I think they’ll be introduced earlier than that. And what makes you think the costs would compare unfavorably to the sums spent on F22 and F35?

IMO because Hypersonic “missiles”. Fighters and bombers are just delivery men for ordinance. They become obsolete as soon as your ordinance can launch from the homeland and hit a target precisely within 30 minutes. It also eliminates the need to have overseas bases.

Tyler, this is a wonderful article that sheds significant light on one of many major mistakes that the Pentagon has been making over the years. It’s extremely unfortunate, however, that you have so many readers that plug their ears and “LALALALALA” the facts away, when confronted with reality. In order to correct…

Thanks for making your lack of sincerity perfectly clear. Enjoy living in your bubble of toy cars.

If you trust neither the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nor the IMF, to have legitimate data, that’s your choice. I can tell you have your beliefs, and you intend to hang on to them in the face of facts, so whatever.

*Sigh*. Most of your points have already been addressed by countless analysts and talking heads, as well as recent (within the last 7 years) data, but I’ll summarize them for you. A quick Google search (for valid non-Chinese institutional sources) can validate all of them.

The data came from the U.S. bureau of labor statistics as well as the IMF........

I can tell you have a bone to pick, but the facts remain that no serious analysts dispute there is a transition occurring from construction+manufacturing to services. Also, I majored in a STEM field at a top 4 (US News & World Report rankings) U.S. university, so I’d much rather stick to my field than switch to chase…

I’m sorry to inform you that you’re working on outdated information here. Chinese wages have been skyrocketing for quite a number of years now, and their growth patterns have shifted such that the majority comes from services now. I can pull out the actual sources for you if you have any real and legitimate interest…

My point was only that it’s not worth it for the U.S. to blow the trust that investors have in it, over just 1-2 trillion USD in Chinese-held bonds. The value of that trust must be in the hundreds of trillions, over the long term. Europe and China are still holding together, and have big joint plans in the horizon, so…

Thanks. I’ve been following U.S.-China relations since about 2002 or 2003, and have always been rooting for a cooperative partnership. The relatively recent turn towards a more confrontational relationship is, in my opinion, highly unfortunate. It’s almost certainly an unavoidable dynamic, though, when a great power…

The entire region is basically in dispute. That’s not even in the same ballpark as threatening to level the capital cities of the other claimants, or even a sparsely populated village. What’s really at stake here are natural resources and freedom of navigation. And considering China probably relies on transit of goods…

Now now. There’s no need to get so outraged that you need to start cursing to express yourself. We’re all highly educated and civilized adults here. It’s simply a fact that active espousal is the very definition of advocacy, and your original post merely conveys that. If that was not your intention, then you may want…

I may be wrong, but I don’t think Tyler’s intention is to turn this blog into a soapbox for advocacy of this sort. It’s primarily a military blog for military hardware fanatics.

The U.S. is dominant in each stage of the chain of escalation. This means that there is no scenario where the U.S. will suffer more than China in a military confrontation. No matter whether it’s a small skirmish, a nuclear exchange, or anything in between. That, however, does not mean that they will refrain from…

I don’t think the issue is a legal one. It’s more that if other creditors see the U.S. willfully reneging on a debt obligation, that they’ll more actively seek to divest their U.S. holdings. That will increase the cost to borrow for the U.S., and also increase the proportion of tax revenue that is committed to…

You’re trying to use a military lens to view an issue that is not primarily military in nature. The issue isn’t that these islands will become serious military obstacles. The issue is that by building in the SCS, China is changing facts on the ground to advance its claims.

You are right that if the U.S. does not act now, the opportunity to act may eventually vanish. The problem is that while the U.S. still has the edge, especially in the military realm, the overall balance of power has shifted dramatically. In other words, the price of acting will be much higher than it would have been…

A lower valued dollar also means destroying the buying power and living standards of anyone whose work is paid in U.S. dollars. Increasing tariffs on those goods also means increasing the cost of living for anyone living in the U.S.

That saying fails to capture the complete reality of the situation. If the debtor in question is able to function largely because of its ability to borrow, then failing to repay the bank means losing the trust of all the other banks. The other ones will no longer extend loans to you.