I remember some people talked about the problems of bringing post-war stability to Iraq before the invasion. But nobody was interested in what they had to say. To question whether Iraq would be a short, cheap operation was at best called ‘anklebiting’ or appeasement. Any kind of warning wouldn’t have registered with Bush anyway. In the end the administration got what it wanted and here we are, for better or worse (depending on your point of view).

However, if I’m sitting in Damascus or Iran and looking at the lessons of the past year or so, I’d be thinking that WMDs are less of a deterrent to the US than the prospect of a long drawn out guerilla campaign. But are the people in Syria or Iran any smarter than Saddam?

It’s doubtful that any single weapons system- artillery, attack helicopters, UCAVs, AC-130s or other special purpose aircraft, fighters- will become the dominant source of support fire. Each is going to have capabilities that the other does not, so the army is going to want to have access to some of each.

It’s also far too early to know the actual value of UCAVs in modern combat because 1) they’ve barely started the path of development, and 2) they haven’t been used in a high threat combat environment against an enemy with the technical prowess to develop countermeasures against their use. I suspect they’ll have their uses, but no doubt they’ll have weaknesses that can be exploited as well.

SOC:

Yes. But the ‘one china’ policy should be read as ‘one china at sometime in the distant future when the Taiwanese agree to return to Chinese control.’ In other words, we try to chart a course between protecting Taiwan from Chinese domination and accommodating China’s obsession with controlling Taiwan. Israel selling China advanced systems doesn’t help us do that.

If the Taiwanese wanted to sell some kind of sophisticated weapon system to Egypt, and the Israelis objected, I figure we’d be telling the Taiwanese to the same thing as we’re telling the Israelis now.

Ba609, a civilian 6-9 passenger tiltrotor in development by Bellagusta. Cruising speed of 275 kts, range about 1,400km with a 2,500 kg payload. Figure if the thing works it probably gets into somebody’s military or coast guard someplace.

http://www.bellagusta.com/air_ba_main.cfm

Garry B:

Nobody needs to participate in peacekeeping. It’s a matter of choice. It’s very nice and altruistic and makes you a nice world citizen and so forth, but if you stopped doing it tomorrow NZ wouldn’t be in any greater or lesser danger from attack than it is now. As I said, it’s a wash when you try to base a decision on actual defense needs.

Garry B

How could the U.S. or Australia defend you from air strikes? From carriers or by land basing in a time of heightened threat. Who could attack you? Anyone capable of mounting a very long range air strike or who has a carrier. As I said, the world changes and so do the capabilities of other nations.

What’s more, I don’t even see why you’re disagreeing. I said that if you feel comfortable not having any defense, then you don’t need one. I wouldn’t be as an American, but that’s because we can’t count on anyone else to come to our aid in an emergency.

And having an army who’s main purpose is to go on peacekeeping missions means you probably don’t need much of any army. At most all you’re doing is spending money on one force you don’t need instead of money on another force you don’t need. It’s a wash either way.

Agree with SOC on the F-117 being pointless. Though it was cool when it came out.

Bad decision was this year’s Congress forcing the air force to bring some B-1s out of storage and refusing to allow them to put some F-117s into storage to save money. The Af said that they didn’t need the aircraft and that doing so would allow them to make the remaining ones more capable without asking for a bigger budget.

Spend less money? God no, says Congress . . . and then refuses to give the air force the money they need to maintain and improve the aircraft.