Dylan wrote:exploited wrote:
You can't defeat America with a dirty bomb. In fact, that is probably the shortest route to total annihilation imaginable.
It would be fascinating to watch though. I always hear about America's relative decline militarily but then the US unleashes a little bit and you realize.....damn. This thing is ridiculous. The capacity for destruction is neat to the mad monkey inside but it's also concerning.
this time it has declined (relatively). not to isis. oh god, lol they'd be gone so fast. but the us military technological advantage has declined relative to china and russia
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... explains-9
- AMERICA'S ability to project power on behalf of its own interests and in defence of its allies has been the bedrock of the rules-based international order since the end of the second world war. Critical to that effort has been the role of technology in maintaining a military edge over potential adversaries through the first and second “offset strategies”. In the 1950s it offset the Soviet Union’s numerical advantage in conventional forces by accelerating its lead in nuclear weapons. From the late-1970s, after the Soviets closed the gap in nuclear capability, America began making investments in emerging technologies that led to the ability to “look deep and shoot deep” with precision guided munitions. For the next quarter of a century American military dominance was assured.
Now, that decisive military edge is being eroded. Why?
The same technologies that made America and the West militarily dominant have proliferated to potential foes. In particular, precision-guided missiles are widely and cheaply available. Rather than investing in the next generation of high-tech weapons to stay far ahead of military competitors, the Pentagon has been focused more on the very different demands of counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While America has been distracted, China has been busy developing asymmetric capabilities specifically designed to counter America’s power in the West Pacific. For over two decades it’s been investing double-digit defence budgets in an arsenal of highly-accurate, submarines, sophisticated integrated air defence systems (IADS) and advanced cyber capabilities. All with the aim of making it too dangerous for American carriers to operate close enough to fly their tactical aircraft or cruise missiles. The Chinese call it “winning a local war in high-tech conditions”.
http://www.economist.com/news/internati ... -years-big
The [Third Offset Strategy] programme needs to overcome at least five critical vulnerabilities. The first is that carriers and other surface vessels can now be tracked and hit by missiles at ranges from the enemy’s shore which could prevent the use of their cruise missiles or their tactical aircraft without in-flight refuelling by lumbering tankers that can be picked off by hostile fighters. The second is that defending close-in regional air bases from a surprise attack in the opening stages of a conflict is increasingly hard. Third, aircraft operating at the limits of their combat range would struggle to identify and target mobile missile launchers. Fourth, modern air defences can shoot down non-stealthy aircraft at long distances. Finally, the satellites America requires for surveillance and intelligence are no longer safe from attack.