Military US Military Is Scared Americans Won't Fight For Globalism

[Marduk]

Considering the founders of the neocon movement were a bunch of communists with homosexual tendencies its especially hilarious to call people who reject their worldview defeatist.

"people who reject their worldview"
I do reject their worldview, i think their worldview didn't go far enough.
I reject people who have what is clearly described by the term defeatist.

Telling Europe and Asia to go fuck themselves and Pablo Escobaring all the corpo and globalist pencil pushers who think they can turn Americans into cattle isn't defeatist.

It's the opposite. It's reclaiming ones nation from the global jackals

So the alternative is impossible and ridiculous dreams of people divorced from reality, got it. Why not wish for unicorns and lifetime supply of fairy dust too?
Good luck convincing even 20% of Americans to make the kind of sacrifices in wealth and comfort this would necessitate just to "own the globalist corpos".

Ehhh. The problem is that everyone else has nukes

Not yet, LMAO. But don't worry, if you isolationists get anywhere with your agenda, that will become true, and then you will get exactly what you were oh so concerned about.

And how are more forever wars for a globalist shadow-empire that do nothing but waste lives, resources and enrich the pollical establishment of the west helping matters?

Take this Hanoi Hannah shit to the 60's.
It's called foreign policy, and the only problem with it is the corrupt establishment grifting on it.
Better yet, if only there was a way to get all the new generation of "anti war activists" to move over and let them peddle this shit to countries we don't like. Preferably accompanied by the greens and diversity-mongers.
After all, that's about the thing that 100 years ago the commies used their way too idealist idiots for, and look what damage they did.

By pay for it I meant 'deal with this nonsense now' instead of not allowing it to happen in the first place.

As opposed to your plan which is to do nothing but stay the course.

I don't either and getting that fixed up is going to be a headache no doubt.

How does embracing far left approved foreign policy help end far left approved domestic policy?
So no, absolutely not for staying the course as far as i'm concerned.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

The problem was China's alliance + Seoul being within artillery range (and there's more artillery on the DMZ than anywhere else).

America wiped Saddam off the face of the earth like he was a nobody. I'm sure with their fun black-tech they can wipe NK off the planet as well. China or no China.

Ehhh. The problem is that everyone else has nukes and even if we had better anti-IBCM tech a few that get through in the right place will ruin a nation or at least cause nasty casualties.

That's my point, it's not about winning, it's about making sure that your enemies lose.
You don't start a war with the intention of losing, ergo you won't be invaded because you can just nuke em to the stone age.

 

[Abhorsen]

America wiped Saddam off the face of the earth like he was a nobody. I'm sure with their fun black-tech they can wipe NK off the planet as well. China or no China.

Eh, that's a very different prospect when nuclear armed. Also, Seoul is a few million people effectively held hostage.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Eh, that's a very different prospect when nuclear armed. Also, Seoul is a few million people effectively held hostage.

America loves its human sacrifices, that's only tempting them further!

 

[Bacle]

Anyone who thinks the CCP is not a threat is fucking fool.

Their cyberwar actions are already more than enough to justify classifying the CCP as a enemy nation, never mind their fuckery in the South China Sea.

Of course, if we put a Tomahawk into the Three Gorges Dam, it won't matter how many tofu-dreg ships they have or what their prior GDP was.

Taiwan is a case where it's not an existential issue for the US, it's a convenience issue, but making sure Taiwan has enough weapons to sink the CCP fleet before they even reach the shore is not something that would hurt the US.

We don't need to send our own people to fight and die for other nations, if we just ensure we have enough production capacity to arm any ally to the teeth in a rapid fashion.

 

[Zachowon]

Anyone else feeling like conventional armies in general are outdated and appear to be more of a money laundering/scam system?
Give everyone nukes and the ability to maintain/produce them.

Sounds ridiculous but I wonder why America hasn't tried to give North Korea some 'freedom'.

China might be a lot less imperialistic if their victims could wipe Bejing off the face of the earth in 15 minutes.

Because North Korea has nukes, China, and Because South Korea wants to attempt a peaceful reunion.
We wait till North Korean invades...

 

[Cherico]

Because North Korea has nukes, China, and Because South Korea wants to attempt a peaceful reunion.
We wait till North Korean invades...

North Korea's kit gets older and less reliable with time as does their economy, meanwhile south korea has become something akin to a jugernaught in tech. I don't see that fight going well for the norks even if no one else intervienes.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

North Korea's kit gets older and less reliable with time as does their economy, meanwhile south korea has become something akin to a jugernaught in tech. I don't see that fight going well for the norks even if no one else intervienes.

the ROK has to weather the Zerg-rush from the Norks. Once that's expended...the North is done unless China comes to their aid again.

 

[Cherico]

the ROK has to weather the Zerg-rush from the Norks. Once that's expended...the North is done unless China comes to their aid again.

