Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Awarded Nobel Peace Prize for Nuclear Disarmament

[rooster59]

U.S. military puts 'great power competition' at heart of strategy - Mattis

By Idrees Ali

 

U.S. Secretary for Defense, Jim Mattis, sits opposite Britain's Secretary of State for Defence, Gavin Williamson (not pictured), before a meeting at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in central London, Britain November 10, 2017. REUTERS/Simon Dawson/Files

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has put countering China and Russia at the centre of a new national defence strategy unveiled on Friday, the latest sign of shifting American priorities after more than a decade and a half of focussing on the fight against Islamist militants.

 

In unveiling the new strategy, which will set priorities for the Pentagon for years to come, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called China and Russia "revisionist powers" that "seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models."

 

The so-called "National Defense Strategy" represents the latest sign of hardening resolve by President Donald Trump's administration to address challenges from Russia and China, at the same time he is pushing for improved ties with Moscow and Beijing to rein in a nuclear North Korea.

 

"We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security," Mattis said in a speech presenting the strategy document, the first of its kind since at least 2014.

 

It sets priorities for the U.S. Defense Department that are expected to be reflected in future defence spending requests. The Pentagon on Friday released an unclassified, 11-page version of the document, which did not provide details on how the shift towards countering China and Russia would be carried out.

 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking through an interpreter at a news conference at the United Nations, said the United States was using a confrontational approach.

 

"It is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialogue, instead of using the basis of international law, the U.S. is striving to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts," Lavrov said.

 

"We're open for dialogue, we're prepared to discuss military doctrines,” he added.

 

There was no immediate response from China.

 

Elbridge Colby, deputy assistant secretary of defence for strategy and force development, said at a briefing with reporters that Russia was far more brazen than China in its use of military power.

 

Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in 2014 and intervened militarily in Syria to support its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Still, Moscow was limited by its economic resources, Colby said.

 

China, on the other hand, was described as economically and militarily ascendant. China has embarked on far-reaching military modernization that Colby said was in "deep contravention to our interests."

 

SUPPORT FOR ALLIANCES

 

The document also listed North Korea among the Pentagon's priorities, citing the need to focus U.S. missile defences against the threat from Pyongyang, which beyond its nuclear weapons has also amassed an arsenal of biological, chemical, and conventional arms.

 

The document said that international alliances would be critical for the U.S. military, by far the world's best-resourced. But it also stressed a need for burden-sharing, an apparent nod to Trump's public criticism of allies who he says unfairly take advantage of U.S. security guarantees.

 

Trump has called the NATO alliance "obsolete", but Mattis said the United States would strengthen its traditional alliances while building new partnerships and listening more to other nations' ideas.

 

"We will be willing to be persuaded by them recognising that not all good ideas come from the country with the most aircraft carriers," Mattis said.

 

The Pentagon is also working on a policy document on the country's nuclear arsenal. While Mattis did not specifically address that review, he said the priority is deterrence.

 

"How do we maintain a safe and effective nuclear deterrence so those weapons are never used? It is a nuclear deterrent, it is not a war fighting capability unless it is the worst day in our nation or the world's history," Mattis said.

 

Mattis had harsh words for the U.S. Congress and its inability to reach agreement on budgets.

 

The U.S. military's competitive edge has eroded "in every domain of warfare" he said, partly because of inconsistent funding. A bill to fund the government only through Feb. 16, approved on Thursday night by the House of Representatives, appeared on the verge of collapse in the Senate.

 

"As hard as the last 16 years of war have been, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact" of spending caps and short-term funding.

 

In sheer spending terms, the United States' military outlay per year is still far more than China and Russia. The United States is spending $587.8 billion per year on its military, China $161.7 billion and Russia $44.6 billion.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-20

[Enoon]

 

"We will be willing to be persuaded by them recognising that not all good ideas come from the country with the most aircraft carriers"

 

That should be no problem......they already "recognise" that the ideas that come from the country that has the most aircraft carriers are not all good.

 

 

[Enoon]

 

All that Russia, China (or anyone else for that matter) needs to do is to come up with a guaranteed (non-nuclear) "carrier  killer"......making all the carriers in the world obsolete.

 

Similar to what Britain did with HMS Dreadnought in 1906, when it made made the worlds pre-dreadnought battleships (including its own) obsolete and redundant.

 

The clock was set to zero and Britain lost its incontestable domination because the major powers (including Britain) had to build completely new fleets.

 

Britain and Germany engaged in a Dreadnought race (Germany having achieved industrial parity with Britain over the previous 25 years) while the clock counted down to 1914.

 

All bets will be off, the increased instability of the world will be a certainty, when someone comes up with that "killer".

 

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Enoon

[alanrchase]

China and Russia will never catch up to the US F52 fighters.

[punchjudy]

51 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

All that Russia, China (or anyone else for that matter) needs to do is to come up with a guaranteed (non-nuclear) "carrier  killer"......making all the carriers in the world obsolete.

 

Similar to what Britain did with HMS Dreadnought in 1906, when it made made the worlds pre-dreadnought battleships (including its own) obsolete and redundant.

 

The clock was set to zero and Britain lost its incontestable domination because the major powers (including Britain) had to build completely new fleets.

 

Britain and Germany engaged in a Dreadnought race (Germany having achieved industrial parity with Britain over the previous 25 years) while the clock counted down to 1914.

 

All bets will be off, the increased instability of the world will be a certainty, when someone comes up with that "killer".

 

 

 

swarms of both underwater & airborne drones attacking in unison

[blazes]

Cold War crap.....

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, alanrchase said:

China and Russia will never catch up to the US F52 fighters.

The most elusive stealth fighter yet

Donald Trump claims US sold Norway 'F-52' aircraft that doesn't exist

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-norway-f52-aircraft-sold-deal-not-exist-defence-erna-solberg-a8153126.html

Edited January 20, 2018 by ilostmypassword

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Mattis called China and Russia "revisionist powers" that "seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models."

As opposed to Trump's authoritarian model?

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

As opposed to Trump's authoritarian model?

 

Trump does not have a "model", authoritarian or otherwise. And no, obviously Russia's and China's "models" do not resemble the USA's.