April 28, 2010

War! What Is It Good For?

One of the common assumptions behind praise of America's rapidly growing population, as in Joel Kotkin's America's Next 100 Million, is that it's a good thing because it will make America stronger foreign policy-wise. But nobody goes on to explain the precise mechanism by which the population increasing by 42% from 2010 to 2050 will benefit current Americans and their posterity.

Fortunately, I've finally figured it out: more cannon fodder! See, all we have to do is to use our 42% bigger population to invade, conquer, and depopulate other countries equal to 42% of the land that we have now (a mere 1.6 million additional square miles), and then we'll have just as much land per person in 2050 as in 2010!

The logic is foolproof.

Oh, and make sure the conquests are between 25 and 50 degrees in latitude. No Nunavuts or Guatemalas, please. We could start with Tuscany -- that's a nice place. Who wouldn't want to own Tuscany? Although I see now that Tuscany is only 1/200th of the amount of land needed to keep up with population growth in the U.S. over the next 40 years. Hmmhmmh ...

67 comments:

James said...

Well atheists can't really explain what's morally wrong with such a policy, so why not? It might work ...

Anonymous said...

Steve,
Did you or anyone else email your devastating review of Kotkin's book to Kotkin himself? Because you and many others at vdare constantly write brillant retorts to people like Kotkin and I would love to see how they possible respond to such ripostes. Do you email these critiques to the people your critiquing ever?

I would love to hear Kotkin's responce to this post or your review.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely! We could simultaneously increase energy supplies, water supplies, clear up one border problem, and get plenty of lumber for a great big fence on the other border by just invading Canada. I'm glad you've seen the light regarding a robust foreign policy: I guess Whiskey is finally getting through to you.

Anonymous said...

The American War Machine uses damn complicated weapons ... and needs people with an IQ above about 95, at least at the sharp end of the business. It also needs people who will stay and support their compatriots, not hide in bunkers or run away.

We are not going to get such people from south of the border.

kudzu bob said...

Or we'll have 42% more soldiers who can invade Canada and seize their fresh water after ours runs out!

Or we'll have 42% more people to cannibalize when one of our wars finally gets out of hand and there's a nuclear winter!

Hey, this optimism thing is really pretty easy, once you get the hang of it.

Cicero said...

Our military is in relative terms a small force, given our massive population. During the Cold War we maintained a much larger force with a population about 2/3 to 3/4 its current size. The Soviets had 3to 6 million men under arms at any one point, and their population never broke 300 million.

The way things are going, our military is only going to get smaller due to budget and weapon development time constraints. The generals and admirals don't want a draft because it would erode experience, or at least that's what they claim. So we recruit from the usual sources: ethnic Scots-Irish, other Southerners, the sons of Midwestern, Western, and Northeastern blue collar families, and some of the more motivated members of ethnic minority communities (Black, Latino, American Indian, etc.). Throw a couple of criminals and immigrants in to fill out the ranks as necessary. With our overwhelming firepower, and the general unwillingness of other nations to try and match us in conventional warfare, it suits the government's purposes for empire building just fine.

I know, some guy on this board is going to start on about how the Chinese with their sky-high IQs are just a few years away from showing us up. It's not going to happen bucko. The PLA has basically adopted our model of military organization, but still lack the equipment and experience to match us. They mostly use weapons that match what the Soviets had at the end of the could war, with only a few hundred armored vehicles that are up to Western European standards. That's all and good for kicking the crap out of the Burmese, but a war against us? Different story, regardless of what you want to believe.

On the naval end they have still not launched a single aircraft carrier for their navy. They're on track to launch two by 2015, but that's assuming everthing goes well. Five years is a long time, and China is simply not as settled as the Poliburo wants the rest of the world to believe. Even then they would be small fries compared to the giants we deploy. Even on pure enertia we have another twenty years on the Chinese... at least.

And that's the scary thing. For all the waste and stupidity of our leaders, they will be able to boss the rest of the world with impunity for another generation. Will Western Civilization be able to survive that? That's one question I'll leave up to you intrepid readers.

jody said...

the US military's ludicrous force advantage over the combined forces of every other nation, is not dependent on a large population.

it stems from a navy so huge and powerful, that it could sink every other navy's vessels in 1 month. every non-american war ship on earth could be sent to the bottom of the ocean in 30 days if the US navy wanted.

it stems from an air force with certain air superiority against any opponent. america has 12 aircraft carriers. no other nation has more than 1. america has the F22, which cannot be detected by the avionics of any other nation's aircraft. this is why it was stupid for obama to cancel the F22 construction. it would have made more sense to cancel the preposterous navy build-out which is underway. the US navy does not need to add an additional 2 nuclear submarines every single year, at a price of 2 billion per submarine. and it certainly does not need this massive, george bush class aircraft carrier build-out. what it is the point of having 16 aircraft carriers? each george bush class carrier costs 5 billion or more.

