Do new sophisticated weapons promote peace, or do they promote war?

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

" You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. The very prevention of war requires more faith, courage, and resolution than are needed to prepare for war. We must all do our share, that we may be equal to the task of peace. "

Albert Einstein

People are raising the issue of what to do with an increasingly belligerent China, and to protect Taiwan. How much does peace and stability in that region depend upon the US.

For myself, I think it all depends on the US, and that we cannot falter.

But that still leaves a great deal unanswered.

And then those Javelin Missiles supplied to the Ukraine, those are the defensive weapons of military planners' dreams, but what is really going to happen I do not know.

Right now the person with the most difficult job in the world has got to be Joseph Biden.

SJG

The Romans ruled much of the world for hundreds of years, Albert Einstein did not.

I'm in the FDR camp of speak softly and carry a big stick.

We got sidetracked for years by nation building and making the world safe for democracy. And yes, we need to be wary of growing the defense budget to infinity. But no one is served by showing weakness in the face of belligerent powers.

And POTUS is always the most difficult job in the world

Yes it does seem to be so. We are a strategic nuclear armed state with world around commitments.

SJG

^ I meant to say, go away, Cacaplop.

We live in a time of extreme overkill and where the risk of lightning fast escalation is always present. Boisterousness or an open ended arms race only lead to mutually assured destruction.

And it was Teddy Roosevelt who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." pinterest.com

Franklin Roosevelt was not like that.

There is one big advantage in Biden, a few decades ago he was sent to Taiwan as the liaison. We don't have an ambassador to Taiwan, so we sent Senator Biden. We were trying to tell this Chen Shui-bian to shut his mouth. So Biden just read him the Taiwan Relations Act. That did it.

But then afterwards back in the US, Biden said, "I would never tell the president of a country what he can say in his own country."

Biden understands that diplomacy is always like this.

We had one Roman Catholic President and we know where that went. Now that we have another and we need even more from him.

SJG

Mister Bond - A Jazzy Cocktail Of Ice Cold Themes youtube.com

A year ago I read something, put out by the Rand Corporation. It talks about Kosovo, about a hypothetical of China deciding to over run North Korea, and the most interesting scenario would be China deciding to terrorize Taiwan.

This later scenario would have involved China using conventionally armed theater ballistic missiles. These would have sophisticated guidance to obtain tremendous accuracy. They might be used to wreak all kinds of havoc, like blowing up the bridges and the utility system, including the water reservoirs, and sinking container ships in their ports.

What could be done about this?

The authors raised the issue of how far the US Congress would be willing to go with a strategic nuclear armed super power. But what was suggested was that F-15's would be kept off the coast. Off the coast to avoid China's air defenses. These fighter planes would carry a hypersonic weapon. This weapon would be the right size for the F-15. When deployed it would climb to a very high altitude and reach a speed of Mach 8 (like 5000 mph).

These would be used to attack China's TELs. (Transporter Erector Launchers)

en.wikipedia.org

These would be the giant vehicles which can carry a theater ballistic missile. Likely these would be kept parked in the forest, and that is where another missile would be loaded on to them. So you can't readily locate them in the forest. But when they drive out and launch a missile, you can find them. But then you have only so much time to destroy them before they drive back into the forest to load another missile.

These launchings might occur 500 to 1000 miles from the sea coast. But with the hypersonic weapon, you can quickly close that distance. Then this weapon would then deploy guided smart conventional sub munitions and destroy the TEL's.

The Transformation of American Air Power (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs by Benjamin S. Lambeth | Aug 29, 2000

amazon.com

Should we be developing such weapons, in order to keep the peace, and in order to protect, or do such efforts merely promote more wars in order to show off the flashy new equipment?

And to me, the use of such weapons would be provocative and highly unwise to use against a strategic nuclear super power.

I read that China is getting more and more threatening. I am sorry to hear this. I do not like it. I don't know that is going to happen. This is most difficult because Taiwan remains a point of pride for China.

People are raising the issue of what to do with an increasingly belligerent China, and to protect Taiwan. How much does peace and stability in that region depend upon the US.

For myself, I think it all depends on the US, and that we cannot falter.

But that still leaves a great deal unanswered.

And then those Javelin Missiles supplied to the Ukraine, those are the defensive weapons of military planners' dreams, but what is really going to happen I do not know.

