Thursday, May 2, 2019

Could "Space Force" Be the Main Force?

Friends, I've been thinking about the future of the United States and the world on the strategic level.  It seems to me that we've moved beyond "mutually assured destruction" and the preeminence of blue-water fleets, to a large extent.  More and more countries now have sophisticated missile capabilities, which can be used to visit conventional or nuclear destruction on ANY country, including the United States.  In a sense, we got a taste of this in the Falklands War.  The British won that war, thanks in large part to their technological superiority, but they lost a number of valuable warships, because the Argentines, although they couldn't really compete with the U.K., could afford a few modern anti-ship missiles.

In the future, I'm predicting that the U.S. Navy will be imperiled, and missiles will be so threatening that only a robust, reliable anti-missile program can maintain U.S. global hegemony.  I also believe that such a program must inevitably focus on space, because to destroy enemy missiles you need satellites that can detect them early on, and ideally destroy them within seconds or minutes.

Take a gander at my latest article, and see what you think.

In other news, could Nick Sandman be the key to reining in the irresponsibility of the mainstream media?  In the end, only financial consequences could ever persuade the media elites to stop their attacks on America, conservatives, Republicans, Trump, and Trump-supporters.  These lawsuits could be huge!


  1. Dr. Waddy: There is so very much of substance to your post.

    I remember in 1957 the fear that Sputnik revealed a Soviet ability to attack us from space. It did not materialize but the prospect of orbiting vehicles intercepting suborbital (ballistic)attacks is still very plausible.

    Ballistic missile warheads are unguided after release from their boosters and it is difficult to imagine them being directed upon moving ships. Guided missiles require guidance enroute. I would suggest the Chinese fully contemplate the coordination of swarms of land based missiles with nuclear torpedo attacks from subs on our carriers. The carriers may be vulnerable to such attacks even before
    they launch their air wings.

    But what of our submarine launched ballistic missiles? One sub alone can project appalling destructive power. Perhaps the Chinese still adhere to Mao's assertion: "The atomic bomb is a paper tiger. Go ahead,attack our cities with nuclear weapons; we have survived travails you can only visualize as through a haze"."We don't care about you or your cities but stop interfering in our assertion of control over our contiguous waters or we will react, in a manner measured from warning, to attack on your carriers should they threaten proximity, to attack on your very coasts should you invite it".

    Should we hazard this, missile defense both at point of attack and strategically, will be needed.

  2. Jack, good point about the distinction between ballistic and guided missiles. I should have acknowledged that in the article. I suppose our carriers are endangered by both, but if the Chinese want to avoid annihilation they'll probably stick to guided missiles with conventional warheads.

    I take your point that we always have the option of vaporizing the Chinese, but it seems to me that we'd be unlikely to have the gumption to do it, especially given the risk of retaliation. I'm just not sure we have a good answer to a coordinated conventional attack on our carriers, except perhaps to deliver similar attacks to the enemy, but most of our enemies are in a better position to absorb those kinds of losses.

    Anyway, the best solution, it seems to me, is to make our ships and bases invulnerable, which can be done.

  3. Dr. Waddy: Mr. Sandman's parents are to be lauded for standing up for their gutsy son.

    I had a male colleague who was crudely defamed by a man hater,in our workplace, for his outspoken opposition to Hillary Clinton. He immediately initiated administrative action for relief from sexual harrassment; the man hater was stunned because she had assumed he would cringe in the face of her unassailable political correctness. She backed right down as soon as he took action.

    How very much I hope to see Mr. Sandman's suits have the same effect.The MSM is one of the best arguments against a free press.Its obvious they did not care whether or not Mr. Sandman was at fault; they wanted him to be and assumed they could establish it with impunity. That they would task a child so bespeaks a viciousness so intense that it suggests sociopathy and certainly confirms absolute and unprofessional bias against his apparent conservatism.

    They deserve the very worst the legal system can impose on them ; they need to be made an example which will give the MSM enervating fear of ever repeating such an outrage. Intimidating fear of massive civil and perhaps even criminal liability is the only thing which would restrain such presumptuous bullies.