but the US military's ludicrous force advantage over the combined forces of every other nation, has nothing to do with the army, which is the least important branch of a modern, technological force. the size of the US army is irrelevant to america's force projection. 1 million army troops is sufficient. with a population of 300 million, it would be no trouble at all to double the size of the army to 2 million troops. america does not require an additional 100 million citizens to field a larger army.

jody said...

correction: the new aircraft carrier class is called the gerald ford class. planned for launch in 2015. it is estimated to cost 9 billion.

the USS george bush was a nimitz class aircraft carrier finished in 2009. this was the final nimitz class to be constructed.

what i find hilarious about the TOTAL OVERKILL build-out of the US navy, is the contrasting issue with the US army, and how resistant and adamant they are about never, ever, ever replacing 5.56x45mm or AR-15. whenever there is momentum to make the change to a better round, a better rifle, and a better machinegun, the army starts saying "it would cost too much."

really? it would cost more than building 2 new nuclear submarines per year, every year, forever? are submarines useful in iraq? afghanistan?

how about simply paying the 2 billion dollars or so (less than the cost of a single new virginia class nuclear submarine) and re-arm the entire US army with something more effective than M4s firing 62 grain varmint ammunition.

Nicholas Heller said...

Just think - as America's population approaches half a billion, we will become nearly half as militarily powerful as India!

Nicholas Heller said...

Jody:

Some insight into the Navy's psychology.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/DeadCarriers.shtml

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/

Richard Hoste said...

Whiskey will tell you.

Whiskey said...

Wars are not won by having a big population mostly at odds with itself.

Kotkin's wrong on thinking that military success hinges on importing most of Mexico -- Mexico's military failures are legendary. With the largest, and most experienced professional army they were defeated, roundly, by a rag-tag bunch of untrained volunteers in 1845. Prior to the war, it was feared Mexico's Army would march un-opposed into Louisiana.

My problem with your worldview, Steve, is that you don't get that human nature has not changed, and thus we will always have war. Nuclear proliferation is a fact, and we will now lose cities. We are not facing Gotterdammerung, Armageddon, but rather lots of fights like all of human history over: oil, rare earth metals, and other stuff.

Including a race to dominate space. Ever seen Meteor Crater? Imagine "Rods from God" as a reality. China is not our friend, to keep them from being our enemy we need a strong and constantly evolving military. Which requires a robust, constantly improving economy and technology base.

Jody -- cheap diesel-electric submarines can kill carriers. A Chinese one surfaced right under a Nimitz class carrier a year or so ago. Huge embarrassment but also wake-up call. The F-22 was canceled, no more on order, while Russia cooperates with other nations (including Israel and India, former US allies) to produce an F-22 beater, and everyone works on pilotless drones that can pull more Gs. US technological dominance depends on constant advance, it is not "one and done." Because everyone else gets better and (lacking interlocking alliances and the US security umbrella) other nations sell stuff too. If Bush were still President and extended the US security umbrella, neither India nor Israel would be making "what deals they can" with Russia (given their issues with Russia).

I agree on the M-16, a disgraceful rifle and proven weak performer in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a practical matter Obama has forbidden modernization of our nukes, which are aging away to uselessness, so we better have the best conventional military (we've also ruled out nuclear counter-attacks) because that's all we've got.

Whiskey said...

The counter-argument to Kotkin is that the social welfare drain, and diversity (non-Whites favor non-Military spending, since they don't get involved in military contracting, engineering, etc) makes nations weak.

Rome's empire, compared to Republic, is a good example. The Romans lost 30,000, 40,000, and 90,000 at Trebia, Tresimene, and Cannae respectively. And still fought and won, with legions reformed from scratch. By the time of the Vandal and Visigoth invasions, the legions were basically useless and withered. This with a much higher population base, later, but with fewer middling folk, small farmers basically.

No time in Human history has EVER been free from menace. As Mark Steyn points out, suicide bombers are a weak weapon, but the West itself is weak. Because the West is 'diverse.' It doesn't take much to push a rotten structure down. Military spending by building up the White nerd class (geeky engineers) and Military guys is better by a lot than welfare. Which is what the alternative is spending wise.

The Vandals and Visigoth kingdoms that replaced the Romans were so weak they were swept aside easily by Arab Muslim raiders, mostly illiterate and unschooled in any military affairs.

No nation is always lucky. The sea can be a highway for hostile forces if they beat your navy. Air forces can be beaten by newer technology. Deniable nukes are a new equalizer. The ability to shoot down satellites and deny networked comms is a game changer available to anyone with a ballistic missile program (Iran, North Korea, Pakistan).