The north has burned a lot of bridges on that front a lot.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The north has burned a lot of bridges on that front a lot.

agreed, but China may just really not want UN on their border.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

"people who reject their worldview"
I do reject their worldview, i think their worldview didn't go far enough.
I reject people who have what is clearly described by the term defeatist.

It is hardly defeatist to argue that American interests should exclusively put Americans above every other people on the planet. At all costs, by any and all means.

Americans dying so state mandated sodomy can be the norm in Africa and a bunch of Sino-Scottish bankers can kill middle America is the antithesis of American interests and support it, is to adopt a slave mentality.

 

[Marduk]

It is hardly defeatist to argue that American interests should exclusively put Americans above every other people on the planet. At all costs, by any and all means.

If you had a magic wand that suddenly made the statistical American think like some kind of ultranationalist ascete, sure.
But we both know this is quite deep into "unicorns and fairy dust" territory. At least i hope you do. As such, no, being poor and isolated is not something they would consider their interest.

But back to reality, where few Americans would be willing to pay the real price of withdrawing from world affairs like some hermit kingdom larp, yes, this is defeatist. This is something a country like China or Russia would demand you do if it won a war against you.

Fuck, forcibly inflicting isolationism on countries as punishment is what USA is big on itself, see: North Korea and Iran, while the targets in turn figure out ways to sneak around these measures.
Good luck with politics when you try to sell ideas that everyone from libertarians to North Korea agrees are less than desirable.

Americans dying so state mandated sodomy can be the norm in Africa and a bunch of Sino-Scottish bankers can kill middle America is the antithesis of American interests and support it, is to adopt a slave mentality.

That's a fucking propaganda soundbite. As things stand Americans probably die more to get crab, coal, or just live in a democrat city, than for any of that. And no need for the spin, even if Americans were not such media guided beings, letting the world's shitholes go full free for all could very likely hit America with splash damage alongside everyone else, that's what this shit is about, not the contractor grifts and the like that some politician hide under the legitimate facts of how the world works that isolationism fanboys categorically refuse to think about.

 

[Zachowon]

North Korea's kit gets older and less reliable with time as does their economy, meanwhile south korea has become something akin to a jugernaught in tech. I don't see that fight going well for the norks even if no one else intervienes.

They still need us to support them though in many ways

 

[Cherico]

They still need us to support them though in many ways

some one has to dig the graves I suppose.

 

[DarthOne]

If you had a magic wand that suddenly made the statistical American think like some kind of ultranationalist ascete, sure.
But we both know this is quite deep into "unicorns and fairy dust" territory. At least i hope you do. As such, no, being poor and isolated is not something they would consider their interest.

But back to reality, where few Americans would be willing to pay the real price of withdrawing from world affairs like some hermit kingdom larp, yes, this is defeatist. This is something a country like China or Russia would demand you do if it won a war against you.

Fuck, forcibly inflicting isolationism on countries as punishment is what USA is big on itself, see: North Korea and Iran, while the targets in turn figure out ways to sneak around these measures.
Good luck with politics when you try to sell ideas that everyone from libertarians to North Korea agrees are less than desirable.

That's a fucking propaganda soundbite. As things stand Americans probably die more to get crab, coal, or just live in a democrat city, than for any of that. And no need for the spin, even if Americans were not such media guided beings, letting the world's shitholes go full free for all could very likely hit America with splash damage alongside everyone else, that's what this shit is about, not the contractor grifts and the like that some politician hide under the legitimate facts of how the world works that isolationism fanboys categorically refuse to think about.

Ah yes, China and Russia. Two nations with crumbling infrastructure, a declining population, that aren’t particularly popular and that have trouble building and maintaining a overseas military force is some how just going to sweep the world if the USA isn’t there to stop them.

Yep.

That’s totally what would happen.

Meanwhile, in reality, what is much more likely are coalition of small regional powers teaming up against mutual threats. Especially ones that haven’t and can’t grow into unstoppable juggernauts.

You know, that thing nations have always done through out history.

 

[Marduk]

Ah yes, China and Russia. Two nations with crumbling infrastructure, a declining population, that aren’t particularly popular and that have trouble building and maintaining a overseas military force is some how just going to sweep the world if the USA isn’t there to stop them.

Yep.

Oh China would sweep a lot. Who would stop them if not USA? Sure, Japan may break the NPT (wonder what you think about that one) and tell them to fuck off from their backyard, but that's about it. By bribery, threats or force, they would go full hog in a lot of places.

That’s totally what would happen.

Meanwhile, in reality, what is much more likely are collisions of small regional powers teaming up against mutual threats. Especially ones that haven’t and can’t grow into unstoppable juggernauts.

What fucking small regional powers are out there that are in fact doing better than what you listed in the first paragraph enough to compensate for its sheer size?

