Why the U.S. could lose the next big war - and what that means for Canada

[steve from amherst]

It was more than the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric we're used to seeing in national security reports out of Washington.

It came from some pretty sober, respected voices in the defence community.

 

A special commission report, presented to the U.S. Congress this week, delivered one of the most stark — even startling — assessments in the last two decades of the limits of American military power.

The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China.

"This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday.

"If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency, or China in a war over Taiwan, Americans could face a decisive military defeat."

Those are sobering words for Canada, in light of this country's contribution of over 450 troops to the NATO-led deterrence mission in Latvia.

And it has prompted a call from at least one Canadian defence expert for a re-assessment — perhaps even a full-blown rewrite — of the Liberal government's own defence policy.

More than simply another rote, boilerplate plea for fatter U.S. defence budgets, the commission's report lays out in precise detail the kind of geopolitical threats Washington — and, by extension, other Western capitals — are facing from rivals and enemies at many levels and in multiple spheres.

"The security and well-being of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades. America's military superiority — the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security — has eroded to a dangerous degree," says the report.

"America's ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt. If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting."

The report acknowledges that the U.S. and its allies may be forced to fight a localized nuclear war in the future, given how Russia has restored the once-unthinkable concept to its military p

The commission also paints various grim scenarios that could confront Western allies between now and 2022, including an invasion of the Baltics under the guise of a "peacekeeping" mission to protect Russian minorities:

"As U.S. and NATO forces prepare to respond, Russia declares that strikes against Russian forces in those states will be treated as attacks on Russia itself — implying a potential nuclear response.

"Meanwhile, to keep America off balance, Russia escalates in disruptive ways. Russian submarines attack transatlantic fibre optic cables. Russian hackers shut down power grids and compromise the security of U.S. banks."

The consequences, said the report, would be severe: "Major cities are paralyzed; use of the internet and smartphones is disrupted. Financial markets plummet as commerce seizes up and online financial transactions slow to a crawl. The banking system is thrown into chaos."

While the report doesn't mention U.S. President Donald Trump by name, it notes the effect of his bruising rhetorical fights with world leaders and criticism of international institutions, such as NATO.

"Doubts about America's ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat opponents and honour its global commitments have proliferated," said the report.

 

At this weekend's Halifax International Security Forum, Canada's marquee defence conference, some leading experts struck a less pessimistic note and suggested that the West still has a major technological lead on Moscow.

"Russia is a great country. It is a great country, historically. But Russia is also a failing country," said Peter Van Praagh, president of the Halifax Security Forum, at the opening of the event on Friday.

"Russia does not have the same advanced tools that NATO has, that Canada and NATO and the American alliance [have]."

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also expressed cautious optimism about the threat.

"In NATO we're taking this extremely seriously. We're learning from the various missions that are ongoing," he said.

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

I call complete bullshit. The only war the US would lose is a nuclear war. That’s only because everyone loses. The Russian military is so broke and outdated, it’s laughable. China doesn’t have a fraction of  the Naval or Air power we have. This is fear mongering nonsense. 

[jtssrx]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I call complete bullshit. The only war the US would lose is a nuclear war. That’s only because everyone loses. The Russian military is so broke and outdated, it’s laughable. China doesn’t have a fraction of  the Naval or Air power we have. This is fear mongering nonsense. 

Exactly, Everything is is fear porn to justify the continued growth of the military industrial complex. People are out there making money off this by pushing this bullshit on uninformed Americans 

[Anler]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I call complete bullshit. The only war the US would lose is a nuclear war. That’s only because everyone loses. The Russian military is so broke and outdated, it’s laughable. China doesn’t have a fraction of  the Naval or Air power we have. This is fear mongering nonsense. 

I think the US will absolutely lose a big war. Because it cant be won really. And nobody will win a nuclear war. We are already too broke to continue just our current course. A big war would cost trillions and tank the economy.  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

I think the US will absolutely lose a big war. Because it cant be won really. And nobody will win a nuclear war. We are already too broke to continue just our current course. A big war would cost trillions and tank the economy.  

Look at where we were economically prior to WWII. In a major war effort (not an Afghanistan typ debacle), the rules for pay are different. How many trillions of Chinese dollars are tied up in our economy? That alone would cripple them. We would keep their money. Russia is broke. With no one to sell their oil and gas to, what would they do? However bad we may have it, everyone that we would conceivably fight would be 10x worse.  

[ActionfigureJoe]

3 minutes ago, Anler said:

I think the US will absolutely lose a big war. Because it cant be won really. And nobody will win a nuclear war. We are already too broke to continue just our current course. A big war would cost trillions and tank the economy.  

Good point. A war would tank the economy in the US. It wouldn't be pretty in other countries either. But a lot of them are used to living like cockroaches. Not so here in the land of the free and brave. 

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

Good point. A war would tank the economy in the US. It wouldn't be pretty in other countries either. But a lot of them are used to living like cockroaches. Not so here in the land of the free and brave. 

Wait.....I thought WW2 brought us out of the great depression?   Doesn't govt spending boost economic growth?  Asking for a friend.    

[Anler]

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Look at where we were economically prior to WWII. In a major war effort (not an Afghanistan typ debacle), the rules for pay are different. How many trillions of Chinese dollars are tied up in our economy? That alone would cripple them. We would keep their money. Russia is broke. With no one to sell their oil and gas to, what would they do? However bad we may have it, everyone that we would conceivably fight would be 10x worse.  