So the counter-argument is that diversity and immigration is a deadly threat to National Security by taking away resources to deal with these threats for lower IQ peasants from Chiapas.

SF said...

"Well atheists can't really explain what's morally wrong with such a policy, so why not?"

Or if you are Christian, just pick a non-christian country to conquer.

kurt9 said...

The lesson here is the same one all of you suckers should have learned from watching the financial news this year: the people at the top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier.

This is certainly true.

Sad American said...

Just think in 1970 we had 200 million people who were represented in Washington by 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.

In 2010 we have 300 million people who are represented in Washington by 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.

In 2050 we will have 400 million people who will be represented in Washington by 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.

It appears our votes are being watered down as our congressional districts are doubling in size. I don't see that as a positive. And adding more members of Congress won't solve the problem. It will just make each member less important.

As for the military, we were able to put about 10 million people into uniform during WW2 with a population of around 170 million. So I don't think we would have much trouble doubling the size of our current forces if a situation warranted it.

The problem is not necessarily the size of our force, but how we deploy them. For example, we have over 20,000 Soldiers in Korea, but then claim we don't have enough troops to patrol our own borders. We have over 100K troops still in Iraq building an Iranian ally while Mexico is tumbling toward chaos. If we brought troops back from Germany, Korea, Kosovo, Japan and other places, we would find our forces are probably big enough for today's environment.

Anonymous said...

Rome's empire, compared to Republic, is a good example. The Romans lost 30,000, 40,000, and 90,000 at Trebia, Tresimene, and Cannae respectively. And still fought and won, with legions reformed from scratch.

They never could take over the Germans, even at the height of their power.

Obvious Anti-Semite said...

Absolutely on topic: Chairman Ben Shalom Bernanke (real name) will be joined by the following persons nominated to the Federal Reserve Board by Barack Obama...

Janet Yellen
Sarah Bloom Raskin
Peter Diamond

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/janet-yellen-sarah-bloom-raskin-and-peter-diamond-be-nominated-fed-board-obama

Yes, everyone involved is Jewish. But the comment thread at the Zero Hedge link clearly explains why that fact is not relevant. And only an anti-semite would notice such a thing anyway.

James said...

My problem with your worldview, Steve, is that you don't get that human nature has not changed, and thus we will always have war.

Sailer has spent his entire journalistic career carefully paying attention to human nature so that he can write an insightful post or two everyday only to have idiots like you jump in his comment threads to spew ideological bullcrap.

Truth(er) said...

"how about simply paying the 2 billion dollars or so (less than the cost of a single new virginia class nuclear submarine) and re-arm the entire US army with something more effective than M4s firing 62 grain varmint ammunition."

62 grain? Try 55 grain ball ammo.

Anonymous said...

No time in Human history has EVER been free from menace.

Thanks Whiskey. I had no idea until I just read this.

As Mark Steyn points out, suicide bombers are a weak weapon, but the West itself is weak.

And thanks to Mark Steyn. I had no idea until I just read that he had pointed this out.

Max said...

Absolutely on topic: Chairman Ben Shalom Bernanke (real name) will be joined by the following persons nominated to the Federal Reserve Board by Barack Obama...

Janet Yellen
Sarah Bloom Raskin
Peter Diamond

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/janet-yellen-sarah-bloom-raskin-and-peter-diamond-be-nominated-fed-board-obama

Yes, everyone involved is Jewish. But the comment thread at the Zero Hedge link clearly explains why that fact is not relevant. And only an anti-semite would notice such a thing anyway.


As Whiskey can explain, you're an anti-Semite. And so is Barack Obama. Muslims are going to bomb us into extinction, we're in a space race with China, and white women love black men.

Anonymous said...

Truth(er) said...

"how about simply paying the 2 billion dollars or so (less than the cost of a single new virginia class nuclear submarine) and re-arm the entire US army with something more effective than M4s firing 62 grain varmint ammunition."

62 grain? Try 55 grain ball ammo.


Yes, but it is a magic 55 grain bullet. It could change direction in Dallas when fired from the Book Depository, for example, and thus can change the course of history.

Anonymous said...

apparently very few gentiles are qualified for a position on the fed reserve board...otoh super genius magical semetic iq people are over qualified! their astonishing brain power is the only thing keeping america's financial system healthy!

when usa is at 500 million population then why not 40 jewish senators and 5 jewish supreme court justices. hey why not 80 jewish senators and 7-8 supreme court justices. we can see by the federal reserve appointments that these are the best minds in the country so why keep them at an artificially suppressed low level of representation?

it's a meritocracy right? maybe everything should be 100% jewish just to make sure the greatest intellects are in charge of things...

