Would the World be a safer place under a President Hillliary Clinton or Donald Trump?

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

How many programs and Divisions are being sacrificed paying for the procurement of systems that not scheduled to be functional for years to come at best?

The normal time frame for a big procurement programme is about 20 years.
So, the answer could be all of them, or none of them, because it takes so long.
And because projects can take multiple decades, many are themselves cancelled anyway.

The situation at the moment is known as the 'bow-wave'.
Imagine the bow of a boat pushing through the water.
As it progresses (deferrals/budget cuts) , so the water ahead of it is pushed on... but eventually the water breaks.

That is where the US is vis-a-vis procurement.
There is a lot that is soon to be renewed, at vast cost.
These big ticket items will be a headache for whoever takes charge of the White House, because they are not easily cast aside.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The normal time frame for a big procurement programme is about 20 years.
So, the answer could be all of them, or none of them, because it takes so long.
And because projects can take multiple decades, many are themselves cancelled anyway.

The situation at the moment is known as the 'bow-wave'.
Imagine the bow of a boat pushing through the water.
As it progresses (deferrals/budget cuts) , so the water ahead of it is pushed on... but eventually the water breaks.

That is where the US is vis-a-vis procurement.
There is a lot that is soon to be renewed, at vast cost.
These big ticket items will be a headache for whoever takes charge of the White House, because they are not easily cast aside.

Absolutely. How much of these extended time frames is due to the failure of the Pentagon and Congress to properly manage those projects? Technology development doesn't happen in day for sure, but the consistent failure to establish clear requirements and stick to them is a constant in these programs.

The focus on advanced technology development for future conflicts, versus maintaining an ability to fight successively now is worrisome. I would genuinely argue that the US is in a historically weakened state at present, certainly the Army.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would genuinely argue that the US is in a historically weakened state at present, certainly the Army.

It isn't an argument, it is a fact.

The army will be depleted to 46 combat brigades:
9 Armored Brigade Combat Teams
7 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
14 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Light))
12 Combat Aviation Brigades
4 Fires (Artillery) Brigades

The Navy has been weakened more though...
The total of combat vessels by year breaks down as:
2005 220
2010 225
2012 210
2014 205
2015 197
2016 191

It's grim.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It isn't an argument, it is a fact.

The army will be depleted to 46 combat brigades:
9 Armored Brigade Combat Teams
7 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
14 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Light))
12 Combat Aviation Brigades
4 Fires (Artillery) Brigades

The Navy has been weakened more though...
The total of combat vessels by year breaks down as:
2005 220
2010 225
2012 210
2014 205
2015 197
2016 191

It's grim.

Has to be a factor in Russia's increased assertiveness. They know the US can't do anything to stop them militarily at present.

Unless Congress sorts its **** out and passes a proper budget, repealing the Sequestration, it will get worse.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Has to be a factor in Russia's increased assertiveness. They know the US can't do anything to stop them militarily at present.

From your lips to Putin's ears....
Russia plans to militarise the Kuril Islands

The gelded Japanese don't really care & the US certainly won't do anything about it, even though they will be affected by it.

People cannot have failed to notice that the Obama's continued appeasement is not making things any.. "safer"
As the latest erratic RuAF stunt shows

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

From your lips to Putin's ears....
Russia plans to militarise the Kuril Islands

The gelded Japanese don't really care & the US certainly won't do anything about it, even though they will be affected by it.

People cannot have failed to notice that the Obama's continued appeasement is not making things any.. "safer"
As the latest erratic RuAF stunt shows

It's probably the most damning failure of his foreign policy. For all the criticism leveled at Bush for weakening American influence (rightly so in many cases), Obama has left the US in a worse position imo.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Obama has left the US in a worse position imo.

IMO it's been a mixed bag.... leaning slightly towards 'worse'.
I would agree that he leaves office with the US weaker abroad.
But, that was partially down to congress.
And Obama's policy was one of weakening anyway...
So, he may consider it a job well done!

Junkyard Tom

Clinton is power-hungry chameleon who has been an enthusiastic supporter of every US intervention some of which have led to the humanitarian disasters we see in the middle east.

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

the 'Obama doctrine' of disengagement

Disengagement? Is that what you're calling not continuing on the disastrous warpath the neocons/chickenhawks set the US?

Okay.

