"Oceans no longer protect us"

[SHRED]

The pResident still uses this phrase!

How does anyone not realize the historical ridiculousness of this statement?
When have oceans EVER protected us?


----

[Beelzebud]

1. No kidding... They didn't even protect us during the revolutionary war...

Bush isn't much of a knowledge buff.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. Or the War of 1812

....

[Yavin4]

2. See The Movie, "Idiocracy"

It's not a great film, but it does explain a lot.

[Coexist]

3. aw shit... what did he do to piss of Neptune now?

He's not still going on about conch shells of mass destruction is he?

[LSK]

4. well they kept those Soviet Nukes at bay

:sarcasm:

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. I thought this was gonna be a carbon saturation thread

[Amonester]

7. If it was President elect Al Gore saying it...

I think we would agree with him. You know...

Category 5 hurricanes... Sea-levels risin'...

Sure would be true in that context.

[Bitwit1234]

8. AND you'all forget about the balloon bombs from Japan

during the second world war. Japan sent all those balloons with bombs attached. The exploded and killed some American citizens. It was not released until long after the war. They did not want Japan to realize they were effective. So the oceans didn't protect us then.

[Kelly Rupert]

13. Those bombs were laughable.

Japan launched 9,000 of them. Only one bomb found a target (a group of children who were trying to pull it out of a tree, killing six), and all failed to impact the American economy in any way whatsoever. If anything, they're a testament to the utter lack of retaliatory ability Japan had.

[Kelly Rupert]

9. Um...throughout our entire history, actually.

1. We won the revolutionary war in large part because Britain was not able to adequately supply and reinforce its army. This, combined with the several-month delay in communications, severely handicapped British strategy.

2. Due to the Atlantic, we were afforded a massive advantage in our dealings with Latin America. We were able to quickly project power throughout the hemisphere, in a way that European powers (save Britain) were not. It was as a result of this that the United States and Britain were able to force all other powers out of the hemisphere.

3. US naval security afforded us the ability to pick and choose our conflicts involving Europe up until the cold war. When Europe was embroiled in war, we were able to expand our influence, always confident that retaliation would be virtually impossible.

4. The Atlantic allowed us to sit out the majority of WWI; it was only when Germany raised the possibility of opening a Mexican-American front of fighting that the American public shifted to support of the war.

5. Our holdings in the Pacific allowed us to pursue war with Japan while allowing no threat to the American mainland (and our eventual naval supremacy ground the Japanese economy to a halt), as Allied Atlantic control enabled us to open fronts at will against Germany, while preventing the Germans from doing the same.

[SHRED]

11. yes but we were still attacked

Bush uses the phrase in that context.
As if now, all of the sudden, we are vulnerable to attack due to the oceans not protecting us anymore.


---

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Not really.

We were invaded twice; both times when we were at war with the undisputed master of the world's oceans. Both times, Britain's strategic options were extremely limited--they could destroy, but they could not control any amount of territory for any amount of time (a problem invading powers from overseas have had for centuries since). Our oceans have protected us for centuries.

They ceased to do so with the advent of the nuclear weapons and the long-range bomber. Bush is totally wrong for claiming this is a new situation. But don't claim that they never did.

[SHRED]

19. I see your point about prolonged war

I was speaking in the context of initial "attack".

In that sense, when have the oceans protected us?


----

[Kelly Rupert]

21. 1815-1949.

[DS1]

31. 1941

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Nope.

Hawai'i was a colony and a power-projection base intended to protect the mainland, not a state.

[Ghost Dog]

30. Yes more or less (I opine). It's all about airways now, rather than seaways.

But boots on the ground (never mind minds in hearts) is still, clearly, umm, tricky.

Hence the * declaration you may have missed, to the effect that all of "Outer Space" is to be considered the exclusive military province of the US fucking A.

:silly: :hi:

[Kelly Rupert]

33. Actually, something I rather agree with * on there.

Space is going to be militarized to some extent; it's pointless to pretend it won't. The incredible strategic advantages that space-based weaponry affords is too tempting not to take advantage of--as is the total and complete vulnerability that any object in orbit has to anti-satellite missiles. And were our GPS satellites to be shot down, our military would be largely paralyzed (which is something of the 800-pound gorilla in the pentagon at this moment).