Anonymous said...

The more people=more military might is bunk.
This country was simultaneously "The Arsenal of Democracy," while fighting a two-front world war, fielding a combined armed forces of over 12 million with a population of 135 million.

Bennett said...

Whiskey,

You know nothing about technological advance and dominance.

Technosocialism only works over the very short run.

Sure, it's better than importing an endless supply of South Americans. But then again, almost anything would be better.

Fred said...

"As Mark Steyn points out, suicide bombers are a weak weapon, but the West itself is weak. Because the West is 'diverse.' It doesn't take much to push a rotten structure down."

The "rotten structure" nonsense is what Hitler was thinking when he invaded the Soviet Union. It's the same nonsense Al Qaeda was thinking when they attacked us on 9/11. They thought we were a paper tiger. Al Qaeda was always the real paper tiger. It's in the memory hole now, but after we deposed the Taliban we found all kinds of fanciful weapon ideas in Al Qaeda hidey holes -- drawings of physics-defying energy weapons, that could never be built, etc. They were just as crazy as you, in a different way.

That we've let mission creep keep us slogging away in Iraq and Afghanistan for years doesn't take away from the point that we were able to knock off the governments of two Islamic countries half way around the world, without even raising a draft.

John Seiler said...

As Sun Tzu wrote, the most militarily strong nation doesn't use its military. Because once you use it, it's gone. As we have found out.

China and India long had weak militaries badly supported by socialist economies. See the hard time the PRC had against Vietnam in 1979. Then they got wise, adopted capitalism, and stopped their own military adventures. Now they're strong and getting stronger, economically and militarily.

Our larger economy won't help in the future because the debts the government has run up -- and continues to run up -- from the wars will debilitate our economy for a century.

And our elites, military and political, still haven't reconfigured the military for Fourth Generation War. So, we have a broke country using the wrong kind of military to fight pointless wars that make us even more bankrupt.

jody said...

i was arguing against an aircraft carrier build-out. not only does the US navy not need the gerald ford build-out, it could retire all of the non-nimitz class carriers tomorrow with no net loss in naval effectiveness. in fact i think it should do just that.

putting aside the issue of whether nimitz carriers are simply gonna be sunk by a volley of cruise missiles or a few submarines (either scenario seems possible), just what in the hell does the US navy need with 10 nimitz? wouldn't 5 nimitz be equally effective for the pentagon's current operations?

the US navy really only needs a fleet of nuclear submarines. but it doesn't even need half as many as it is building. it can retire all 45 of the los angeles class and replace them with a fleet of 20 virginia class. that would leave them with 23 subs including the 3 seawolf class. this is more than enough for the current geopolitical situation.

as for the F22, that is the backbone of air superiority. no nation is even 15 years away from test flying, not fielding, test flying an aircraft which can even see the F22 before the F22 kills it. F15 and F16 pilots hate war gaming against F22s. they simply kill the F15s and F16s before being detected.

the problem with deactivating the F22 construction is that these jets are only built one time. the F15s and F16s in use today are like 30 years old and falling apart. every year it costs more and more to keep them flying, and they are only still flying now because not enough F22s were built to replace them. eventually the US air force is gonna have to ditch these old jets. and then what? it will be down to 150 F22s for the united states's entire air superiority force. UAV's are nowhere close to ready for this role. UAV's are not close to ready to replace A10s let alone F35s.

you want to build a good number of these jets during the initial production. building 400 F22s, and immediately replacing most of the F15s and F16s, would have been a lot better idea than halting construction at 150, while letting the US navy build essentially useless gerald ford aircraft carriers. you can build 60 F22s for 1 gerald ford. that's a heck of a lot more cost effective.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

it stems from an air force with certain air superiority against any opponent. america has 12 aircraft carriers. no other nation has more than 1.

The Royal Navy has 2 or possibly 3, but they are crappy half-sized carriers with scarcely a dozen planes (and Harriers at that). They have a new, larger carrier under construction, but it won't be ready for several years and will still rely on rotary wing and VTOL aircraft.

As other people have pointed out here, and I have mentioned before, a growing, diverse population is not necessarily a military advantage. A) When was the last time we actually won a war? B) The US Army maintained an active duty force of ca. 750,000 back in 1985, when we had 65 million fewer people than we do today, and with higher entry standards. C) It's not at all debatable (see: Robert Putnam) that as a country grows more diverse people feel fewer ties of loyalty to the nation, and are less willing to sacrifice their own interests for the greater good - for a country that is little more than an economic entity/middle eastern bazaar. Orientals, Russians, Jews, Muslims - the economically better off new arrivals - join in unimpressive numbers, and the rest of us are following their lead.