You know, that thing nations have always done through out history.

In history before jets, nukes, global trade and internet. You're a perfect example of what happens when people talk about shit because they really care about some ideological and political matters related to it, but couldn't care less about the realities, technicalities, details and quirks of the matter.

 

[DarthOne]

Oh China would sweep a lot. Who would stop them if not USA? Sure, Japan may break the NPT (wonder what you think about that one) and tell them to fuck off from their backyard, but that's about it. By bribery, threats or force, they would go full hog in a lot of places.


What fucking small regional powers are out there that are in fact doing better than what you listed in the first paragraph enough to compensate for its sheer size?

In history before jets, nukes, global trade and internet. You're a perfect example of what happens when people talk about shit because they really care about some ideological and political matters related to it, but couldn't care less about the realities, technicalities, details and quirks of the matter.

Okay, where is your proof that China, the nation that can't even get its buildings to stand up thanks to corruption, would be able to 'sweep a lot' without the USA/the West's globalists and collaborators helping smooth the road for them?

That's why they team up and work together.

Those haven't changed as much as you seem to think they have. Jets? Okay, besides being able to move faster, how are they fundamentally different from the airplanes that came before in terms of what they can do?

Nukes? Its a lot of destruction in a smaller package, but a lot of people have them and MAD means that no one but the most crazy fanatics will actually use them without fear of retroposity. And the ability to destroy a city isn't at all new to humanity- we've just got more efficient at it.

Global trade? That's been going on since the 1700's. The only thing that's changed besides tonnage is that people got it into their heads that relying on fragile supply lines to other countries for critical resources was a great idea because they couldn't see past the era they were in and assumed it would last forever.

The internet? Again, its just a faster and more widely used version of what people have had for centuries. At first it was mail, then overseas telephones and radios. And if you bring up hacking infastructure, thats our fault for being stupid and connecting everything to the internet.

 

[Marduk]

Okay, where is your proof that China, the nation that can't even get its buildings to stand up thanks to corruption, would be able to 'sweep a lot' without the USA/the West's globalists and collaborators helping smooth the road for them?

Because your fucking CNN grade soundbites reality do not make, nations do not fight wars with the quality of their real estate, just in case you didn't know that.
Otherwise USSR would never be a superpower, but Switzerland would be.

List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maritime Militia (China) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's why they team up and work together.

If you add several weak third world militaries, it's still not something that will counter a superpower level one.

Those haven't changed as much as you seem to think they have. Jets? Okay, besides being able to move faster, how are they fundamentally different from the airplanes that came before in terms of what they can do?

Of fucking course they are, and and that you even need to ask something so obvious demonstrates my previous point well...
Could a fucking Spitfire fly few thousands of kilometers with aerial refueling in a few hours and then launch a cruise missile or two that can reach out another thousand kilometer or two and deliver a nuke, or correcting for accuracy, do more damage to a military target than a B-17 squadron would even with conventional warheads?
Some jets can, and this will only become more, not less common.

Nukes? Its a lot of destruction in a smaller package, but a lot of people have them and MAD means that no one but the most crazy fanatics will actually use them without fear of retroposity.

Strategic infrastructure and delivery systems with the right technological advances can make or break MAD over decades, if not years.
Or someone may as well try proxy shit with nukes.
Let's say country A is a nasty major power wants to ruin you but is afraid of being nuked back.
It can however take over country B, make it a nuclear power, and then arrange for it to get into a conflict with you. You may nuke each other, and for country A that's a sacrifice they are willing to make.

And the ability to destroy a city isn't at all new to humanity- we've just got more efficient at it.

It's not about the destruction, it's about the range and challenges of countering it just as much. Before you had to decisively defeat the armies of the country in question first, against distant near peers that was plainly impossible for logistical reasons, and even when possible it was a lot of work.
Even with WW2 strategic bombers, it still took some considerable time and probably losses to throughly destroy few cities, and you had to have relatively close airbases to do it.
Now, it's anytime, anywhere, anyone.

Global trade? That's been going on since the 1700's. The only thing that's changed besides tonnage is that people got it into their heads that relying on fragile supply lines to other countries for critical resources was a great idea because they couldn't see past the era they were in and assumed it would last forever.

And how many wars over it were there since 1700's? Whole empires were rising and falling fighting over this stuff. Yes, with tonnage it gets even more, not less important.

The internet? Again, its just a faster and more widely used version of what people have had for centuries. At first it was mail, then overseas telephones and radios. And if you bring up hacking infastructure, thats our fault for being stupid and connecting everything to the internet.

Complex supply chains for complex tech, efficient services, and last but not least, propaganda.