  4. Dr. Waddy: To the best of my knowledge and I may be way behind on this, our ships are defended against missiles by "point defense" systems consisting of short range "Gatling Guns" which fire clouds of heavy pellets as a final close in defense. I don't know if these have been tested in combat. Don't know what the Brits had in the Falklands. The Iranians have Chinese antiship missiles, though perhaps not the latest, so we might face them first in the Persian Gulf. I'm sure our forces also employ electronic weapons to nix missile guidance systems but presumably ballistic missiles would(ironically) be immune. I think our carriers could survive conventional attacks and even if they were disabled, their planes could land in S.Korea or Japan, had they time to launch.But imagine the decision facing our President if a carrier off the Chinese coast takes a nuclear fish. The Chinese might risk it. In the '60's, the carrier I was on went right into Hong Kong harbor, despite crude flashing light signals from the Reds that we were entering Chinese territory and bidding us depart forthwith. Expect them days are gone for good.

  5. Jack, that must have been something to visit Hong Kong in the midst of the Cold War. As you say, the U.S. Navy won't be returning there anytime soon...or will it? Victory over China is certainly possible, if push came to shove, but I really do wonder if we have the stomach for any sort of fight with a powerful adversary.

    I take your point about those anti-missile gatling guns and our ability to suppress enemy radar and guidance systems, but the sheer number of threats that the Chinese can now pose might overwhelm all defenses. Let's put it this way: I, personally, wouldn't want to be sitting in a U.S. carrier in the Taiwan Strait when China decides to hit the "launch" button... In the end, much depends on whether any sort of MAD still obtains. If the Chinese think we might respond to any aggression with nukes, they'll behave. The moral of the story: elect more Trumps and fewer Carters.

    I have mixed feelings about the Sandman lawsuits, because I don't like lawsuits in general. However, I like the media even less. As I said in this week's radio broadcast, I don't expect the suits to succeed. The question is whether ANY pressure can be brought to bear that might scare the MSM straight. We still have cards to play, in that respect.

  6. Dr. Waddy: Actually, I understand that a few smaller Navy ships have been allowed to visit Hong Kong. When I was in the Navy, a visit to a "Red Chinese" port ( say Shanghai), would have been as unlikely as an Al Sharpton admission of culpability. The allowance of their visit suggests to those as cynical as I am some fascinating possibilities. Perhaps the Chinese wish their people to perceive by the sight of U.S. vessels no more impressive than their own an image of U.S.- Chinese military equality which could be handy should relations descend to mayhem. A U.S. carrier is an impressive sight. I cannot fault the Chinese on this: would we countenance elite Chinese troops strolling down Fifth Avenue?

    Perhaps we need draw a line near the East Asian littoral which protects Japan, South Korea and Guam (the Philippines? They must make their choice) but which recognizes the, well, inevitability of a very great nation like China asserting its influence in contiguous waters much as we do, justifiably, in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine.

  7. r. Waddy: Also: Though China asserts a well known claim to all that ever was China, its claim to Taiwan may be challengeable.China had, throughout its history , been a nation devoted to land (with the exception of the Ming voyages to India and Africa, which were purposely terminated by the Ming). Until the last dynasty, the Ching (Manchus), Taiwan was inhabited mainly by non Han Chinese primitives- (Han:the predominate ethnic group in China)).Ching dynasty invasion of Taiwan occurred at about the same as Portugese, Dutch and Spanish incursions. Were the aboriginal Taiwanese any better under the Ching and its mostly Han cadre? Well, consider, the Han valued the fried soles of Taiwanese feet as culinary delicacies.

    The Japanese took a none too tolerant control in 1895 as a result of their defeat of China. Of course they lost it after WWII. It "reverted" to China and was the refuge of the Nationalists after their defeat by the Communists. By the way, the Nationalists slaughtered several thousand Taiwanese nationalists after they repaired to the island.

    We defended Taiwan from 1949 on because it represented an heroic outpost of resistance to communism. On balance, it was and we were right to defend it. But China has rejected communism and is no longer a threat to spread that sociopathic poison.

    I would suggest then, that our carriers should not be in the Taiwan strait in the first place. Taiwan is an economically advanced nation and I do not think present day China would do anything to thwart this; consider their toleration of Hong Kong's capitalist prosperity.

    We have no historical responsibility to Taiwan now. We protected them from communist takeover; that threat is gone. The Dutch, Portugese and Spanish, whose colonial claims on Taiwan were contemporary with those of the Chinese, are no longer involved. Let Taiwan's future be a matter between Taiwan and China.