I honest-to-God wanted to join the reserve or guard after 9/11, in spite of the fact that even the three months or so of training would've entailed a huge economic sacrifice on my part. It was not the economic sacrifice, per se, that kept me from signing up, but the growing sense that I would be little more than cannon fodder for a war that Bush, Rove, Kristol, Podhoretz and Kotkin sure as hell weren't going to risk their own childrens' lives for.

I have no interest in controlling or democratizing the world. Hell, when one considers the growing competition the US faces from formerly socialist/communist countries I'm not sure it wouldn't have been better if the communists had won.

And if Canada keeps importing militant Muslims, Sikhs and Tamils it may one day merit a US invasion whether it wants it or not.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

The "rotten structure" nonsense is what Hitler was thinking when he invaded the Soviet Union.

But Hitler was right - they did have a rotten structure. Like the French revolutionaries with the French navy, Stalin purged the officer corps of its best leaders and the result was that the USSR could barely beat Finland. Hitler wasn't impressed and invaded. And to think it only took the deaths of 26 million Russians to beat them back.

How do you, as a nation, effectively wage a war when you've got the Lilliputians from every conceivable nation and every conceivable ethnicity tying you down? Can't find India, that would piss off the Indians. Can't fight Mexico, or China, or Brazil or anyone else that may conceivably become our enemy because it's ethnic group is more loyal to the homeland than to the adopted country. You may have military force - to the extent anyone bothers to join - but have nowhere to use it. So you sit it out.

Anonymous said...

The US is an a league of its own militarily. Everyone else is an also-ran by comparison.

The US advantage is further compounded by often having the best of the also-rans fighting on its side as well. eg Brits & Australians.

Israel also punches well above its weight - but has never fought with or on behalf of the US, so its hardly relevant in this thread.

Anonymous said...

"James said...Well atheists can't really explain what's morally wrong with such a policy, so why not? It might work..."

So much idiocy, where to begin?

Morals don't come from your belief or lack of belief in an invisible sky fairy, James, so it's entirely irrelevant whether you believe in one or not, in regards to what kind of morality, or lack of morality, you base your beliefs on.

You might as well have said "well, people who don't collect stamps can't really explain what's morally wrong with such a policy, so why not? It might work..." or "well, people who don't watch NASCAR can't really explain what's morally wrong with such a policy, so why not? It might work..." (I think I know some people who would actually agree with my NASCAR example, btw).

I've known plenty of atheists and they were all more moral in real life, than any Churchies I've ever known who claimed to be moral, by a country mile. Most of the biggest crooks I have known have been Bible-thumpers. All religion does for the vast majority of people is give them an irrational support for what they want to believe and want to do anyway. Actually doing right because you know it is the right thing to do is much more difficult than simply "having faith" in Gawd or Jebus.

You can just as easily take your "faith in Gawd" and use it to justify the idiotic "policy" that Steve has lampooned. There have been many far, far stranger ideas justified on religious grounds. Once you believe in the irrational, anything is possible.

SFG said...

Aubrey: damn right diversity's bad. Remember the Roman Empire? All those 'diverse' Germans in the army...and we know what happened there.

The Byzantines were able to purge all their German soldiers (and you can imagine how humanely that got done in the sixth century), and survived another thousand years or so.

Joe Blanket said...

Absolutely on topic: Chairman Ben Shalom Bernanke (real name) will be joined by the following persons nominated to the Federal Reserve Board by Barack Obama...

Absolutely on topic? What sort of crackpot conspiracy theorist are you? Try repeating this healing mantra every morning while looking in the mirror:

There is no connection between War & Central Banking.

There is no connection between War & Central Banking.

There is no connection between War & Central Banking.

Anonymous said...

"But nobody goes on to explain the precise mechanism by which the population increasing by 42% from 2010 to 2050 will benefit current Americans and their posterity."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Americans and their posterity!!! That's funny.

This nation has been repurposed to Trotskyite Permanent Revolution.

A huge increase in legal immigration in 2009 was achieved by our gatekeepers - to make up for the recession economy staunching the flow of illegal border jumpers.

Get it? Our elites are on the case. They don't miss a trick. The Primary Directive is to Elect a New People. And not just elect them one time. The goal is to elect a new people on a permanent and continual basis.

Posterity? Posterity is Thought Crime.

Anonymous said...

Look at the Battle of Thermopylae and compare the pure Spartans versus the multiculti Persian army.

Sine that time the West has not relied on absolute numbers, but rather on superior quality and ethnic cohesion.

neil craig said...

On the other hand America has already bought Kosovo which must have a climate like Tuscany, though no beachfront property. Wasn't worth it was it?

