Comments on: The weapons the U.S. needs for a war it doesn’t want http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: gentalman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1091913 Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:04:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1091913 The defense requirement of other countries is different.Say for example India and Pakistan.Some time new development of planes pays off to sale planes to other countries.Even war sounds are played for other countries to by modern planes.How many F16 are sold to India and Pakistan! A good revenue indeed.

]]>
By: gentalman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1091911 Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:03:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1091911 Why America think only themselves to fight.Whatever is developed should be as a complimentary to the development of partners like Japan,Germany,France and UK.To prepare in isolation for war strategies is too much expensive and some time in duplication.

]]>
By: Ohmythelaw http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1091575 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:49:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1091575 The fight against extremists with rifles and RPGs requires a trillion dollar stealth jet program? Get real dude. There isn’t going to be a conventional war with China or any other modern combatant. Why? It’s called the hydrogen bomb. You should look that up. It’s quite scary really. Total annihilation has a way of preventing wars. It either isn’t going to happen (likely) or will happen and no ridiculous fighter jet is going to save the planet.

Quit writing about nonsensical hypotheticals and do some work that requires thinking. A more intelligent article would be entitled, “why are we spending trillions of dollars on an airplane to fight people without an air force?” I’m not trying to be mean, but this kind of nonsense opinion journalism is ruining us.

]]>
By: onapthanh http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1086965 Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:49:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1086965 in World War II the USA did not participate until Germany and Japan had been defeated by Russia and China@ http://lioa.net

]]>
By: REDPILLED http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1086897 Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:53:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1086897 If the U.S. supposedly “doesn’t want” a global war with Russia and/or China, then why are Obama, his Pentagon, and his neocon advisors provoking Russia and China by stationing U.S. military forces near their borders and off their shores?

]]>
By: godfree http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1086746 Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:38:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1086746 “The possibility of a major war with great powers, like World Wars One and Two, is “growing,” according to the U.S. National Military Strategy released this month.”
Of course, in World War II the USA did not participate until Germany and Japan had been defeated by Russia and China. Actually FIGHTING a foe like Russia or China today is far beyond our capability. And they have zero desire to fight us. The entire consideration is nuts.

]]>
By: Jingan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1086712 Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:35:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1086712 Adversaries like China???…..really? China is most favored nation in trade for past 30 years plus center of our huge US capital transfer…either i have problem recognizing logic or there are idiots in international affairs strategy running office past 30 years.

]]>
By: Solidar http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1086701 Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:07:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1086701 The Pentagon and the contracting schemes there, are the largest welfare boondoggle ever devised. TRILLIONS of dollars spent on weapons that will never be viable. It makes light-rail look cheap and smart.

]]>
By: GAntrobus http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1086695 Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:05:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1086695 I’m sympathetic with the general concept of the article, but I think that the examples given support the argument very poorly.

Yes, combat aircraft designers of the past were proved mistaken in their premise that “dogfighting” was obsolete. However, today’s air-to-air radar and missile technology reflect a half-century of technological progress. The West’s modern combat aircraft are extremely proficient at killing adversaries from long ranges. Since the Viet Nam War ended, encounters between fighters made in the US or Europe and those from the [former] communist bloc have been infrequent, but have consistently resulted in long-range missile kills of the adversary. To my knowledge, there has not been a single close-range turning duel. Combat losses of Western fighters are to ground fire, not enemy fighters.

Also, military forces reply on transport (hauling) planes for in-flight refueling and airlift, which have modest protection against enemy fire. In practice, this has not proved to be any kind of problem. These big transport planes are protected primarily by the ability to keep them away from hot zones, and can additionally be protected by fighter cover if needed.

A much better example to make the author’s case is the plan to retire the A-10 ground attack aircraft, which is inexpensive, lethal, and amazingly robust in surviving battle damage … in favor of the super-costly high-tech F-35. That’s a stupid trade that will harm combat capabilities, as is testified by many who know, including those whose lives have been saved by the unglamorous low-and-slow “Warthog”.

]]>
By: maddog2 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/19/the-weapons-we-need-for-a-war-we-dont-want/#comment-1086683 Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:19:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=42185#comment-1086683 ” The possibility of a major war with great powers, like World Wars One and Two, is “growing,” according to the U.S. National Military Strategy released this month.”

That’s what happens when US leadership broadcasts foreign policy weakness as blatantly as this administration has. Our allies no longer trust us us to support them, and our enemies no longer believe we’ll respond to aggression except with words.

]]>