Right now the person with the most difficult job in the world has got to be Joseph Biden.

There is one big advantage in Biden, a few decades ago he was sent to Taiwan as the liaison. We don't have an ambassador to Taiwan, so we sent Senator Biden. We were trying to tell this Chen Shui-bian to shut his mouth. So Biden just read him the Taiwan Relations Act. That did it.

But then afterwards back in the US, Biden said, "I would never tell the president of a country what he can say in his own country."

Biden understands that diplomacy is always like this.

We had one Roman Catholic President and we know where that went. Now that we have another, and we need even more from him.

SJG

The Black Crowes - Remedy youtube.com

Modern weapons can destroy at an unprecedented pace but they don't win wars. Look at Afghanistan

^ No weapon can compensate for a lack of an objective. Or trying to make countries with no democratic tradition into Western style democracies.

The whole war on terror was doomed from the start.

@tetra it was TR, Teddy Rosevelt, and both you and @come are correct, you must first win the hearts of the people. Japan is an example. The military leaders didn't ever plan or want to stop. They would have sacrificed the entire population in the effort to not loose. As for weapons being a preventive of war, that theory has been around since the cross bow, later the machine gun.

So with all of these keen insights in mind, what should our President be doing now about the tensions between Mainland China and Taiwan?

SJG

The Black Crowes - Remedy youtube.com

Jealous Again youtube.com

Deep Purple-Child in Time youtube.com

The Jimi Hendrix Experience - All Along The Watchtower youtube.com

Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven, from The Song Remains The Same, no flute, but John Paul Jones with keyboard synth. And no acoustic guitar, but Page with his double neck. youtube.com

So I have read as above about this Kosovo War. I plan to read more, but they talk about 88 days. And it was an air only campaign, no troops on the ground.

They talk about "Vietnam style bombing."

What that really was was Curtis LeMay style bombing. He never said "Bomb them back to the stone age", but he talked about destroying utilities, reservoirs, and bridges, and he said, "Remove all the works of man."

So we destroyed the bridges over the Danube as it goes thru Belgrade.

cnn.com

There was talk about when to "drop a bridge" considering when you would have the less civilians on it.

The generals came into Slobodan Milošević's office together and told him that there was no way they could defend against the stealth aircraft or against the missiles.

And when it got down to the last bridge, the people came out and made a human shield on that last bridge, running the entire night.

Milošević's was really something. He had started his post Communist political career with a speech on the anniversary of ethnic cleansing in the middle ages. And this had been the one thing the Bolshevik's had gotten right. They did not allow ethnic hatred.

So now, if the people wanted the NATO countries to back off, all they had to do was hand over Milošević, or at least hand over his head.

From descriptions at that time I believe that they were using the Texas Instruments HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile). This is launched by a combat aircraft when it encounters the ground control radar from a Surface to Air Missile base. Then the aircraft can turn away. The missile will proceed, reaching 1,400 mph, and then I believe it hits the dish antenna and blows it up with a shaped plastic explosive charge.

They want the missile to go so fast so that the adversary cannot move their base. But the also want to be following with an air attack. I think so that heavier damage can be inflicted with guns. Blowing up a dish antenna is not that big a damage. Pulverizing a rack of SAM's is.

The say the Serbians were able to shoot down one F-15. They did this by pulsing their ground radar. So I guess the HARMs could not get it.

We were able to recover the pilot from behind enemy line.

Then I believe these same HARM's, likely updated some, were used in both Persian Gulf Wars, to destroy enemy air defenses.

Does building these kinds of high tech stand off weapons promote peace, or does it encourage more war?

And this is cogent now since the US, China, and Russia are building hypersonic weapons, likely to be used stand-off to avoid exposing pilots to risk. But doesn't this just contribute to the illusion that you can blow up another country's weapons without facing risk of reprisal.

Defense contracting as a whole is very inefficient. Lots of good work goes into making components for things which are horribly designed.

Some of it is the security clearance and need to know requirement. Very few people have any overview of a program. Everyone else is just a blind man trying to describe an elephant.

