is also ramping up both ideologically and financially to enter the fray. So we are expecting a period of much-heightened military readiness investment and personnel outfitting. This will be costly, yet “what’s an Empire to do?” Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  119. WarrenTheApe makes a fine positional conjecture: America’s NeoCons and DINOs¹ want a raging cold competition”” in the military materiel production branch of commerce. To pad the “”””GRP”””” (gross regional product) of the various jerrymandered constituencies are”” have or will receive contracts to build stuff. The grist of a politician’s mill: votes. Jobs → votes. Big-wigs getting wealthy → growing businesses → influencing employees → delivering votes → keeping offices with porcine swamp critters AKA encumbants reëlected. He’s right in that. WarrenTheApe also goes on to counter that the better use of pölïtical will and tax-payers funds might better be disengagement-with-our-conventional-ally structure. [i]NATO[/i] hardly seems to have significant purpose but it takes up a bunch of funds and resources. Taiwan once fearfully in the greedy eye of a much-then-more-communist/Maoist China now sees the last 50 years of China’s rapid commercialist revolution as heartening; maybe a recrudescence is possible. And less expensive. Indeed”” just about the only “”””old”””” cold war”””” foes left a’going are Venezuela”””” North Korea and who knows… Cambodia? The ideological war has changed face enormously. I — for one — feel strongly that the TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE is missing a key word. I’ll use ALLCAPS:””””US AirForce wants Cold-War scale forces and EXPECTS A RETURN to global arms race””””.Got that? I really don’t think we generally want a global arms race. I think we’re expecting it”” as China especially is ginning up its mills to stamp out jet fighters hypersonic missiles secret-squirrel spacecraft and blue-water navies. I think we’re expecting it further from an India that while still woefully behind China is also ramping up both ideologically and financially to enter the fray. So we are expecting a period of much-heightened military readiness investment and personnel outfitting. This will be costly”” yet “”””what’s an Empire”

    Reply
  120. Hey, China builds ghost cities and America builds ghost weapons. At least ours will be safely stored in a boneyard in Arizona in case we need them.

    Reply
  121. Hey China builds ghost cities and America builds ghost weapons. At least ours will be safely stored in a boneyard in Arizona in case we need them.

    Reply
  122. America wants to protect the world from another wave of totalitarianism. Only China soothsayers don’t see it. God help America and its allies prevail again.

    Reply
  123. America wants to protect the world from another wave of totalitarianism. Only China soothsayers don’t see it. God help America and its allies prevail again.

    Reply
  124. Of course they want a new ‘cold war’. All the Neocons and many Dem ‘DINO’ corporate sellouts want this. It’s why both align themselves in opposing Trump, along with Deep State sabateurs. What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. Starting with Taiwan and NATO. Then channel the savings into Project Blackjack and some other, judicious strategic realignment investments to make America more secure at far, far less risk. But the corrupt pork barrel crooks would rather impeach Trump, instead. So Libtârds! Remember this the next time you jump onto the impeachment bandwagon.

    Reply
  125. Of course they want a new ‘cold war’. All the Neocons and many Dem ‘DINO’ corporate sellouts want this. It’s why both align themselves in opposing Trump along with Deep State sabateurs.What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. Starting with Taiwan and NATO. Then channel the savings into Project Blackjack and some other judicious strategic realignment investments to make America more secure at far far less risk.But the corrupt pork barrel crooks would rather impeach Trump instead.So Libtârds! Remember this the next time you jump onto the impeachment bandwagon.”

    Reply
  126. ” What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. ”

    No moron. Who’d be stupid enough to think that when we have to have a war, we should have it here?

    You are, of course.

    Reply
  127. WarrenTheApe makes a fine positional conjecture: America’s NeoCons and DINOs¹ want a raging “cold competition” in the military materiel production branch of commerce. To pad the “GRP” (gross regional product) of the various jerrymandered constituencies are, have or will receive contracts to build stuff.

    The grist of a politician’s mill: votes. Jobs → votes. Big-wigs getting wealthy → growing businesses → influencing employees → delivering votes → keeping offices with porcine swamp critters AKA encumbants, reëlected.

    He’s right in that.

    WarrenTheApe also goes on to counter that the better use of pölïtical will and tax-payers funds might better be disengagement-with-our-conventional-ally structure. [i]NATO[/i] hardly seems to have significant purpose, but it takes up a bunch of funds and resources. Taiwan, once fearfully in the greedy eye of a much-then-more-communist/Maoist China, now sees the last 50 years of China’s rapid commercialist revolution as heartening; maybe a recrudescence is possible.

    And less expensive.

    Indeed, just about the only “old, cold war” foes left a’going are Venezuela, North Korea and who knows… Cambodia? The ideological war has changed face enormously.

    I — for one — feel strongly that the TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE is missing a key word. I’ll use ALLCAPS:

    “US AirForce wants Cold-War scale forces and EXPECTS A RETURN to global arms race”.

    Got that?

    I really don’t think we generally want a global arms race. I think we’re expecting it, as China especially is ginning up its mills to stamp out jet fighters, hypersonic missiles, secret-squirrel spacecraft and blue-water navies. I think we’re expecting it further from an India that while still woefully behind China, is also ramping up both ideologically and financially to enter the fray.

    So we are expecting a period of much-heightened military readiness investment and personnel outfitting. This will be costly, yet “what’s an Empire to do?”

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  128. Of course they want a new ‘cold war’. All the Neocons and many Dem ‘DINO’ corporate sellouts want this. It’s why both align themselves in opposing Trump, along with Deep State sabateurs.

    What America needs to do instead is strategically withdraw from its many commitments. Starting with Taiwan and NATO. Then channel the savings into Project Blackjack and some other, judicious strategic realignment investments to make America more secure at far, far less risk.

    But the corrupt pork barrel crooks would rather impeach Trump, instead.

    So Libtârds! Remember this the next time you jump onto the impeachment bandwagon.

    Reply

Leave a Comment