So we are building new stealth bombers

[Jrrarglblarg]

This type of project is often termed defence spending but from what I've read this seems to be a project about offence spending. Very sincere question which country today has the capability to wage war on the USA? As far as I can see there is simply no country that has the capability to wage war on the USA.

the President used to have a Secretary Of War heading his War Department. At some point the wallpaper and letterhead got changed to read Secretary and Department of Defense. No need to spin off into semantics over it: The best defense is a good offense. Our ginormous footprint of unsecurable borders and coastlines plus the observed phenomenon that all political situations are temporary has given the U.S. a national military posture far different than that required by island nations or small state within larger continents. We've never been invaded since we stole this continent from the previous occupants and we like it that way. Dubya Dubya Part One and Two left a mighty big wound on Europe.

As for the question, all of them. Singly, the U.S. could take them on but in large enough blocs or coalitions we could be taken down a notch. And because all political situations are temporary we shouldn't assume our friends today will be our friends forever.

 

[theprestige]

( suppose a nuclear attack would be possible but again which country today could attack the USA in such a way that wouldn't result in that country ceasing to exist long before reaching MAD?

Mutually Assured Destruction isn't the only nuclear strategy. There's also Nuclear Utilization Target Selection (NUTS). Hypothetically, a belligerent could launch a limited nuclear strike, that would force its opponent to decide between MAD and concessions to the attacker.

I get the distinct impression that while MAD was effective for several decades, modern leaders would almost certainly look for any other option than mutual mass suicide, even in response to a nuclear attack.

 

[Belz...]

In addition to the consummate advantage of a faster OODA loop, which Ziggurat already mentioned, it eliminates the risk of the enemy terminating the attack by severing the link between the human making the decision and the weapon system being used.

That's a technical reason that is bound to get less and less problematic, while keeping your pilot safe isn't going to become less of a plus anytime soon.

 

[Belz...]

This type of project is often termed defence spending but from what I've read this seems to be a project about offence spending.

Welcome to the modern world of euphemisms, where we never say what we mean because truth is scary.

 

[theprestige]

Better yet how about you bring evidence that such capability is needed ? That at the moment the current stealth fighter and bomber are not enough ?

Because I don't have such evidence ready to hand. I already accept the basic premises*, so I haven't bothered to dig up a lot of detailed evidence to support an argument I don't need to make.

What I have done, repeatedly in this thread, is ask what kind of evidence would convince people.

Here's the thing: I think a new bomber program is needed. You think it isn't. But I'm the one who's getting what I want. So it's not like I really need to convince you of anything.

 

[theprestige]

That's a technical reason that is bound to get less and less problematic, while keeping your pilot safe isn't going to become less of a plus anytime soon.

And one day we'll all have driverless cars. But the major manufacturers are still putting steering wheels in their 2016 models.

 

[Jules Galen]

Interestingly, at the same time we are talking about cutting back on public transportation funding, a giant new $80 billion contract with Northop has been struck to build lots of brand new stealth bombers.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-air-force-contract-stealth-bomber-20151027-story.html

Surprised? Apparently everyone is. The entire program was black and is only now coming to light. Also coming to light is the question: do we really need $80 billion worth of snazzy new stealth bombers?

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell

And there is no better way to stomp on the world's peasants than with a shiny-new $1 Billion Dollar Bomber!

Of course, this new bomber won't be used to attack China, Russia....or anybody else that might actually fight back and hurt us. And it won't be used against countries like Vietnam, either - especially recalcitrant peasants who don't realize that Bombers are supposed to make them despair and surrender.

 

[Trakar]

Because I don't have such evidence ready to hand. I already accept the basic premises*, so I haven't bothered to dig up a lot of detailed evidence to support an argument I don't need to make.

What I have done, repeatedly in this thread, is ask what kind of evidence would convince people.