We possess such missiles. China does as well.

Were China to militarize space, the US would almost have to fire on the Chinese orbital weapons platforms; otherwise Chinese first-strike capability would be such as to leave any American possession defenseless (including our aircraft carriers), completely nullifying the worldwide air supremacy that US policy is based on. Of course, the forcible destruction of Chinese military possessions would be a flagrant violation of Chinese sovereignty, giving China cause to fire on American satellites, knocking out our national communications and positioning system.

Were we to militarize space, I believe it becomes less risky, but the same might still happen were China to feel confident enough.

Better to strike an implicit bargain: We announce that we will destroy any Chinese orbital military platforms, claiming space for ourselves. The Chinese make it known (as they have) that they will not stand for American militarization of space. Neither party launches space-based weapons platforms for fear of the satellite-shooting war that would ensue.

[SHRED]

12. And what about the last 50 years?

The Soviets have had ICBM's.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. Yep.

The jet engine and the nuclear bomb (and soon after that, as you point out, advanced rocketry) ended the thousand-year period in which naval supremacy automatically meant military security.

[YOY]

16. Thank you.

I dislike the Shrub as much as anyone, but he is talking about something real with a historical basis.

[SHRED]

23. so all of the sudden...

...since 9-11, the oceans no longer protect us from attack.

THAT is what Shrub was talking about. Listen to him.
The initial attack.
Not a prolonged war and the inherent advantages of having a vast ocean between you and your enemy as in days of old.
Back then we still were not protected from attack. The Brits burned down DC fer god's sake.

[YOY]

25. It's part of the "isolationist" mentality and not a strict physical reality

Frankly, those Oceans have stopped protecting us from easy destruction the moment the airplane was put into military use (or perhaps the moment the first intercontinenal missle was perfected.)

but in the case of a prolonged war, more or less it still took the British significan financial and human power to reach North American in both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812.

[SHRED]

26. Again

There is some confusion here.

Bush uses the phrase in the context of initial attack as in 9-11, which by-the-way, he uses right along side this phrase. Sometimes in the same sentence.
Bush's "oceans no longer protect us" phrase is 100% inaccurate, used as he uses it.

That is what I am posting about.

[Kelly Rupert]

27. The two concepts are the same.

Suppose a nation, from 1815 to 1949, attempts to make an attack on America.

1. From 1890 to 1949, they are unable to, because the US has dominant naval power. The best they can hope for is a swipe at a power-projection base. Retaliation will be assured, and will end anywhere from the US stripping you of your colonies to the dismantling of your government. You've lost everything.

2. From 1860 to 1890, they might be able to. Maybe. Retaliation will be assured, and will result in the US stripping you of your colonies, in addition to economic damage. You've lost quite a bit.

3. From 1815 to 1860, sure. But you'll find yourself unable to do anything but burn some cities and leave. The US places a trade embargo on you, and your economy suffers. You've gained nothing.

From 1815 to 1949, our oceans prevented other nations from attacking us.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

20. Thank you.

We are in a unique role, and a lot of it has to do with simple geography.

[Kelly Rupert]

22. Geography is history.

Well said.

[alfredo]

10. How would they get here?

[YOY]

15. I think he's talking about "American isolationism"

Granted he's still a fear mongering a**hole.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

18. The oceans don't protect us?

But the Earth is flat... If you are not careful, you just steer your ship, boat, canoe, whatever off the edge - you can't get here unless you know the secret flat passage.

[Kajsa]

24. Is he talking about the proximity between

continents, separated by the oceans?

That hasn't protected us for some time, now.

Sheesh- someone needs to get that guy up to speed!

:shrug:

[pansypoo53219]

28. the oceans certainly didn't protect

native americans.

[Ian David]

29. And neither do our levees and bridges. n/t

[WinkyDink]

34. And by "Oceans" he means "I".

[AZBlue]

35. And unfortunately we don't protect the oceans!