Speculation grows on China aircraft carrier plans

[AZGrizFan]

Sorry Colonel, but you're experiencing the "battle-ship Admiral" effect. The goal posts have been moved but you're still playing on the old field.

The only assessment that is off is your assessment of anti-ship missle defenses. I've worked on one of those programs (Phalanx) and let me assure you that very few of the Engineers that built that system believe that it is doing more than pissing on a barn fire. The problem is that all of the anti-missle defenses are easily overwhelmed at comparitively little cost. Just sit up in low earth orbit and rain Silkworms.....

Totally off-base on carrier groups becoming obsolete any time soon? Nice straw-man, Colonel, you forgot the part about first-world militaries which they are pretty much obsolete against already. But since you brought it up, perhaps you could bring us up to speed on how the air power we are projecting in the Indian Ocean right now is keeping us from getting bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, that's right, it isn't.......

Now you go a change the rules and say my assessment is wrong...you said ONE inexpensive silkworm in your original post...

Now you say "rain Silkworms"....which is it...I responded to your claim that one Silkworm would sink a carrier...

And talk about a "strawman" when you bring up Iraq and Afghanistan...

Even funnier is his use of the Phalanx system as his "missile defense system" of choice. That's the LAST line of defense, dawg. In between THAT and your "rain of Silkworms" are some of the coolest/deadliest and most effective missile defense systems imaginable. We've got systems on the picket ships that can simultaneously track/shoot down more missiles than you could imagine. In the middle of a shooting war, perhaps the safest place to be is on the carrier. They may become obsolete someday, but I can safely say it won't happen in my lifetime.

[Cap'n Cat]

Even funnier is his use of the Phalanx system as his "missile defense system" of choice. That's the LAST line of defense, dawg. In between THAT and your "rain of Silkworms" are some of the coolest/deadliest and most effective missile defense systems imaginable. We've got systems on the picket ships that can simultaneously track/shoot down more missiles than you could imagine. In the middle of a shooting war, perhaps the safest place to be is on the carrier. They may become obsolete someday, but I can safely say it won't happen in my lifetime.

Yeah, but you're 70, Z, with one hairy foot in the grave.



"Yep, there we was, boys. Grenada, 1983. Gettin' a hummer from a black native chick while some U.S. college student is rimming my purple grommet with her warm, wet tongue....I thought I heard a round of M16 fire, but it was reallly me pumpin' pecker snot to the top of the coconut trees! Yep, thems was the days."

[travelinman67]

Drinking a little early are we, homey?

Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolete against any first world military, T-man. One inexpensive Silkworm missle (made in China) and your carrier suddenly becomes a large hole in the ocean. Let them waste their, oops, our money on carriers, it's a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. Your yellow-peril mentality would be better directed at their space program. That's what's rendering carriers obsolete, just as carriers rendered battleships obsolete.

Nothing like taking a shred of truth and expanding it...

Sure one inexpensive silworm missle could sink a carrier...if it sat there without any of the carrier battle group that defenses it, and the carrier refused to fire any of its own self-defense weapons...

But since that battle group has a number of ships designed to fight off Silkworms or Exocets or any other anti-ship missles...and as a last resort, the carriers have some of the deadliest any-missle defenses self contained...your assessment is so far off it isn't funny...

Carrier battle groups still are the power projection tool of choice...you aren't wrong about the Chinese Space program, and there are lots of people watching it very closely...but you are totally off-base on carriers becoming obolete any time soon...it will happen, but not yet...

Hey, Houndawg...What he said. That's one of the main reasons they travel in Strike Groups. But you knew that, right?

Also, the new CVX design allows for both manned and unmanned aircraft deployment with the capability to launch first strike, unmanned, "stealth" aircraft (not just the JSF). The CVX's shipwide standardized power systems, and modular design, allows for quick maintenance and repair from overseas ports keeping them "in the battle" rather than returning home. No other superpower can match that either with current or proposed future carrier designs.
You are correct that control of space based intelligence is vital, but in the end, a war will still need to be won by taking out the opponent's legs (infrastructure/resources) and wringing the necks of their chickens as they run around. And that requires traditional force or the ability to project into the theater. China, like most countries, to a large extent still utilizes non-computer controlled (relay) infrastructure systems impervious to EM jamming or sabotage. That will probably not change for decades.