BoJack Horseman

JunkyardTom wrote: »

Disengagement? Is that what you're calling not continuing on the disastrous warpath

What warpath?

The one that Obama has continued in Iraq?
Afghanistan?
The one he's expanded from Djibouti?
The one still going through Libya?
Or the new adventures he's authorised in Nigeria?

How much safer has Barry left things after 8 years?

A decimated military, nearing desperation point under an ever greater deployment tempo, appeasement of Russia & China, and more brush-fire wars in Africa than ever before

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What warpath?

The one that Obama has continued in Iraq?
Afghanistan?
The one he's expanded from Djibouti?
The one still going through Libya?
Or the new adventures he's authorised in Nigeria?

(1) How is that disengagement?

How much safer has Barry left things after 8 years?

He hasn't left it safer at all.

appeasement of Russia & China

(2) How exactly is the US 'appeasing' Russia and China?

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

(1) How is that disengagement?

Because there is no plan.
There is just doing, there is no strategy, there is no end.... there is just acting in the moment, always reacting, never leading.

And Barry's many ongoing rudderless brush-fires, there is a litany of failed or doomed to fail withdrawls elsewhere, again with no strategic plan of any kind.

The would-be-allies his administration are disappointing (to put it mildly) include
Thailand
Taiwan
(His cornerstone "Asian Pivot" has been quietly dropped for the sham it was)
Poland
Jordan
Qatar & Kuwait
Egypt
And others

TBH, there is a lot more, but who has the time!
If you look into how Barry has treated countries that are supposed to be allies, it paints a bleak picture.

How exactly is the US 'appeasing' Russia and China?

Being nice and topical, here is the latest example
And the amount of articles on Obama's tacit failure to do anything regarding Beijing's de-facto conquest of the SCS is too numerous to link.... added to his longstanding unwillingness to do anyting regarding Beijings industrial & defence espionage.

He's spent the last 8 years being a rather obliging tail happy to be wagged by Moscow & Beijing.

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There is just doing, there is no strategy, there is no end.... there is just acting in the moment, always reacting, never leading.

How do you know that there is no strategy to what is happening? The US was suffering from the age-old problem of imperial overreach culminating in the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you look into how Barry has treated countries that are supposed to be allies, it paints a bleak picture.

I don't know why you're attributing dictator-like powers to a US president.

Being nice and topical [obama-ignores-russian-jets-buzzing-navy] is the latest example

Is that the US warship that was 'buzzed' by unarmed Russian jets 43 miles from a Russian naval base thousands of miles from the US border? What do you want Obama to do? Nuke Russia?

And the amount of articles on Obama's tacit failure to do anything regarding Beijing's de-facto conquest of the SCS is too numerous to link

Articles from who? Why is it the US's business what happens in the South China Sea? If China was mucking around in the Gulf of Mexico you might have a point.

He's spent the last 8 years being a rather obliging tail happy to be wagged by Moscow & Beijing.

That's just ridiculous hyperbole.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Is that the US warship that was 'buzzed' by unarmed Russian jets 43 miles from a Russian naval base thousands of miles from the US border? What do you want Obama to do? Nuke Russia?

As a senior US military officer said of the incident: you can't kill people for being annoying.

Apparently not everyone agrees.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How do you know that there is no strategy to what is happening?

According to anyone not currently working under Barry, what little strategy there is seems lacking to say the least.
This includes democrats & former colleagues

Is that the US warship that was 'buzzed' by unarmed Russian jets 43 miles from a Russian naval base thousands of miles from the US border?

No, I was more thinking of the SU-27 acting the maggot around an RC-135 flying between Estonia & Poland.
Who would want a repeat of the Hainan Islands incident.....
But Barry didn't mention it.

Why is it the US's business what happens in the South China Sea?

You must surely realise that it's everyone's business?
1/5th of the words goods pass through it.
If this becomes closed off (and the deployment of a squadrons of J-11s, multiple batterys of HQ-9s to the Woody Islands and the pretty large base at Fiery Cross Reef speaks to exactly that A2/AD scenario), it is bad for all commerce.... it would be bad news for everyone, including Ireland.

But, it's the final year of office. Barry is not that bothered.
It's the next guy's/gal's problem seemingly!

Nuke Russia?

That's just ridiculous hyperbole.