Here's the thing: I think a new bomber program is needed. You think it isn't. But I'm the one who's getting what I want. So it's not like I really need to convince you of anything.

From what I read, the first operational bomber from this plan isn't due to take off until 2025 at the earliest,...if you want your bomber program to produce real bombers, rather than just a few years of wasted development funding to Northrup or Lockheed (forgot who this contract is aimed at), you probably need to convince a lot of people who don't currently support this program that it is an essential and necessary program to continue. Simply repeating that conflicts in the future will be different than they are now (which does not equate to "they will be more like they were 50 years ago"), is not compelling support for a new big bomber program, yet alone a very expensive smaller payload, stealth bomber program.

 

[SezMe]

For example, what happens if Russia invades Georgia?

I checked the Constitution and couldn't find anything about being the world's police force. I also note that the Founders were not in favor of a standing army. I also note that these facts are irrelevant to the USA of today. More's the pity.

 

[Belz...]

And one day we'll all have driverless cars. But the major manufacturers are still putting steering wheels in their 2016 models.

I wasn't aware that your post implied "for the time being". It seemed pretty definitive to me.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The US military had been planning for war with Japan, for fifty years before Pearl Harbor. For most of that time, the plans were not needed. But when they were needed, they were already mature, and the capability was ripe.

Yet they were caught with their pants around their ankles at Pearl Harbour and Wake Island!

Well 50 years before PH, Japan had a navy of steam auxiliary sailing warships based around a single 15 yearold ironclad battleship. Not surprising the plans were less than adequate to meet the actual threat.

 

[Trebuchet]

From what I read, the first operational bomber from this plan isn't due to take off until 2025 at the earliest,...

And based on the F-22 and F-35, 2045 is more likely.

 

[Ziggurat]

I checked the Constitution and couldn't find anything about being the world's police force.

Why are you trying to use this line of argument when you're not a strict constructionist? It's really quite laughable.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a technical reason that is bound to get less and less problematic, while keeping your pilot safe isn't going to become less of a plus anytime soon.

The B3 will be designed from the start to be able to fly pilotless as well.

 

[Trebuchet]

The B3 will be designed from the start to be able to fly pilotless as well.

Pilotless is great if it's cheap. It won't be.

Some years ago, Boeing (much as I hate saying something good about them) promoted the unpiloted X-45A. It was to be cheap, pilotless, and able to be stored in a container until needed. The DoD, of course, took that concept and ran with it. As in, ran it in to something the size and cost of a B-2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45

I have complete faith in the ability of the US Department of Defense to turn any project into a ridiculous boondoggle.

 

[tsig]

Maybe no single country could, but several could band together. If China and Russia got together, or either of those plus the EU, that would be a threat. Nothing personal, sweetie, we would just feel more comfortable if we knew we could take on the entire rest of the planet and still win.

We need to be able to not only take on the planet but another one if it attacks us.

You never know where the next threat will come from.

 

[quadraginta]

We need to be able to not only take on the planet but another one if it attacks us.

You never know where the next threat will come from.

And several of them might band together.

 

[SezMe]

Why are you trying to use this line of argument when you're not a strict constructionist?

One does not need to be a strict constructionist to think the Constitution sets limits on the powers of the government.

It's really quite laughable.

My goal in life, Zig. Keep you entertained and out of trouble.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'll see if I can dig something up.

But.

Demonstrating a likely enemy is almost certainly going to depend on interpretations from expert analysts. You've already rejected analysts in the US military, along with members of Congress and their advisors. Is there an analyst community with suitable expertise whose opinions you trust?


In 1957, the US had a small budget surplus. US military spending was a higher percentage of GDP, and US tax revenues were lower in 1957 than they are today. I don't think it's military spending that is killing America.

So you are suggesting going back to the communist tax policies of the 50's? That would give us a really nice budget surplus.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That role is? The Stealth wandering around the skies looking for a mission.

Carpet bombing with its smaller than b2 payload or something.