[houndawg]

Sorry Colonel, but you're experiencing the "battle-ship Admiral" effect. The goal posts have been moved but you're still playing on the old field.

The only assessment that is off is your assessment of anti-ship missle defenses. I've worked on one of those programs (Phalanx) and let me assure you that very few of the Engineers that built that system believe that it is doing more than pissing on a barn fire. The problem is that all of the anti-missle defenses are easily overwhelmed at comparitively little cost. Just sit up in low earth orbit and rain Silkworms.....

Totally off-base on carrier groups becoming obsolete any time soon? Nice straw-man, Colonel, you forgot the part about first-world militaries which they are pretty much obsolete against already. But since you brought it up, perhaps you could bring us up to speed on how the air power we are projecting in the Indian Ocean right now is keeping us from getting bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, that's right, it isn't.......

Now you go a change the rules and say my assessment is wrong...you said ONE inexpensive silkworm in your original post...

Now you say "rain Silkworms"....which is it...I responded to your claim that one Silkworm would sink a carrier...

And talk about a "strawman" when you bring up Iraq and Afghanistan...

C'mon, Colonel, you gotta be joking, I know your reading comprehension is better than that. Do you really think that the Silkworms will be coming in neatly spaced, one at a time..........? Still waiting to hear about how our carrier force is winning the war by providing air superiority against the air forces of Iraq and Afghanistan.........really projecting some power in that area, yet the goat herders continue to avoid defeat by the mightiest military ever known........yeah, carriers, that's the ticket.....

[travelinman67]

Now you go a change the rules and say my assessment is wrong...you said ONE inexpensive silkworm in your original post...

Now you say "rain Silkworms"....which is it...I responded to your claim that one Silkworm would sink a carrier...

And talk about a "strawman" when you bring up Iraq and Afghanistan...

C'mon, Colonel, you gotta be joking, I know your reading comprehension is better than that. Do you really think that the Silkworms will be coming in neatly spaced, one at a time..........? Still waiting to hear about how our carrier force is winning the war by providing air superiority against the air forces of Iraq and Afghanistan.........really projecting some power in that area, yet the goat herders continue to avoid defeat by the mightiest military ever known........yeah, carriers, that's the ticket.....

Yet the people of America's cities walk around, untouched, for the past 8 years, while the "goat herders" in Afghanistan/Waziristan hide in caves, behind their women's skirts, or in mosques and hospitals to avoid winding up as leaking bags of blood and bones.

I believe your implied definition of "won" and "lost" results from a skewed sense of reality.


*(cue..."I was out of college before you were even shaving..." ad hominem)

[houndawg]

Now you go a change the rules and say my assessment is wrong...you said ONE inexpensive silkworm in your original post...

Now you say "rain Silkworms"....which is it...I responded to your claim that one Silkworm would sink a carrier...

And talk about a "strawman" when you bring up Iraq and Afghanistan...

Even funnier is his use of the Phalanx system as his "missile defense system" of choice. That's the LAST line of defense, dawg. In between THAT and your "rain of Silkworms" are some of the coolest/deadliest and most effective missile defense systems imaginable. We've got systems on the picket ships that can simultaneously track/shoot down more missiles than you could imagine. In the middle of a shooting war, perhaps the safest place to be is on the carrier. They may become obsolete someday, but I can safely say it won't happen in my lifetime.

Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but the carriers are on their way to obsolesence just as surely as the battleships were. The money spent to confront the Chinese military upgrade would be much better spent on subs. Same for the Chinese. The Chinese are wasting their money on carriers just as we're wasting ours on so-called missle defense systems which can't hit anything outside of a carefully staged event, and usually not even then, as the Patriot missles proved beyond doubt in the first Bush's Gulf War.

[Cap'n Cat]

C'mon, Colonel, you gotta be joking, I know your reading comprehension is better than that. Do you really think that the Silkworms will be coming in neatly spaced, one at a time..........? Still waiting to hear about how our carrier force is winning the war by providing air superiority against the air forces of Iraq and Afghanistan.........really projecting some power in that area, yet the goat herders continue to avoid defeat by the mightiest military ever known........yeah, carriers, that's the ticket.....