I suspect it would be cheaper to build L5 colonies, indeed once they are being mass produced they will be orders of magnitude cheaper. This may be a game changer in human conflict. The fact that "they aren't making it anymore" has always been a main component in territorial disputes.

Mr. Anon said...

"Cicero said...

On the naval end they have still not launched a single aircraft carrier for their navy."

Aircraft carriers! You may as well chastise the chinese for being behind in the manufacture of sabers and pikes and ostrich-plumed shakos.

A five billion dollar carrier task force can be easily neutralized with a 50 million dollar ICBM tipped with a 10 million dollar, 300 kton warhead (actually those would be our prices - theirs would be even cheaper). And if the chinese decide to fight a serious war against us, that's just what they'll use.

Our military high command is to busy planning for the battle of Mogadisu (or Little Rock for that matter) to realize that most of the Navy is set up to fight the battle of Midway again.

If it ever comes to a serious war, I fear that we'll just be screwed. Serious wars are fought by serious nations, and we ain't one any longer.

Anonymous said...

Some insight into the Navy's psychology.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/DeadCarriers.shtml

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/


"Insight" on naval warfare from a burned-out former enlisted Marine and some dipstick with no military experience. Yaaay, insight!

David said...

Couldn't we breed more homegrown cannon fodder, like China does? No, we couldn't - it smells like pogroms!

Much better to screech* for wide open borders and massively increase Muslims and Jew-hating Mexicans here...and send the remaining Cossacks off to die in (more) Middle Eastern wars. That will keep Jews safe...somehow.

Jews are very intelligent. I guess they're counting on some of their craftier women doing the interbreeding thing with hapless Joses and thereby forming a Hispanic elite to control social perceptions (and thus keep a lid on the new public they've worked so hard to elect). "Meet young Issac Hernandez, America's newest media mogul and true blue esse!" (After all, brown goyim are easy to fool.)

What am I ranting about? All this has already been done. It's a fait accompli. On the next Geraldo!

* In the mouth of Bloomberg, "national suicide" of course means "national ressurrection." Interesting VDARE article.

David said...

>Well atheists can't really explain what's morally wrong with such a policy<

Non sequitur. Please explain.

>Can't find India, that would piss off the Indians. Can't fight Mexico, or China, or Brazil or anyone else that may conceivably become our enemy because it's [sic] ethnic group is more loyal to the homeland than to the adopted country.<

True. "Divide and conquer" has been replaced by "Diversity is our strength." Our cultural memory is being wiped out.

Anonymous said...

The Royal Navy has 2 or possibly 3, but they are crappy half-sized carriers with scarcely a dozen planes (and Harriers at that). They have a new, larger carrier under construction, but it won't be ready for several years and will still rely on rotary wing and VTOL aircraft.



The Queen Elizabth class carriers are scheduled to to enter service about 2016 and carry F-35's. (If that plane ever enters service.) It has not been decided yet whether to use the B (STOVL) or C (catapult launched) version of the F-35.

Anonymous said...

More people means a larger tax base, for bigger military contracts and more (expensive) government jobs in all departments. We could import 100 million Nigerians and the "economy" would "grow", just like the politicians want, regardless of its effects on things like quality of life or even GDP per capita.

Politicians hate population decline, because it reduces the tax base. (even though it may increase quality of life)

Victoria said...

The American War Machine uses damn complicated weapons ... needs people who will stay and support their compatriots, not hide in bunkers or run away.

Yes, you're right. Only the brainwashed fools north of the border eagerly offer themselves up as fodder. And, by the way, those high IQ guys who can work all that complicated technology are just as much fodder as the dumb suckers at the bottom who can only shoot a gun.

keypusher said...

I know I've posted this before, but it just belongs here. The ant colony's propaganda broadcast from The Once and Future King:

A. We are so numerous that we are starving.

B. Therefore we must encourage still larger families so as to become yet more numerous and starving.

C. When we are so numerous and starving as all that, obviously we shall have a right to take other people's stores of seed. Besides, we shall by then have a numerous and starving army.

Victoria said...

... it stems from a navy so huge and powerful, that it could sink every other navy's vessels in 1 month.

In terms of being sunk, isn't this true for all Navys, including the USA? Anyone with sky power can sink ships. Even a minor country like Israel can demolish a USS Liberty. Aren't all ships vulnerable to any country that has planes to fly over? In terms of warmaking, aren't Navys outdated by now?

Victoria said...

The Captain wrote:
... a growing, diverse population is not necessarily a military advantage. ... I honest-to-God wanted to join the reserve or guard after 9/11, ... the growing sense that I would be little more than cannon fodder for a war that Bush, Rove, Kristol, Podhoretz and Kotkin sure as hell weren't going to risk their own childrens' lives for.

