re: #606 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I keep hearing about how we need a “strong” defense, but keep coming up with no clue as to who we’re supposed to be defending ourselves against.

The Russians? They’re lucky if they can string together enough money to keep half their air force operational, let alone launching a major strategic operation against us.

The Chinese? They’re making too much money off us to go to war. And even if they wanted to, they’re still decades away from having the military hardware to invade us.

North Korea? One half of the country is starving, the other half is eating the first half. And they’re relying upon Chinese hardware that’s at least 1-2 decades out of date. Call me when they can build an ICBM that doesn’t explode on the launchpad.

Iran? No argument that they’re on a quest for atomic fire, but they’ve been on that quest in one form or another since ‘79. It’s a question of whether it’ll eventually bear fruit in time to stave off the next revolution.

Al-Q or another number of terrorist groups? Again, what good is an F-22 against an enemy that has no fighters? A tank against an army that considers technicals the height of mobile firepower? What good are cruise missiles against an enemy who can move his base of operations as quickly as tearing down a tent and running?

The face of warfare changed in 1991. So far, it seems our military is 20 years behind schedule.

For me, it comes down to this: Why would anyone invade us? What would they gain? With the world as interconnected as it is, shooting at someone else is shooting at yourself, too. You’d have to be crazy to want to do that… which is why the modern world’s greatest threat isn’t a country, but the crazy guy with a bomb and fanatical ideology. Because you’d have to be crazy to not care about self-preservation.