Yet the people of America's cities walk around, untouched, for the past 8 years, while the "goat herders" in Afghanistan/Waziristan hide in caves, behind their women's skirts, or in mosques and hospitals to avoid winding up as leaking bags of blood and bones.

I believe your implied definition of "won" and "lost" results from a skewed sense of reality.


*(cue..."I was out of college before you were even shaving..." ad hominem)

'Tis the views of Conks such as my friend, Tman, which art skewedeth. Reality dictates that technology will render them mere grey targets on the world's troubled waters.

"Oh, poor Yorktown, I kneweth him well."

[houndawg]

C'mon, Colonel, you gotta be joking, I know your reading comprehension is better than that. Do you really think that the Silkworms will be coming in neatly spaced, one at a time..........? Still waiting to hear about how our carrier force is winning the war by providing air superiority against the air forces of Iraq and Afghanistan.........really projecting some power in that area, yet the goat herders continue to avoid defeat by the mightiest military ever known........yeah, carriers, that's the ticket.....

Yet the people of America's cities walk around, untouched, for the past 8 years, while the "goat herders" in Afghanistan/Waziristan hide in caves, behind their women's skirts, or in mosques and hospitals to avoid winding up as leaking bags of blood and bones.

I believe your implied definition of "won" and "lost" results from a skewed sense of reality.


*(cue..."I was out of college before you were even shaving..." ad hominem)

Yeah, Colonel, we're really showing them just what short work the world's greatest military can make out of them, especially with all that carrier-based air superiority. Of course most of the leaking bags of blood and bones belong to civilian goat-herders that seem to gather by the dozens around our "surgical" air strikes.

[travelinman67]

Even funnier is his use of the Phalanx system as his "missile defense system" of choice. That's the LAST line of defense, dawg. In between THAT and your "rain of Silkworms" are some of the coolest/deadliest and most effective missile defense systems imaginable. We've got systems on the picket ships that can simultaneously track/shoot down more missiles than you could imagine. In the middle of a shooting war, perhaps the safest place to be is on the carrier. They may become obsolete someday, but I can safely say it won't happen in my lifetime.

Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but the carriers are on their way to obsolesence just as surely as the battleships were. The money spent to confront the Chinese military upgrade would be much better spent on subs. Same for the Chinese. The Chinese are wasting their money on carriers just as we're wasting ours on so-called missle defense systems which can't hit anything outside of a carefully staged event, and usually not even then, as the Patriot missles proved beyond doubt in the first Bush's Gulf War.

Ohhhkkaayyy...

Now your trying to mitigate the value of SG's with subs?

Holy Jeezus, houndawg. Unless you consider Tomahawks a substitute for an airwing ? And virtually any weapons system found on a sub can be substituted with one of the systems in an SG: Not vice versa.

Ya know, houndawg, there's a reason why year after year when military strategists from around the globe "vote" or take polls on the single most valuable, effective, influential weapons system on the planet, they repeatedly choose the U.S. Carrier Strike Groups. What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days.

Hate America all you want, but the SG's missions have repeatedly changed the course of world history...and that's a FACT.

[travelinman67]

Yet the people of America's cities walk around, untouched, for the past 8 years, while the "goat herders" in Afghanistan/Waziristan hide in caves, behind their women's skirts, or in mosques and hospitals to avoid winding up as leaking bags of blood and bones.

I believe your implied definition of "won" and "lost" results from a skewed sense of reality.


*(cue..."I was out of college before you were even shaving..." ad hominem)

Yeah, Colonel, we're really showing them just what short work the world's greatest military can make out of them, especially with all that carrier-based air superiority. Of course most of the leaking bags of blood and bones belong to civilian goat-herders that seem to gather by the dozens around our "surgical" air strikes.

Civilians used by the cowardly Taliban to hide behind, and as a press tool passed on to weak-minded faux Americans who use the "civilian casualty" argument to undermine our military's mission and attempt to mind-fv(k American's back home. Oh, wait...I'm sorry. You already know that.

'skay, houndawg...

This is more than entertaining to me. Your rationalizing a benign response to China's announcement of an intent to construct their own SG, by minimizing the value of an SG.

