| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| US Rattles Chicoms by appointing AF General to head Pac Command |
| 2004-09-16 |
| From Geostrategy Direct, subscription req'd.... The appointment of an Air Force general to be the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command also has raised new Chinese worries about countering a U.S. strike. Our zoomies will give the Chicoms nights of fitful sleep. Air Force Gen. Gregory S. Martin is an advocate of the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs strategy that calls for high-technology weapons to defeat enemies. He and Rummy must have a cordial relationship. "He believes in the concept of going downtown," one U.S. official said. In the case of China, that means using long-range strike weapons to attack key strategic targets deep inside China. Like Three Gorges Dam, once an asset, could be a liability if the PLA gets frisky over Taiwan. I'm sure there is an OPLAN for this little engineering marvel. |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #3 The US Navy must be seething. What Commands do they now have? |
| Posted by: Guest 2004-09-16 11:25:43 PM |
| #2 If RMA means more firepower I'm for it. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-16 7:33:16 PM |
| #1 I have very mixed feelings about RMA. First of all it makes two very bad assumptions: uninterfered long-range technology viability and endless high quality logistical support far afield. The first assumption is that magnificant, expensive high-tech toys will operate as well as durable machines after extended use, on one hand, and that "information" *as such* has an *inherent* value in war. * A helicopter may be far more advanced than a car, but if you had to cross the US several times without mechanical breakdown, which would you choose? * Information is only as good as its interpretation, and how that interpretation is applied. For example, the NSA gathers vast amounts of unimportant data every day, brutally sorts through it, then delivers a one-page summary to the NSC, which reports to the far less informed head of the White House. * The other assumption, of long term logistical support, is obvious. The US can provide support for a year, perhaps two. But costs of continued support begin to go *up*, not *down*. When you must timetable a war from beginning to end, you start to fight yourself. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-16 6:10:14 PM |