I'm giving an argument here.
The only one being hyperbolic is you.
Raise your game Gerry.

oscarBravo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

1/5th of the words goods pass through it.
If this becomes closed off ... it is bad for all commerce.... it would be bad news for everyone, including...

...China.

BoJack Horseman

oscarBravo wrote: »

...China.

In the nightmare scenario it will depend on the terms of passage.

Either by tarriff or by other quid-pro-quo (hypothesized as a means to choke Taiwan, and to a lesser extend, Korea/Japan of trade).

Why do you think Beijing are investing so much money in militarily colonising (or creating from scratch) islands across the SCS?

Seems a bit OTT for fishing interdiction, don't you think?

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

According to anyone not currently working under Barry, what little strategy there is seems lacking to say the least.

Citing a couple of chickenhawk democrats doesn't make your case. How do you know that what you deem 'disengagement' isn't part of an overall strategy that flows from the Pentagon? You don't.

You must surely realise that it's everyone's business? 1/5th of the words goods pass through it.

With most of it being China's own goods? Why-oh-why would the Chinese harm their own economy by blocking the SCS trade routes? Are you making this up as you go along?

But, it's the final year of office. Barry is not that bothered. It's the next guy's/gal's problem seemingly!

I'm no fan of Obama (I consider him 'Republican lite') but his administration inherited a spectacular mess left by Bush and his band of lunatics.

I'm giving an argument here.

Straight outa the 'neocon bible' Weekly Standard it appears.

Raise your game Gerry.

Put down the Capitan America comics Hillary.

Silly jibes aside, I think you need to get to grips with the new reality of a multipolar world when it comes to global power politics.

If you hadn't noticed, the US is making deals with Cuba and Iran not because it suddenly decided to be a good neighbour but because it has little choice. In 10 to 15 years time the US's ability to unilaterally strangle a country like Iran will be gone.

FA Hayek

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If you hadn't noticed, the US is making deals with Cuba and Iran not because it suddenly decided to be a good neighbour but because it has little choice. In 10 to 15 years time the US's ability to unilaterally strangle a country like Iran will be gone.

Much to the delight to some I suppose. For those who think this will usher in a period of peace they are deluded. The failed Arab Spring is only the start of the bloodshed of the re-ordering of the Middle East.

BuilderPlumber

Neither are ideal imo. Clinton's track record is poor with support for the Iraq war being one of her poorest decisions. Trump has distanced himself from the Iraq war and admits it was a mistake but has been more vocal about other things and has dangerous opinions on them. Leaving their past behind what kind of leader would either make? All we hear from them for now obviously is talk.

Whoever gets to be the next president will (like Obama) be cleaning up a mess that started as far back as the early days of the cold war and culminated in the reckless policies of Bush 2. Al Qaeda/ISIS has its roots in US support for anti-USSR movements in Afghanistan and US tolerance of 'Islamic' extremism came about due to the fear of Middle Eastern countries falling to communism.

Obama's biggest mistake was Libya. On the positive side though, he has improved relations with Cuba and hopefully Iran. Most hardline actions in countries has always been a kneejerk reaction to poor American policy. The childish presidency of Ahmadinejad in Iran is what America got for its 'Axis of Evil' speech for instance. But if Ahmadinejad, whose bark was worse than his nonexistent bite, was the worst that came from US policy, that would have been okay! Instead, the worst we got included ISIS and al Qaeda in Iraq savagery that made Saddam look like a pussycat. Not to mention Abu Sayyaf, Boko Haram, AQIM and Al Shabaab savagery.

America under its next president will need to improve relations with the world and come up with a plan to support the growing number of chaotic, Mad Max like, post apocalyptic failed states in the Middle East and Africa. More has to be done to improve relations with stable states with a future like Iran. More needs to be done to tackle Saudi Arabian support for Sunni extremism.

My prediction for the next president be it Trump or Clinton will be the same old, same old. The statistics are scary: since the 1980s, failed states have been growing and are a breeding ground for a form of terrorism that was unheard of before that values no life whatsoever. Some of these current failed states were actually okay places even a short few years ago that were safe to visit. Now, not even Paris or Brussels is safe.

I hope the next president works on Obama's more positive legacies and a rollback from cold war style strategies is ended. I doubt if we will get that from either Clinton or Trump as they are steeped in cold war thinking unfortunately.

Billy86

Sadly, that's possibly the best post of the thread and very accurate.