[Cap'n Cat]

Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but the carriers are on their way to obsolesence just as surely as the battleships were. The money spent to confront the Chinese military upgrade would be much better spent on subs. Same for the Chinese. The Chinese are wasting their money on carriers just as we're wasting ours on so-called missle defense systems which can't hit anything outside of a carefully staged event, and usually not even then, as the Patriot missles proved beyond doubt in the first Bush's Gulf War.

Ohhhkkaayyy...

Now your trying to mitigate the value of SG's with subs?

Holy Jeezus, houndawg. Unless you consider Tomahawks a substitute for an airwing ? And virtually any weapons system found on a sub can be substituted with one of the systems in an SG: Not vice versa.

Ya know, houndawg, there's a reason why year after year when military strategists from around the globe "vote" or take polls on the single most valuable, effective, influential weapons system on the planet, they repeatedly choose the U.S. Carrier Strike Groups. What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days.

Hate America all you want, but the SG's missions have repeatedly changed the course of world history...and that's a FACT.

Key words, T: "have" and "history".

Don't feel bad. Common problem with Conklodytics.




And this:

"What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days."



You're more dangerous than MacArthur.

Sheeit, man. Get with it.

[houndawg]

Hey, Houndawg...What he said. That's one of the main reasons they travel in Strike Groups. But you knew that, right?

Also, the new CVX design allows for both manned and unmanned aircraft deployment with the capability to launch first strike, unmanned, "stealth" aircraft (not just the JSF). The CVX's shipwide standardized power systems, and modular design, allows for quick maintenance and repair from overseas ports keeping them "in the battle" rather than returning home. No other superpower can match that either with current or proposed future carrier designs.
You are correct that control of space based intelligence is vital, but in the end, a war will still need to be won by taking out the opponent's legs (infrastructure/resources) and wringing the necks of their chickens as they run around. And that requires traditional force or the ability to project into the theater. China, like most countries, to a large extent still utilizes non-computer controlled (relay) infrastructure systems impervious to EM jamming or sabotage. That will probably not change for decades.

T-man, you're priceless. You love the sound of your own blather so much that you forget what you're blathering about. It's a lovely post and all, just one question: To which other superpower are you referring?

[houndawg]

Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but the carriers are on their way to obsolesence just as surely as the battleships were. The money spent to confront the Chinese military upgrade would be much better spent on subs. Same for the Chinese. The Chinese are wasting their money on carriers just as we're wasting ours on so-called missle defense systems which can't hit anything outside of a carefully staged event, and usually not even then, as the Patriot missles proved beyond doubt in the first Bush's Gulf War.

Ohhhkkaayyy...

Now your trying to mitigate the value of SG's with subs?

Holy Jeezus, houndawg. Unless you consider Tomahawks a substitute for an airwing ? And virtually any weapons system found on a sub can be substituted with one of the systems in an SG: Not vice versa.

Ya know, houndawg, there's a reason why year after year when military strategists from around the globe "vote" or take polls on the single most valuable, effective, influential weapons system on the planet, they repeatedly choose the U.S. Carrier Strike Groups. What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days.

Hate America all you want, but the SG's missions have repeatedly changed the course of world history...and that's a FACT.

Yet more blather. You ain't hearing me publically wishing for Obama to fail.

[houndawg]

Yeah, Colonel, we're really showing them just what short work the world's greatest military can make out of them, especially with all that carrier-based air superiority. Of course most of the leaking bags of blood and bones belong to civilian goat-herders that seem to gather by the dozens around our "surgical" air strikes.

Civilians used by the cowardly Taliban to hide behind, and as a press tool passed on to weak-minded faux Americans who use the "civilian casualty" argument to undermine our military's mission and attempt to mind-fv(k American's back home. Oh, wait...I'm sorry. You already know that.

'skay, houndawg...

This is more than entertaining to me. Your rationalizing a benign response to China's announcement of an intent to construct their own SG, by minimizing the value of an SG.

And the coefficient of blather continues asymptotically upward........too many Tom Clancy books, no doubt....

Tell us, T-man, what response other than a benign one you actually believe has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of working against the country that owns us? When was the last time you got tough with your banker?

[travelinman67]

Ohhhkkaayyy...

Now your trying to mitigate the value of SG's with subs?

Holy Jeezus, houndawg. Unless you consider Tomahawks a substitute for an airwing ? And virtually any weapons system found on a sub can be substituted with one of the systems in an SG: Not vice versa.

