08 April 2005

China gearing up for a showdown...

It's time for us, the American people, to get over our Vietnam traumas and figure out exactly what price we are willing to pay for what. Because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were hardly wars compared to what a Taiwan conflict would be. Would we pull together and put all our collective muscle into defeating expansionist aggression? Which isn't to say I can't see the other side somewhat, I'm not here to argue for or against our Taiwan policy, that's beside the point. The point is, if we were directly challenged, our fleet in the area was attacked and who knows, even sunk, would that stir up a long slumbering giant in us that would never give in? Or would it make us recoil in despondent shame, meekly accepting defeat, while the Leftists cheered and rejoiced to see their hated homeland brought low into abject contrition and weakness?

God forbid.

As someone who has a strong affinity for the US Navy (having initiated the first stages of application to Annapolis as a high school student with plans of submarine duty), I would say that while Iraq and Afghanistan have been ruled by the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force, a Pacific conflict would give the Navy the lion's share of the workload, as in WWII (Marines are no longer as strictly defined as amphibious troops as they once were). Here's my outlook. If they sunk every last one of our ships, we'd build another fleet, steam back and kick their collective asses back to the mainland. And, for once, Japan would be on our side! Not necessarily a bad ally to have (we of all people should know that from WWII!).

Say they sunk that second fleet, and came over and landed in California. Okay, that's fine...but they aren't getting any further east than the junction of I-70 and Blue Ridge, at least until they pry my Enfield from my cold dead..........

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

First of all, I don't think you need to worry about any part of the US fleet being sunk en masse in the near future. I believe the only reasonable way for another state to accomplish that feat would be to use a nuclear weapon; and I doubt any leader out there is willing to take the risk of doing such a thing with this Administration.

I don't think your liberal enemies hate this country, I just think they hate the leaders currently in power and the ideas they give voice to.

Anyway, I think that the vast majority of Americans would support military action if a part of the US Fleet was attacked and/or destroyed maliciously and without provocation. And I doubt that another country could logistically invade Hawaii, let alone California. Look at the reaction we had to an attack on four buildings in 2001...

And I never would have expected to see such a display of macho I'm-gonna-kill-em-all-if-they-invade-MY-state-ism from you. Very surprising...

Sorry I have read or posted anything on here for awhile. It has been a busy year so far.

Luke

The Irascible Neufonzola said...

Hehehehehe, well, you've got to take it with a grain of salt...my brazen declarations of nationalism and tireless defence are somewhat comic in nature, done with a bit of a chuckle. Naturally, defending my little tiny bit of Raytown acreage from an encroaching Red Army with a bolt-action rifle built in 1918 is unreasonable (which isn't to say that I'd acquiesce to an armed communist invasion of our country) and mostly just a light-hearted remark.

But it is a nice rifle...

And to say that you would never have expected such militarism of me, well, you'd have to know me a little better. It was once a dream of mine to attend the US Naval Academy, or West Point. I grew up reading tomes of military strategy and history. I've got a mild amount of expertise in the field of armoured warfare, it was something I studied for a great long while. While all the popular media and liberal academia would say that it is naivete, and indeed it might be, I still remain somewhat convinced that amidst all the horrors, atrocites, tragedies, and immoralities of war, there are shining points of light, acts of heroism, selflessness, courage, and, in general, simple goodness that are most worthy of admiration. This isn't a glorification of war at all. It is a recognition that in the most trying circumstances, such as war, it can prove a man's mettle, and there is something to be admired in a man that so values his country (or more specifically, his countrymen) that he would, in the case of the Greek hoplites, march into battle on the front ranks of a phalanx, where, despite the outcome of the battle, he is almost assured of certain death. Yeah, that's a little crazy, too. But call me a helpless romantic, or a draft-dodger or what have you. I know war is hell, or at least, I know that as much as I can without actually being in the thick of it.

But I have digressed!

Back to China. Things are pretty tense, nonetheless. I agree and hope that no state really wants to get into an all-out fight with the US (just as we don't want to get into a fight with China, for that matter). And there's something to be said for your concession that no world leader is likely to risk attacking us with the current administration...of course, you're not a cookie cutter democrat/liberal by any stretch, but still, whatever your views on the administration, they do have the reputation of not taking crap from other countries, which is a big part of Deterrence.

And as far as leftists hating the country...I think they hate the idea of our current government, and our historical government...it goes beyond the current crop of leaders. Note I specified leftists...not just ordinary liberals, but the extremists, like everybody's favourite professor right now, Ward Churchill. I think people like that secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) delight in the failures of our government because they have never quite given up their love of communism and socialism, and because of that they absolutely despise the success of a free market economy, not to mention a government with a Christian heritage! The overtly religious rhetoric of the Founding Fathers has got to really get under their skin, wouldn't you think?

And yes, I agree about the logistical problems of invading the US...I don't think China has the expansionist ambitions that imperial Japan had. The question is, and its an open question, I don't necessarily presume to know the answer, is would we, and should we, be prepared to fight tooth-and-nail to defend our allies in Taiwan? We naturally supported the rights of a seceding republic in the 1770s, but then most emphatically denied those same rights in the 1860s. We've got some inconsistencies, admittedly. Complicated issue...my gut feeling is to defend them, but at what cost? How many lives would we be willing to "spend"? It is a hard question. Of course, what we'd have to do is park our ships all around Taiwan, so that way, they'd have to "throw the first punch" so to speak. Then it would become a defensive action, in a sense, to enter the war, and not an act of imperial aggression. At least, on the surface level.

Although we defended South Korea from an invading North and still stand by to do the same, so maybe the precedent is to not sell out our allies. Hmmm.

But back to my surprising display of machismo, there's a seed of truth to it. I'm not an NRA member, I don't have a right to carry license, and I don't hit the range every weekend, but I'm a gun owner, and I'd say you'd be hardpressed to find all that many men, at least in the red-state Midwest, that wouldn't organize and fight an invading army. Of course, this is where Michael Moore jumps in with his comparisons to jihadis in Iraq, but well, his movie is in the clearance section at Target now, so I don't care, lol.

But my blog is frequently populated with such fiery rhetoric, including a frequent assurance that uninvited guests in my home will be made subject to bodily perforation via a diverse selection of diameters, currently including: .22", .303", .38", and .45". Keep in mind, I married into somewhat of a gun family.

Soon I might add .308" to that list...a Spanish version of the HK91 assault rifle named the CETME, which has a 20 round magazine, firing 308 NATO. Nice gun, I fired the HK equivalent last year. Superior for home defence over my Enfield because of the shorter barrel length, semi-auto fire, and it maintains a high-power cartridge. I know "assault rifle" is one of the phrases that makes many liberals wet their pants, but consider this. Switzerland mandates almost every household have an assault rifle in the home, and they haven't been invaded in centuries, and have a very low crime rate.