  8. I agree with much of what you say, Jack. China is a rising superpower. It's simply unrealistic for us to control the western Pacific indefinitely -- at some point we will need to share dominion, at the very least, with the Chinese. But you say "China has rejected communism," and I'm not so sure about that. If you mean the orthodox version proffered by Marx, sure. But that was never on the table to begin with. China has leavened its socialism with a whole lot of capitalism and private property, but the political aspects of communism remain. Moreover, Chinese imperialism -- whatever its ideological pretext -- could be a problem of greater relevance in the 21st century than it was under Mao. I believe that we can get along with China, yes, but I don't for a second doubt that China represents a potential threat. How to handle Taiwan? Delicately!

  9. Dr. Waddy: I did note that China's claim to Taiwan is questionable and that makes it reasonable for me to fully agree with your conclusion. It is a dicey situation. Our country should act accordingly, recognizing that there is some kind of unique dynamic in play. Some historians believe China has always had its own conception of time and perceived Chinese historical cycles and that it lends China much temporal patience in such things.

    Perhaps in part it was that which led China to reject reckless peremptory Maoist change. I think it has gone from insane totalitarianism to an authoritarian regime more in keeping with a long standing Chinese respect for authority, be it of the father, of the clan or of the imperial official. Is present day China an imperialist threat? I'm going to guess no; I think their main concern is their land's security and integrity and that they remain primarily a land power.

  10. Agreed, Jack -- a benign Chinese authoritarianism poses no real threat to the USA, or to its neighbors. The question becomes: how will China react if it experiences setbacks? Political unrest, ethnic violence, economic recession or depression. China will have the power to make mischief. Will it do so? That is the great imponderable.

  11. Dr. Waddy: In order to consider this, lets think of Chinese history.There have been many periods of disorder in the progress of this 3000 year old civilization. Emergent always from these interludes, including 1820 to 1985, has been a well organized and great nation, based on solid principles derived from its long history. I have read predictions of Chinese economic setbacks but I doubt they would, if realized, have a decisive political effect on the world outside of China. The history of China is replete with examples of serious troubles but I think they have always reestablished themselves as a creditable nation, the present regime of which has a long and solid future promised with a bright future for the Chinese people.

  12. Jack, I would agree that Chinese civilization is built around a solid, venerable core. I also would say that one can't overstate the impact of "modernity," which has brought Western Civilization practically to its knees and could easily do the same to China, India, Japan, or anywhere else. Nature itself, I would suggest, will ultimately rescue all these places from their own folly. Many aspects of modernity just aren't sustainable over the long haul, and thus human nature will someday reassert itself and reestablish a culture based on order and justice. In the meantime, though, nothing is absolutely certain or secure.

  13. Dr. Waddy: If I recall correctly, you have expressed doubt as to the long term viability of Western style democracy and have suggested that the future may bode a restoration of a form of authoritarian rule. Certainly, I think, Western democracy provides a case study both of its many virtues and its drawbacks.

    For example, that to the Islamic and East Asian world we afford far too much deference to the "rights" of criminals is well supported by the fact in our societies of the intensely shameful vulnerability of the elderly and children to savage criminal oppression. We in the West have made a choice in favor of the victimizers which is understandably spurned by nonWestern cultures. Who can blame them? I saw the result in Singapore and Malaysia. Those who most deserve any healthy society's protection ARE protected, with no misgivings. And that means zero tolerance for poisonous drugs and their dealers.

    China, historically, is the "sun" of East Asian civilization. The onslaught of modernity, the disadvantages of which we cannot deny in our civilization, may well be mitigated, with the economic advances preserved, in that seminal node. Japan and S. Korea have the wisdom to follow suit, I think. India? How I pray their material prosperity will continue.

  14. Ah, India. Much hinges on the future of India. I wouldn't hazard a guess, but it bodes well that they've held on to British-style democracy thus far.

    Democracy comes in many forms, and I don't suppose a gross indulgence of criminality is a necessary by-product of it. I do believe that every democracy has a limited shelf-life, however. Heck, every government has a beginning and an end. Aristotle was right, I think, that democracy usually degenerates into demagoguery/dictatorship. I fear our hour may be close.