Ya know, houndawg, there's a reason why year after year when military strategists from around the globe "vote" or take polls on the single most valuable, effective, influential weapons system on the planet, they repeatedly choose the U.S. Carrier Strike Groups. What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days.

Hate America all you want, but the SG's missions have repeatedly changed the course of world history...and that's a FACT.

Key words, T: "have" and "history".

Don't feel bad. Common problem with Conklodytics.




And this:

"What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days."



You're more dangerous than MacArthur.

Sheeit, man. Get with it.

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry Cap...

I forgot the New Age of Rodney King "can't we all just get along" diplomacy has arrived.



One thing, Cap...

I'm sure you've heard Obama's initial "confidential" overtures to Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, were publicized by those countries, and Obama (America) was mocked by their socialist government controlled press agencies as "weak".



Cap...I know you don't get out much, but in some cultures, weakness or pacifism is viewed as a "fatal" flaw. If their leaders can overwhelmingly portray America as having become weak, it allows their leadership to "rally the troops" (and defense budgets) to build up a head of political steam to take on America.

THAT is why most leaders, especially U.S. leaders, AVOID the appearance of complacency, conciliation or the worst, pacifism.

BTW, I'm a European theater man. Patton was God's best friend.

[houndawg]

Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but the carriers are on their way to obsolesence just as surely as the battleships were. The money spent to confront the Chinese military upgrade would be much better spent on subs. Same for the Chinese. The Chinese are wasting their money on carriers just as we're wasting ours on so-called missle defense systems which can't hit anything outside of a carefully staged event, and usually not even then, as the Patriot missles proved beyond doubt in the first Bush's Gulf War.

Ohhhkkaayyy...

Now your trying to mitigate the value of SG's with subs?

Holy Jeezus, houndawg. Unless you consider Tomahawks a substitute for an airwing ? And virtually any weapons system found on a sub can be substituted with one of the systems in an SG: Not vice versa.

Ya know, houndawg, there's a reason why year after year when military strategists from around the globe "vote" or take polls on the single most valuable, effective, influential weapons system on the planet, they repeatedly choose the U.S. Carrier Strike Groups. What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days.

Hate America all you want, but the SG's missions have repeatedly changed the course of world history...and that's a FACT.

Yeah, that's a good point, T-man. So how many more days until our SGs "settle" our current confrontations?

[Wedgebuster]

The makings of a great video game is to be found on this thread..

[travelinman67]

Yet more blather. You ain't hearing me publically wishing for Obama to fail.

Nor I. Never have. But he's on the course of failure if he continues to pander to thoughtless, leftist ideologues.

'Course...since wishing one's leader fail has NOW BECOME INAPPROPRIATE...

...is that merely because the ethics of unpatriotic activity is now "improper", or that the ethics can change depending on who's in power.

...pretty damn enlightened there, houndawg.

[houndawg]

Key words, T: "have" and "history".

Don't feel bad. Common problem with Conklodytics.




And this:

"What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days."



You're more dangerous than MacArthur.

Sheeit, man. Get with it.

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry Cap...

I forgot the New Age of Rodney King "can't we all just get along" diplomacy has arrived.



One thing, Cap...

I'm sure you've heard Obama's initial "confidential" overtures to Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, were publicized by those countries, and Obama (America) was mocked by their socialist government controlled press agencies as "weak".



Cap...I know you don't get out much, but in some cultures, weakness or pacifism is viewed as a "fatal" flaw. If their leaders can overwhelmingly portray America as having become weak, it allows their leadership to "rally the troops" (and defense budgets) to build up a head of political steam to take on America.

THAT is why most leaders, especially U.S. leaders, AVOID the appearance of complacency, conciliation or the worst, pacifism.

BTW, I'm a European theater man. Patton was God's best friend.

How can they portray us as weak when we have carrier SGs that can settle things in days?

[houndawg]

Yet more blather. You ain't hearing me publically wishing for Obama to fail.

Nor I. Never have. But he's on the course of failure if he continues to pander to thoughtless, leftist ideologues.

'Course...since wishing one's leader fail has NOW BECOME INAPPROPRIATE...

...is that merely because the ethics of unpatriotic activity is now "improper", or that the ethics can change depending on who's in power.

...pretty damn enlightened there, houndawg.

