US backbone and the middle east (was Re: Le Pen ...)

Luis Villa
25 Apr 2002 15:32:37 -0400

On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 15:17, John Hall wrote:
> Militarily, the US doesn't need the support of anyone.  What exactly do
> you think the 'global community' could do about it if they wanted too?
> No other military power in the world can play in the Middle East, or
> indeed beyond their own borders.  NATO is combat ineffective without US
> support *particularly* in terms of power projection. 

Just to drive this point home, some bits from Yale professor Paul

    What is more, no equivalent concentration of power to a US carrier
    task force exists in the world; the few UK, French and Indian
    carriers are minuscule by comparison, the Russian ones rusting away.
    Leaving aside nuclear weapons, which are always problematic and
    perhaps destined to be forever inapplicable, this group of warships
    constitutes the strongest and most flexible core of military force
    today. A carrier force is virtually indestructible, and yet it has
    the capacity to deal outdeath and destruction across most of our
    The US possesses 12 such carriers (another, the USS Ronald Reagan,
    is to join the fleet soon), each with the attendant group of
    complementary warships.
The full article is here:

It's a bit fluff, but basically points out that we need no cooperation
from anyone and in fact if we wanted to it would basically be impossible
for any nation to stop us militarily- not only do we have better
technology and utterly global reach but we spend 40% of the /world's/
military budget, and that number is growing.

This does not answer the question of will- no other nation in the
history of warfare has done so little with so much, arguably, since we
withdrew from Vietnam. But undoubtedly if we /wanted/ to do something,
no one on earth can stop us militarily.