SJG

Behind That Locked Door (George Harrison) - Emotional Version by Norah Jones Live on Conan youtube.com

GEORGE FEST - Norah Jones - SOMETHING @ Fonda 09-28-14 youtube.com

Imagine if all that money went towards social programs

But some would say that we need that stuff for our military. So this is what I am hoping to explore here.

SJG

Basically the Idea is don't bring a gun to a nuclear missiles fight

But if we make new weapons, especially these standoff weapons, do they promote peace or war?

SJG

They promote peace it's just common sense, don't fuck with the guy with the strongest arsenal.

But America has brought a very strong arsenal to some very stupid recent wars.

SJG

True but if you notice the only ones that fucked with us are the certified nuts with nothing to lose.

In most of America's recent wars, we clearly had the most sophisticate weapons, and we had more of them.

But we often did not win, did not really win anything to say, except for multi-trillion $ bills in trying to make prosthetic limbs.

If China starts attacking Taiwan with Conventionally Armed Enhanced Accuracy Theater Ballistic Missiles, should we be ready off China's cost line with F-15's loaded with hypersonic weapons ( Mach 8, 5000mph) which can quickly penetrate deep into their territory and destroy their missile launchers before they have time to move them?

SJG

We don't need a military this large. The only reason we have one is coz we keep starting wars.

But Icey, where exactly then do we draw the line. And often sophisticated weapon systems are presented as a way of getting to have a smaller military.

SJG

As U.S.-Russia Tensions Escalate over Ukraine, U.S. May Stumble into War, Warns Katrina vanden Heuvel democracynow.org

Setback for Democracy: Manchin & Sinema Join Senate Republicans to Block Voting Rights Legislation democracynow.org

Mitch McConnell says Black people vote just as much as 'Americans' yahoo.com

Ralph Nader: Biden’s First Year Proves He Is Still a “Corporate Socialist” Beholden to Big Business democracynow.org

Fauci has become a liability for his boss. Gain of Function Research, not in Wuhan China, in North Carolina ecohealthalliance.org

They don't say this openly, but it is Germ Warfare research.

Expect Fauci to retire this year America's (most political) Doctor knows which way the wind is blowing

alexberenson.substack.com

SJG

Jennifer Fischer jenniferfisherjewelry.com

Moving closer to war? Considering the Ukraine expendable? What does that say about Taiwan, and about the US role and about world peace?

Newshour, PBS today youtube.com

SJG

I'm glad Biden has tightened his position about Russian invasion of the Ukraine. In his long press conference, it sounded like he was giving them permission to make a gentle invasion.

SJG

Those Javelin Missiles are the dream of military planners. Should we have made even more sophisticated weapons to help defend Ukraine, and also Taiwan? Should we be developing such now?

Those Javelin Missiles are pretty much defense only.

SJG

NewsHour youtube.com

So we could use High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles to strip Serbia of its air defenses, and then subject them to a Curtis LeMay type bombing campaign against their infrastructure until the finally handed over Slobodan Milošević so that he could face war crimes trial.

But was it so smart when we used the same weaponry to strip Iraq of its air defenses and then pursued two wars which have left us with over a trillion dollars in costs in the limb and eye losses. Did the high tech weapons lure us into that.

And could we develop Mach 8 air launched weapons to use against China's missile launchers if it decided to invade Taiwan? And would this trigger an all out nuclear war?

And those Javelin Anti-Tank Missiles are the dream of military planners. That was how they wanted to defend West Germany against a Soviet onslaught.

As we seem headed towards war with Russia, are high tech weapons part of the problem? Should we have even more of them, and of what type?

SJG

I think we faced Chinese pilots in the Korean Conflict. But Russians, not sure.

We have faced Russian built fighter jets, but not piloted by Russians.

The Third World pilots do not have the training, the weapons, the avionics, or the operational radar command and control. Its all like Libya sending up those 2x SU-22's over the Gulf of Sidra in 1981. They are just suicidals.

en.wikipedia.org

But now, with where this Ukraine conflict could go, this would be entirely different.

I am very concerned.

SJG

Should the United States be developing sophisticated hypersonic stand off weapons?

Should we have already had these ready?

They could cross vast territories in a small amount of time, high land or sea vehicles before they could move very far.

They would have to be self guided, fire and forget, and they would also have to have visual pattern cognition systems.