Well, "stay the course" has yielded, shall we say, less-than-optimal results.

[travelinman67]

Civilians used by the cowardly Taliban to hide behind, and as a press tool passed on to weak-minded faux Americans who use the "civilian casualty" argument to undermine our military's mission and attempt to mind-fv(k American's back home. Oh, wait...I'm sorry. You already know that.

'skay, houndawg...

This is more than entertaining to me. Your rationalizing a benign response to China's announcement of an intent to construct their own SG, by minimizing the value of an SG.

And the coefficient of blather continues asymptotically upward........too many Tom Clancy books, no doubt....

Tell us, T-man, what response other than a benign one you actually believe has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of working against the country that owns us? When was the last time you got tough with your banker?

I'm sorry. Did I miss something here? Is today Mindless Monday?

Earth to houndawg.

We are building carriers CONSTANTLY! Today (I believe it's CVX 78 destined to become the U.S.S. Gerald Ford)...

WHILE CHINA IS BUYING OUR DEBT.

Ah. So. So, sorry, Mista Dawg, but America is also China's biggest customer.

Amazing! ECONOMICS!

Neat stuff, huh?

Any more straw men, time wasting deflections, houndawg?



(Col. you owe me a drink for this...)

[travelinman67]

Ohhhkkaayyy...

Now your trying to mitigate the value of SG's with subs?

Holy Jeezus, houndawg. Unless you consider Tomahawks a substitute for an airwing ? And virtually any weapons system found on a sub can be substituted with one of the systems in an SG: Not vice versa.

Ya know, houndawg, there's a reason why year after year when military strategists from around the globe "vote" or take polls on the single most valuable, effective, influential weapons system on the planet, they repeatedly choose the U.S. Carrier Strike Groups. What diplomats take years or decades to resolve, in a confrontation, our SG's can settle in days.

Hate America all you want, but the SG's missions have repeatedly changed the course of world history...and that's a FACT.

Yeah, that's a good point, T-man. So how many more days until our SGs "settle" our current confrontations?

God willing, in 4 years (less 50 days).

[houndawg]

And the coefficient of blather continues asymptotically upward........too many Tom Clancy books, no doubt....

Tell us, T-man, what response other than a benign one you actually believe has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of working against the country that owns us? When was the last time you got tough with your banker?

I'm sorry. Did I miss something here? Is today Mindless Monday?

Earth to houndawg.

We are building carriers CONSTANTLY! Today (I believe it's CVX 78 destined to become the U.S.S. Gerald Ford)...

WHILE CHINA IS BUYING OUR DEBT.

Ah. So. So, sorry, Mista Dawg, but America is also China's biggest customer.

Amazing! ECONOMICS!

Neat stuff, huh?

Any more straw men, time wasting deflections, houndawg?



(Col. you owe me a drink for this...)

Would that be an "I don't know how many days until our carrier SGs resolve the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan", T-man?

I'm still hoping to find out who these other superpowers are, btw.

[Cap'n Cat]

Yeah, that's a good point, T-man. So how many more days until our SGs "settle" our current confrontations?

God willing, in 4 years (less 50 days).

T,
Love ya, man. You know that. But, you're looking backward, my friend. Modern history (that is, 1914 on)has taught us that war accomplishes very little. People are tired of war. Only people like you and your Halliburton weapons conspirators and investors want war. It's passe', my man.

Don't have wars and you won't have crippled, brain-damaged veternas to care for for 1000 years.

Sheit.

[travelinman67]

God willing, in 4 years (less 50 days).

T,
Love ya, man. You know that. But, you're looking backward, my friend. Modern history (that is, 1914 on)has taught us that war accomplishes very little. People are tired of war. Only people like you and your Halliburton weapons conspirators and investors want war. It's passe', my man.

Don't have wars and you won't have crippled, brain-damaged veternas to care for for 1000 years.

Sheit.

Horsesh!t, Cap'n. You knoweth not what you speak.

Wars are WHAT changes the course of humanity. Stating that "war accomplishes very little" is a myopic fantasy.

I do not like war, my dear Cap'n, because in case you forgot, I lost a brother in Vietnam. But personal feelings aside, we're talking about China, and the Chinese govt. is still prinicipally made up of hardliners from the Mao era.