 

[Agent23]

No, in light of your attitude, you think you do, but you don't. They will absolutely bother you if they stand in a position to do so.
For one they are very clear about what attitudes you are allowed to spread to other citizens.
Demoralizing enemy societies like you are doing here is one thing, but in China, posting this kind of stuff online regarding it or one of its satrapies would put you on a list of people who may need a visit to gulag.

But, but if we do not fight Ho Chi Minh/the Vietcong in Vietnam we will be fignting them in Los Angeles...

B-b-but if we do not fight in Nam we will lose all of Asia...

B-b-but muh hordes of muslim fanatics and WMDs Saddam will unleash on the world cause he is literally Hitler...

doomdoomdoom

better than the usual neocuck reeing.

doomdoomdoom 2.0
Become commie's serfs because COMMIES HAVE NUKES!
Come on, get a time machine and fuck off to the 1960's "peace movement".

Why don't you get a time machine and go fight in Nam?




The Chicoms do not have any real interest in global hegemony, mostly their focus is on domestic issues + securing trade routes and markets the GAE can not disrupt.

If anything they are slowly evolving into the type of standard, inward-looking Asian despotism that has been present for hundreds of years.They spend more money on internal security than on the military and have more than enough neighbors(India, the various countries of Indochina, Japan which is a fast breakout nuclear power) that have bones to pick with them to think about any global empire.

They have a huge demographics problem, their economy is not in a good state, they have lots of domestic problems to add to that.

 

[DarthOne]

Because your fucking CNN grade soundbites reality do not make, nations do not fight wars with the quality of their real estate, just in case you didn't know that.
Otherwise USSR would never be a superpower, but Switzerland would be.

List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maritime Militia (China) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Okay. First off, enough with the insults.

Second of all, the point I was trying to make- and obviously was too subtle about given your failure to grasp it- is that China is so corrupt and incompetent that they can't even make basic infrastructure correctly.

So what makes you think that the Chinese military, which we know is also corrupt at the very least, would be any different.

Moving on.

Not sure what your supported to be getting at here with this list of Chinese ships your throwing at me.

If you add several weak third world militaries, it's still not something that will counter a superpower level one.

Which ignores the fact that they don't necessarily have to defeat the Chinese (or whoever else), just make it so that they lose more by fighting them then its worth to win.

Of fucking course they are, and and that you even need to ask something so obvious demonstrates my previous point well...
Could a fucking Spitfire fly few thousands of kilometers with aerial refueling in a few hours and then launch a cruise missile or two that can reach out another thousand kilometer or two and deliver a nuke, or correcting for accuracy, do more damage to a military target than a B-17 squadron would even with conventional warheads?
Some jets can, and this will only become more, not less common.

Most of those are weapon systems, not the aircraft itself, thus not the point.

In-air fueling as existed since around WW2, though I am not sure if Spitfires had the capacity for it.

Being able to fly further is usually the result of being able to fly faster, yes. Congratulations on being able to figure this out.

You mean the weapon systems and jets that the USA is perfectly capable of building without a vast colonial empire?

Strategic infrastructure and delivery systems with the right technological advances can make or break MAD over decades, if not years.
Or someone may as well try proxy shit with nukes.
Let's say country A is a nasty major power wants to ruin you but is afraid of being nuked back.
It can however take over country B, make it a nuclear power, and then arrange for it to get into a conflict with you. You may nuke each other, and for country A that's a sacrifice they are willing to make.

Yes, which is why one should keep up with them for the sake of national security. Again, not sure what this has to do with the USA going isolationist.

Your example is pure absurdity. No nation is going to risk getting nuked in retaliation, especially on the behalf of another.

It's not about the destruction, it's about the range and challenges of countering it just as much. Before you had to decisively defeat the armies of the country in question first, against distant near peers that was plainly impossible for logistical reasons, and even when possible it was a lot of work.
Even with WW2 strategic bombers, it still took some considerable time and probably losses to throughly destroy few cities, and you had to have relatively close airbases to do it.
Now, it's anytime, anywhere, anyone.

And how many wars over it were there since 1700's? Whole empires were rising and falling fighting over this stuff. Yes, with tonnage it gets even more, not less important.

Complex supply chains for complex tech, efficient services, and last but not least, propaganda.

Okay, which is why we also have such weapon systems if the USA is attacked. And why should we need overseas bases then? If one can, as you claim, attack 'anytime, anywhere and anyone', why build bases? Heck, why bother with a lot of stuff? What I'm trying to say here is, make up your damn mind. Either we need a vast overseas empire for power projection or we don't.

Most of said supply chains only exist because for reason I already gave. Very little of what the USA needs to survive, sustain and defend itself cannot be acquired at home or through trade if we bothered to build the infrastructure for it. And since you seem obsessed about technology marching on and leaving the USA behind, whose to say that one day those resources won't be synthesized?

All I've seen is a lot of Cold War hysteria, as @Agent23 has pointed out. Which is ironic.