SJG

I raise this question because I read a book from the Rand Corporation. They talked about using such a weapon to penetrate deep into the territory of a strategic nuclear armed super power.

This would not be to attack its strategic weapons, only its theater weapons.

The hypersonic weapon, because of its speed, would really be unstoppable.

But the premise is that you could do this in a defensive mode, and completely humiliate the super power, without triggering a world wide nuclear war.

Do you agree with this?

SJG

GEORGE FEST - Norah Jones - SOMETHING @ Fonda 09-28-14 youtube.com

Ann Wilson - Beware Of Darkness @ George Fest 2014 youtube.com

Those Javelin Missiles are what military planners have dreamed of since the 80's. They wanted to defend Germany that way. They called the plan "Techno Commando". They would be stationed in all the mountain passes and they would stop the Soviet tanks.

Those Javelin Missiles can turn a Russian tank into a steel coffin.

Russian invented sloping armor on tanks. The Germans were the slowest ones to catch on. Sloping armor makes ballistic projectiles ricochet.

But the Javelin Missile is not ballistic. It is guided. It must have visual pattern recognition software, and it is probably magnetic too.

And it must be what they call a HEAT weapon, high explosive shaped charge. It detonates on the armor and just burns a hole through it. Then with what charge is left and the burning metal, it incinerates the crew.

It looks like it comes in at a very high angle of incidence and hits on the front hull, nullifying any benefit from sloping armor.

Now most all tanks today are rear engine. Usually rear transmission too. But there is one exception, Israel's Merkava.

en.wikipedia.org

It was built for crew survivability. So it is front engine and transmission. And the rear is a giant escape hatch.

So a Javelin Missile would destroy it, but the crew might survive.

SJG

So there is talk about Russia having all kinds of nuclear weapons platforms, an orbiting platform, a hypersonic platform, and a submarine launched cruise missile.

And then so much of this Ukrainian conflict is being shaped by these extremely sophisticated shoulder launched weapons.

Should the US just develop every kind of weapon which is considered feasible, just because otherwise someone else could get if first?

In his letter to FDR, Einstein argued that it was necessary to develop the nuclear fission bomb, because otherwise the other side could get it first.

Now in later years Einstein was sending letters to FDR imploring him not to use it.

Should the US be developing every possible kind of weapon, and does this promote peace?

SJG

UK troops demonstrate weapons being sent to Ukraine youtube.com

SJG

en.wikipedia.org

Elon Musk SHOWED The TERRIFYING Military T-Aircraft To Beat Russia youtube.com

SJG

Russia Panic! That's How Powerful New American Javelin! youtube.com

UK to send The World's Most Powerful Missile to Ukraine, Which can be Mounted on a Truck youtube.com

Finally: Germany & Elon Musk Reveal Their New Powerful Tank youtube.com

SJG

I am exuberant that the newest generation of Javelin Missiles works as well as it does, blasting through the reactive armor which was designed to stop such weapons, and then because of its penetrative power I am certain that when it goes through the roof of a Russian tank the crew gets incinerated.

I feel that there is going to be a huge boom in all types of guided missiles and lot of money will be spent.

But about this I have mixed feelings.

These are still basically nuclear armed states shooting at each other and believing that this will not escalate. Is this wise?

I am glad we have had such weapons now. But should we be racing to develop the next generation?

SJG

The School of Rock plays Gimme Shelter with Special guest star Orianthi youtube.com

^

Сан-Хосе ползучести

San-Khose polzuchesti

Joe Biden, always the epitome of decorum:

Biden signs Lend-Lease Ukraine aid bill into law youtube.com

This is why the America's Doesn't Export the F-22 Raptor youtube.com

Toyota's INSANE NEW Engine SHOCKS The Entire Car Industry youtube.com

How does a Tank work? (M1A2 Abrams) youtube.com

Join 11+ million people excelling in math and science brilliant.org

“Bad Mexicans”: Historian Kelly Lytle Hernández on Race, Empire, and Revolution in the Borderlands democracynow.org

SJG

TJ Street tuscl.net

Sex Slave Uni tuscl.net

Pleaser 10" pleasershoes.com

The Kremlin officials are so afraid of "Bayraktar" UCAVs they threaten to "demilitarise" the production of drones in Ukraine yahoo.com

SJG

Jane - School of Rock youtube.com