If only other men applied their brains, as you did, instead of believing the poppycock. You are one less dead body under the sod, or a living body "readjusting" to life without an arm, genitalia and an eye. How UNpatriotic of you!

Paul Mendez said...

Nuclear aircraft carriers and invisible supersonic fighter jets are sooooo 20th Century.

Mexico is doing a damn fine job of conquering the US with an army of horny, drunken peasants armed with nail guns and lawn mowers.

Saint Louis said...

Anonymous: "More people means a larger tax base, for bigger military contracts and more (expensive) government jobs in all departments. We could import 100 million Nigerians and the "economy" would "grow", just like the politicians want, regardless of its effects on things like quality of life or even GDP per capita."

False. More people only means a larger tax base if those people are, on average, net income producers. If they all live off the dole and pay no taxes, they aren't contributing anything to government revenue; indeed, they're having the opposite effect. Politicians don't want more immigrants to increase the tax base (hell, if they want more money, they'll just borrow or print it). They want immigrants for votes. Well, at least the Dems do. The GOP wants immigrants because they're a bunch of spineless ninnies afraid of being called the R word.

Svigor said...

The way things are going, our military is only going to get smaller due to budget and weapon development time constraints.

Unless you count PMCs.

Svigor said...

The Byzantines were able to purge all their German soldiers (and you can imagine how humanely that got done in the sixth century), and survived another thousand years or so.

I can imagine, but could you just tell me? :) I'm genuinely curious. I have a passing interest in medieval Rome and read about it occasionally. My impression was that they used a lot of ethnic armies, not that they had a big multiethnic army, and I'd have guessed if they wanted to purge Germans, they'd have sent the German units packing.

Svigor said...

"Insight" on naval warfare from a burned-out former enlisted Marine and some dipstick with no military experience. Yaaay, insight!

Is the "giant missile flotilla" in those links? I'd like someone to rebut that, please. Why wouldn't a massive swarm of Exocets (or whatever the kids are playing with these days) necessarily take out an aircraft carrier? Seems like a relatively cheap way to put a quick stop to power projection.

Anonymous said...

"They never could take over the Germans, even at the height of their power."

It was never worthwhile to take over the Germans at the height of their power.

jody said...

see, you would imagine the defense budget would get smaller - but even under obama, it has gotten larger. even under obama.

so much for the US military "having" to shrink. "It must shrink now. America is in so much debt. Right? Right?!"

think again.

the US will never pay back any of this debt. it has unchallenged force supremacy over the combined nations of the world. it has 18 ohio class submarines just for launching ICBMs in the ocean.

"We're not gonna pay. Don't like it? Come get. I dare you to come get the money."

and make no mistake, the united states will TAKE anything it needs. it has the military. it WILL crush opponents, even allies, if it NEEDS oil or uranium or steel.

you don't go total overkill with a navy and airforce unless you consider those things an option. barack obama is OK with the defense department spending THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to buy TWO THOUSAND F35s. actually, 2400 F35s, but who's counting. this is what the defense department actually plans to do with 300 billion dollars. for 300 billion dollars, it would make one THOUSAND percent more sense to simply replace all coal power plants in the US with 1.6 gigawatt EPR nuclear fission reactors.

again, all signs point to "completely stupid" when the topic is halting F22 construction at 150 units. 150 F22s versus 2400 F35s? 150 F22s versus 9 billion dollar ford class aircraft carriers? every ford class aircraft carrier could instead be 3 nuclear fission reactors replacing 10 coal power plants.

Fred said...

"Why wouldn't a massive swarm of Exocets (or whatever the kids are playing with these days) necessarily take out an aircraft carrier?"

Assuming whoever wants to fire the Exocets, Silkworms or whatever hasn't been taken out first by missiles fired by one of the planes in the carriers combat air patrol, the anti-ship missiles would have to get through the missile defenses of the Aegis destroyers in the carrier's battle group. If any make it through those defenses, they'd have to make it through those ships' Phalanx close-in anti-missile systems -- radar-controlled 20 mm Gatling guns firing 3000 rounds per minute. If they make it through that, they'd have to make it through the carrier's own Phalanx system.

In short, it wouldn't be easy to sink a US Navy carrier with anti-ship missiles.

Mr. Anon said...

"Fred said...

In short, it wouldn't be easy to sink a US Navy carrier with anti-ship missiles."

But it would be really easy to sink it, and it's whole task force, with a single 0.3 - 1 Mton warhead delivered by an ICBM. Provided you know where it is of course, but then carrier groups aren't easy to hide. Actually, they'd probably use two - one detonated at high altitude to blind the target, and any defences it might have, followed by one detonated at lower altitude. ICBMs are cheap too - a lot cheaper than aircraft carrier battle groups.