You should look at where the Russians were at the beginning of ww2 and where the Germans were after ww1. There is always money for war. And guess who snatches up the assets of the loser?

[Highmark]

10 minutes ago, Anler said:

I think the US will absolutely lose a big war. Because it cant be won really. And nobody will win a nuclear war. We are already too broke to continue just our current course. A big war would cost trillions and tank the economy.  

 

Just now, Anler said:

You should look at where the Russians were at the beginning of ww2 and where the Germans were after ww1. There is always money for war. And guess who snatches up the assets of the loser?

Wait....what....huh?  

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

Wait.....I thought WW2 brought us out of the great depression?   Doesn't govt spending boost economic growth?  Asking for a friend.    

We are $21 trillion in debt now, what would a $10 trillion war do? 

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

 

Wait....what....huh?  

He was talking about China and Russia silly. 

[ArcticCrusher]

11 minutes ago, Anler said:

I think the US will absolutely lose a big war. Because it cant be won really. And nobody will win a nuclear war. We are already too broke to continue just our current course. A big war would cost trillions and tank the economy.  

Nobody is going to win a real war.  US being able to blow the planet up 1000x does nothing when the enemy accomplishes the same with just 1x.

[ActionfigureJoe]

Just now, Highmark said:

Wait.....I thought WW2 brought us out of the great depression?   Doesn't govt spending boost economic growth?  Asking for a friend.    

A global war has an amazingly positive effect on a nation's economy. Provided it's the only remaining nation in the world with an industrial base and infrastructure that hasn't been obliterated by bombs and shit. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 minute ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

A global war has an amazingly positive effect on a nation's economy. Provided it's the only remaining nation in the world with an industrial base and infrastructure that hasn't been obliterated by bombs and shit. 

Our location and sheer size helps with that base if we would win. But others are right, shit would go nuclear at the end. 

[Anler]

1 minute ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

A global war has an amazingly positive effect on a nation's economy. Provided it's the only remaining nation in the world with an industrial base and infrastructure that hasn't been obliterated by bombs and shit. 

Well in past wars there wasnt a real chance of a foreign invader hitting any real targets in the US. That might not be the case now. And cyber attacks could put a damper on domestic commerce. Its not a desirable endeavor. 

[ActionfigureJoe]

Just now, Anler said:

Well in past wars there wasnt a real chance of a foreign invader hitting any real targets in the US. That might not be the case now. And cyber attacks could put a damper on domestic commerce. Its not a desirable endeavor. 

I guess one would have to understand the goals of a global war for it's combatants and how it gets started. Would it be over Taiwan? Poland or one of the old Soviet breakaways? Maybe a hot war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula and China gets drawn in? It wouldn't take very long for Nato forces to take control of the skies. Then the sea. Neither China or Russia would likely go down to a humiliating defeat without falling back on some city busting nukes used on North America. 

[Anler]

1 minute ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

I guess one would have to understand the goals of a global war for it's combatants and how it gets started. Would it be over Taiwan? Poland or one of the old Soviet breakaways? Maybe a hot war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula and China gets drawn in? It wouldn't take very long for Nato forces to take control of the skies. Then the sea. Neither China or Russia would likely go down to a humiliating defeat without falling back on some city busting nukes used on North America. 

The goal is one world govt. Its the same goal as it has always been. And the scary scenario is that the people pulling the strings on our end may not have our best interest. Why do you think we have covert operations all over the globe? (or flat earth)

[Highmark]

What a crock of shit.   Report written by those who make a living off the defense industry.   Reminds me of MMCC "scientists."  

 

The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China.

"This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday.

 

[ActionfigureJoe]

4 minutes ago, Anler said:

The goal is one world govt. Its the same goal as it has always been. And the scary scenario is that the people pulling the strings on our end may not have our best interest. Why do you think we have covert operations all over the globe? (or flat earth)

The one world government is a myth that will never happen. It's a ploy used to fuel racism and nationalism. 

[Highmark]

32 minutes ago, Anler said:

We are $21 trillion in debt now, what would a $10 trillion war do? 

What would a $32 trillion NHC program do?  

[Highmark]

10 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

The one world government is a myth that will never happen. It's a ploy used to fuel racism and nationalism. 

Really?   Ask that to the members of the EU?

The reality of a one world govt will first come in the disguise of open borders around the world.  

[Anler]

26 minutes ago, Highmark said:

What would a $32 trillion NHC program do?  

$32 trillionz? 

[Anler]

36 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

The one world government is a myth that will never happen. It's a ploy used to fuel racism and nationalism. 

Its not a myth. There is a push for a global currency and we have been actively involved in the undermining of just about every govt on earth. Do we have that many enemies? A giant world war could facilitate something like that under the auspice of peace. 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

$32 trillionz? 

Well $32.6 and that's if their predicted 40-50% savings are realized.     

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/medicare-for-all-32-6-trillion-dollars-socialized-medicine/

[ActionfigureJoe]

Just now, Anler said:

Its not a myth. There is a push for a global currency and we have been actively involved in the undermining of just about every govt on earth. Do we have that many enemies? A giant world war could facilitate something like that under the auspice of peace. 

Myth. Humans are too complicated and too diverse for a one world government. Ever try to get 10 people in the same room to agree on anything? Just ain't buying it.