Making yourself less capable, hoping that it will stop successive administrations from involving you in the next war is a pipe dream...
It is basically what the Dutch did before WWII: We had a modern and capable Army, Navy and Air Force in our East Indian colonies, but kept the Home forces unassuming so as not to antagonise the neighbours. Cue five years of occupation.
Isolationism doesn't work. (Neither did those forces in the East Indies, but that's not the point here :-D)
Given the isolationism within the administration and of its key voters and the transactional approach of POTUS what could Taiwan offer to justify the US defending them from a Chinese invasion?
From your PLA video I note that China has both operational and political leaders within their armed forces, whereas the US seems to have only political operatives in their highest echelon, with limited operational experience (and the President may over rule or change any decision). This might not play well in a war with China.
Ryan: Question: Why did Israel blow up Evin Prison in Tehran? It's not of any military importance. My own suggestion is this: The original sorties by Israel a few weeks ago could not have been done without a LOT of help from inside Iran, both intel (where are generals?) and actual sweat (bringing in and placing drones, activating them). So perhaps the Iranian opposition asked for a return favor, Take out the place where they torture us. Your ideas?
Army Officer from 1978 to 2003: I disagree that Clinton was the driving force of "Isolationism" in 1994, but there were strong such forces in Congress during George H.W. Bushes term along with the demands to cut the military after the fall of the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. Hence, BRAC, Weapons Systems cuts, etc. But Clinton inherited the Somolia debacle (seeds for "Blackhawk Down" were well planted before he swore in). His Efforts with the Dayton Peace accord was a large dynamic change for the Army as well as demands to participate with other countries in peacekeeping activities in other countries.
The Isolationists are delussional: We are the premier military and force to affect peace. As the saying goes, If you think Peace is expensive, try war. We are in great shape to help end Russian Expansion in Ukraine and send Putin back to the original borders without fighting if TACO had better advisors.
The tail numbers of the AWACS might be 30 years old. But don't forget that every few years, the aircraft go through a year to year-and-a-half depot maintenance procedure. They're tore down, inspected, parts and metal replaced, re-skinned, flight and mission software and hardware replaced/updated, checked out, and returned back to the Air Force.
Project Liberty, the A-10, the C-17 (or was it C-130J?) are other examples where the Air Force said, "No, we're good." but Congress said, "But wait! Here's more!"
"Isolationist?" No, that's not the case and it doesn't match up with everything else the US is currently doing. If Isolationism was the goal of the Trump administration then it wouldn't be engaging in all these trade negotiations across the globe. It's not that the US is "pulling up the drawbridges to ignore the rest of the world" so much as it's we're becoming more selective in how we deal with the world.
This, especially as the world has changed so much.
The Cold War is dying its last breath with the Ukraine and Russian war. The old alliances and global power dynamics formed during the Cold War are no longer as applicable - if they're applicable at all. So, it makes sense then that the US would seek to change in response to all that. Among those changes are what we expect of our military.
Complicating things there are the changes in technology. "Drones" are still being assessed as to how best to met their threat and incorporate their use. So too is the increased prevalence of satellites. Thanks to Space X, for example, we're seeing how massive swarms of small and cheap satellites can take the place of the previous handfuls of larger and more expensive ones.
This, in particular, could be what takes place of AWACS in the future. Previously, there might not have been a satellite in the right orbit to provide such AWACS coverage to a given area and hence the need for an aircraft which could be rapidly dispatched to do so. Now, with a continual swarm of satellites overhead such coverage could be universal and, thanks to their numbers, far more resilient to any individual loss.
Hence the "indecision" at the Pentagon for which way to go. The new tech is gonna change things massively but it's not quite here yet. So, stick with the old until that new stuff has arrived or jump the gun? Lotsa bucks on the table here either way.
Whatever happened to the idea of using blimps for observation and reconnaissance, especially on the southern border? Yes blimps are vulnerable, but they can hover over an area indefinitely.
Yes, I understand that, but some technologies crossover between war and Borders and general security. During World War II blimps were used to protect the fleets. After the war blimps were used for observation, before being retired. Not all old school technology is bad.
Thank you as always for the educational videos Ryan! The China one was also so absorbing. I hear cicadas! We have started to hear the first songs of the cicadas in Jpn too.
Making yourself less capable, hoping that it will stop successive administrations from involving you in the next war is a pipe dream...
It is basically what the Dutch did before WWII: We had a modern and capable Army, Navy and Air Force in our East Indian colonies, but kept the Home forces unassuming so as not to antagonise the neighbours. Cue five years of occupation.
Isolationism doesn't work. (Neither did those forces in the East Indies, but that's not the point here :-D)
Given the isolationism within the administration and of its key voters and the transactional approach of POTUS what could Taiwan offer to justify the US defending them from a Chinese invasion?
From your PLA video I note that China has both operational and political leaders within their armed forces, whereas the US seems to have only political operatives in their highest echelon, with limited operational experience (and the President may over rule or change any decision). This might not play well in a war with China.
won't play well with any conflict!
Ryan: Question: Why did Israel blow up Evin Prison in Tehran? It's not of any military importance. My own suggestion is this: The original sorties by Israel a few weeks ago could not have been done without a LOT of help from inside Iran, both intel (where are generals?) and actual sweat (bringing in and placing drones, activating them). So perhaps the Iranian opposition asked for a return favor, Take out the place where they torture us. Your ideas?
Honestly I'm not sure. The only thing I can think of is some kind of wishful thinking prison break.
Army Officer from 1978 to 2003: I disagree that Clinton was the driving force of "Isolationism" in 1994, but there were strong such forces in Congress during George H.W. Bushes term along with the demands to cut the military after the fall of the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. Hence, BRAC, Weapons Systems cuts, etc. But Clinton inherited the Somolia debacle (seeds for "Blackhawk Down" were well planted before he swore in). His Efforts with the Dayton Peace accord was a large dynamic change for the Army as well as demands to participate with other countries in peacekeeping activities in other countries.
The Isolationists are delussional: We are the premier military and force to affect peace. As the saying goes, If you think Peace is expensive, try war. We are in great shape to help end Russian Expansion in Ukraine and send Putin back to the original borders without fighting if TACO had better advisors.
The tail numbers of the AWACS might be 30 years old. But don't forget that every few years, the aircraft go through a year to year-and-a-half depot maintenance procedure. They're tore down, inspected, parts and metal replaced, re-skinned, flight and mission software and hardware replaced/updated, checked out, and returned back to the Air Force.
Project Liberty, the A-10, the C-17 (or was it C-130J?) are other examples where the Air Force said, "No, we're good." but Congress said, "But wait! Here's more!"
Congress thinks long term? When did this happen? They can’t think longer than the next election.
Another great video!
"Isolationist?" No, that's not the case and it doesn't match up with everything else the US is currently doing. If Isolationism was the goal of the Trump administration then it wouldn't be engaging in all these trade negotiations across the globe. It's not that the US is "pulling up the drawbridges to ignore the rest of the world" so much as it's we're becoming more selective in how we deal with the world.
This, especially as the world has changed so much.
The Cold War is dying its last breath with the Ukraine and Russian war. The old alliances and global power dynamics formed during the Cold War are no longer as applicable - if they're applicable at all. So, it makes sense then that the US would seek to change in response to all that. Among those changes are what we expect of our military.
Complicating things there are the changes in technology. "Drones" are still being assessed as to how best to met their threat and incorporate their use. So too is the increased prevalence of satellites. Thanks to Space X, for example, we're seeing how massive swarms of small and cheap satellites can take the place of the previous handfuls of larger and more expensive ones.
This, in particular, could be what takes place of AWACS in the future. Previously, there might not have been a satellite in the right orbit to provide such AWACS coverage to a given area and hence the need for an aircraft which could be rapidly dispatched to do so. Now, with a continual swarm of satellites overhead such coverage could be universal and, thanks to their numbers, far more resilient to any individual loss.
Hence the "indecision" at the Pentagon for which way to go. The new tech is gonna change things massively but it's not quite here yet. So, stick with the old until that new stuff has arrived or jump the gun? Lotsa bucks on the table here either way.
Whatever happened to the idea of using blimps for observation and reconnaissance, especially on the southern border? Yes blimps are vulnerable, but they can hover over an area indefinitely.
this video is not about border survellience, it's about wars
Also, I would say 20 million people invading America across the southern border is definitely an act of war.
Yes, I understand that, but some technologies crossover between war and Borders and general security. During World War II blimps were used to protect the fleets. After the war blimps were used for observation, before being retired. Not all old school technology is bad.
Thank you as always for the educational videos Ryan! The China one was also so absorbing. I hear cicadas! We have started to hear the first songs of the cicadas in Jpn too.