The new aircraft carriers may as well have muzzle-loading six-pounder cannon on board, as far as fighting in the 21st century goes. They're history.

Steve Sailer said...

But who wants to start a nuclear war with the U.S.? Would that be prudent?

Fred said...

"But who wants to start a nuclear war with the U.S.? Would that be prudent?"

Right. The Chinese don't want to go there. There's no way that escalates to positive outcome for them.

Anonymous said...

Fred said...

"But who wants to start a nuclear war with the U.S.? Would that be prudent?"

Right. The Chinese don't want to go there. There's no way that escalates to positive outcome for them.


Yeah, why start a war with your largest debtor and your largest customer. I am sure they will wait until the can dispose of all that US debt and find alternative customers ...

Mr. Anon said...

"Steve Sailer said...

But who wants to start a nuclear war with the U.S.? Would that be prudent?"

Would it be considered a nuclear war if nuclear weapons were only used against military targets at sea? Anyway, it is probably possible to win a nuclear war if you are willing to accept enough casualties. It might be possible to do so and incur only modest casualties (modest to everyone who survives that is). This country has made itself vulnerable in any number of ways.

Anonymous said...

"They have a new, larger carrier under construction, but it won't be ready for several years and will still rely on rotary wing and VTOL aircraft."

Two of them and le Frogs will have one as well.

"how about simply paying the 2 billion dollars or so (less than the cost of a single new virginia class nuclear submarine) and re-arm the entire US army with something more effective than M4s firing 62 grain varmint ammunition"

Not this old shit again...

"http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/"

What experience does the 'War Nerd' have? Masturbating over copies of Janes? Watching films? Playing videogames?

Fred said...

"Would it be considered a nuclear war if nuclear weapons were only used against military targets at sea?"

Why do you think we haven't used nukes in combat since WWII? Because it would escalate. We wouldn't nuke Beijing if they nuked one of our carrier groups, but we'd probably nuke their new naval base at Sanya. Then what? There's no happy ending for the Chinese if they use nukes on us. We have more of them and a better second strike capability.

It's not even in their interest to fight a conventional war with us. There's just no benefit to it for them. It's bad for business.

Mr. Anon said...

"Fred said...

"Would it be considered a nuclear war if nuclear weapons were only used against military targets at sea?"

Why do you think we haven't used nukes in combat since WWII? Because it would escalate. We wouldn't nuke Beijing if they nuked one of our carrier groups, but we'd probably nuke their new naval base at Sanya. Then what? There's no happy ending for the Chinese if they use nukes on us. We have more of them and a better second strike capability.

It's not even in their interest to fight a conventional war with us. There's just no benefit to it for them. It's bad for business."

I think the history of the last century has demonstrated that it's not in the interest of any large power to go to war with another large power. And yet, they did. I agree that the Chinese would be foolish to start a conventional war, which might lead to a nuclear war, or a limited nuclear war which might lead to a more general exchange. But nations often do foolish things. Exhibit A - our own country.

I would not discount the possibility that the Chinese have prepared for and, and at least as a contingency, planned for attacking the United States. You mentioned our second strike capability, consisting primarily of our missile submarines. Reportedly (although I have found no explicit confirmation of this) the sub commanders had their independent launch authority stripped from them by the Clinton administration. I don't know if the Bush administration restored it or not. And of course, every year, as regular as clockwork, there is a stellar opportunity to swiftly decapitate the civilian government of the United States (more than decapitate it, actually).

I'm not saying that it is a likely scenario. I agree with you that it would be bad for business, and things seem to be going pretty well for China right now. But it is not an impossible scenario.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Not this old shit again...

"http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/"

What experience does the 'War Nerd' have?"

Very little, probably. Then again, USN admirals have very little experience in fighting a modern naval war against an enemy that actually has a navy. Our navy is mostly used these days to blow up brown people. And military experience is no guarantee against making really bad military decisions. Consider the case of General Douglas Haig in WWI.

Fred said...

Mr. Anon,

I agree it's not impossible, but let me further stipulate that not only is it not in China's interest to fight a conventional war with us, it's not in China's interest to usurp our naval hegemony in the region. Our hegemony has been great for business for the Chinese. They have been getting richer. If we disappeared tomorrow, all of China's neighbors would start arming themselves. None of them would welcome or trust China's unchallenged hegemony. That would be bad for business. Trade and growth would slow. Tensions would rise.

neil craig said...

"I would not discount the possibility that the Chinese have prepared for and, and at least as a contingency, planned for attacking the United States."

They would be fools not to. Every country has contingency plans in a drawer somewhere for every contingency. I'm sure the US has a contingency plan for invading China & inded for invading Britain. Doesn't mean they want to.