Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iran gets the S-300
Shirrush    12/26/2007 2:16:12 PM
Now it's confirmed.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Darth Squirrel    Nichevo   2/17/2008 7:41:48 PM
I am American.  The "your....president" comment was not meant to imply that I am one of the American left whack-jobs that claim "Bush is not my president."  My intention was to point out how Herald, like many other Americans, think that president Bush is acting with courageous resolve on behalf of US national security in the face of popular domestic political opposition.  The evidence clearly points to the opposite.
 
The US is in a worsening geostrategic position.  Absolute and relative military power is declining; many who were right to criticize Clinton for undermanning and underequiping the US military now use Orwellian doublethink to convince themselves that Bush is actually increasing American military power.  Bush is also credited with "strong action" with the GWOT that will "deter enemies."  More nonsense.  I will give you one example of how Bush's poor leadership encourages, not deters, foreign aggression, but I could provide literally dozens.
 
-   Chinese cyberwarfare.  It's been going on in a major way for the past 5 years, and things are still getting worse.  Bush has the US taking a near-exclusively defensive posture in this ridiculous episode.  Many intel and military officials are being called to testify before Congress about it, and the excuse they offer is that the Chinese operation is restricted to "information gathering" and not truly offensive cyberwarfare.  Some notes on that:
 
   - It is a lie, the correct characterization would be that the Chinese are conducting "primarily information gathering."
   - SO WHAT if it is merely information gathering?  The problem isn't just that they are gathering information, it is that the methods being used to do so, and the fact that the exact same methods could be used to cause a variety of other problems.
   -  Losing national secrets leads to losing wars.  Losing a technological advantage leads to military defeat.  Losing technology also gives an enemy a chance to find an exploit, which leads to military defeat.
   -  American reluctance to effect an active response is interpreted as fear, and not just by the Chinese.  
 
The two major tenets of American war-fighting doctrine:
 
-   The best defense is a good offense
-   Take the war to the enemy homeland
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/18/2008 2:36:22 PM

I am American.  The "your....president" comment was not meant to imply that I am one of the American left whack-jobs that claim "Bush is not my president."  My intention was to point out how Herald, like many other Americans, think that president Bush is acting with courageous resolve on behalf of US national security in the face of popular domestic political opposition.  The evidence clearly points to the opposite.


Glad to hear it.  Don't think I can't relate.  I have backed President Bush till my ass hurt, defended him at every turn, but he has done a number of things I could have wished otherwise.  A number can perhaps be dismissed as foibles, and you can also say he has been worn down by the steady grind.  But some things just annoy me. 

However, everybody who disagrees with me isn't therefore and necessarily wrong.

The US is in a worsening geostrategic position.  Absolute and relative military power is declining; many who were right to criticize Clinton for undermanning and underequiping the US military now use Orwellian doublethink to convince themselves that Bush is actually increasing American military power. 


I don't see it.  Quantify? We could be doing more but then that is always true.  Are you one of these who wants to tax the US into oblivion?  Remember that our secret weapon in Afghanistan was the $100 bill. 

What do you want to buy more of?  How many more personnel doing what?


Bush is also credited with "strong action" with the GWOT that will "deter enemies."  More nonsense.  I will give you one example of how Bush's poor leadership encourages, not deters, foreign aggression, but I could provide literally dozens.

 
You know without my recounting examples that there are many instances where he did get results.


-   Chinese cyberwarfare.  It's been going on in a major way for the past 5 years, and things are still getting worse.  Bush has the US taking a near-exclusively defensive posture in this ridiculous episode. 

How do you know?  Counterintelligence is one thing, but what makes you think China is a blank slate to us?  What would satisfy you? 

And how would you know if it were being done?  Want us to go and cut their undersea cables?


Many intel and military officials are being called to testify before Congress about it, and the excuse they offer is that the Chinese operation is restricted to "information gathering" and not truly offensive cyberwarfare.  Some notes on that:


This is only to be expected.  It is being done grossly and offers a chance for us to object, but who does that?  The loyal American patriots at State?
 

   - It is a lie, the correct characterization would be that the Chinese are conducting "primarily information gathering."

   - SO WHAT if it is merely information gathering?  The problem isn't just that they are gathering information, it is that the methods being used to do so, and the fact that the exact same methods could be used to cause a variety of other problems.


Just like the Russian overflights.  If they are oing anything interesting it gives us intelligence on their TTPs.  Do you want time to develop antiviruses, or do you want to get hit with zero day exploits?  We should be learning, not whining.



   -  Losing national secrets leads to losing wars.  Losing a technological advantage leads to military defeat.  Losing technology also gives an enemy a chance to find an exploit, which leads to military defeat.

   -  American reluctance to effect an active response is interpreted as fear, and not just by the Chinese.  


What response would you like?
 
<
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics