https://www.wsj.com/articles/marines-plan-to-retool-to-meet-china-threat-11584897014?mod=hp_lead_pos7 Marines Plan to Retool to Meet China Threat The Marine Corps is undertaking its most sweeping transformation in decades, pivoting from a focus on fighting insurgents in the Middle East to developing the ability to hop from island to island in the western Pacific to bottle up the Chinese fleet. The 10-year plan to revamp the Corps, scheduled to be unveiled this week, follows years of classified U.S. wargames that revealed China’s missile and naval forces to be eroding American military advantages in the region. “China, in terms of military capability, is the pacing threat,” Gen. David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant, said in an interview. “If we did nothing, we would be passed.” To reinvent themselves as a naval expeditionary force within budget limits, the Marines plan to get rid of all of their tanks, cut back on their aircraft and shrink in total numbers from 189,000 to as few as 170,000, Gen. Berger said. Gen. David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant, is directing the restructuring of the Marines. Photo: SAUL LOEB/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images “I have come to the conclusion that we need to contract the size of the Marine Corps to get quality,” he said. The changes are part of a broad shift by all branches of the armed forces, which are honing new fighting concepts and planning to spend billions of dollars on what the Pentagon projects will be an era of intensified competition with China and Russia. Among an array of new high-tech programs, the Air Force is developing a hypersonic missile that would travel five times the speed of sound, and has been experimenting with the “loyal wingman,” an unmanned aircraft that would carry bombs and fly in formations with piloted planes. The Army, which has established a Futures Command to oversee its transformation, tested a cannon at the Yuma Proving Ground earlier this month that fired shells about 40 miles—roughly twice the range of current systems. The Navy, for its part, has been developing tactics to disperse aircraft carrier battle groups to make them a less inviting target for Chinese medium-range missiles, and it is pursuing the development of unmanned submarines and ships.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper has vowed to make this the year when the Defense Department moves toward “full, irreversible implementation” of the strategy shift. The Pentagon’s $705 billion spending request for the 2021 fiscal year includes the largest research-and-development budget in 70 years: nearly $107 billion. Nearly 20 years ago, the military was pivoting in a very different direction. After decades of preparing for combat with Soviet forces and other large conventional armies, U.S. troops found themselves battling militants in Iraq and Afghanistan who used suicide car bombs and roadside explosives but had no air force or heavy mechanized forces. Focused on its counterinsurgency mission, the Army allowed its capabilities for electronic warfare to atrophy while the Pentagon trimmed funds for other major weapon systems. While the U.S. focused on the Middle East, however, China and Russia worked on systems to thwart the American military’s ability to assemble forces near their regions and command them in battle. If war broke out, U.S. officials concluded, China could fire hundreds of missiles at U.S. and allies’ air bases, ports and command centers throughout the Pacific, jam the U.S. military’s GPS, attack American satellite systems and use its air defenses to keep U.S. warplanes at bay. Russia similarly would use the surface-to-surface missiles, air defenses and antiship missiles deployed in Kaliningrad and on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea, which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014. A Marine fighting in Afghanistan in 2009. The restructuring focuses on the western Pacific, not land wars against insurgents. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images U.S. officials worry that, even in peacetime, China’s and Russia’s new capabilities could become a means of political coercion, threatening America’s ability to defend allies and partners, from Taiwan to the Baltic states, who might conclude that Washington would be hard put to protect them. The Chinese and Russian advances led the Pentagon to conclude that the U.S. was entering a new age of great-power conflict. A sobering assessment of how U.S. forces would match up against their rivals was prepared by the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment and the Rand Corp., a research center that carries out classified analysis for the government, and presented to then Defense Secretary Jim Mattis soon after he took office in 2017. Before he resigned in December 2018, Mr. Mattis oversaw the development of a new national defense strategy, which asserted that the long-term competition with China and Russia was the Pentagon’s top priorities and cast North Korea, Iran and terrorists as lesser dangers. The current Pentagon leadership remains committed to the strategy, which has spawned a new vernacular, including concepts like “joint all-domain command and control”—a targeting and command-and-control system that would connect all forces on the battlefield. The Pentagon’s new strategy faces some significant obstacles. One big one is that the defense budget is more likely to stay flat or even contract over the next several years in the face of soaring federal deficits than to grow at the 3% to 5% rate, after inflation, that Mr. Esper has urged. Another question is whether Washington will be able to concentrate on the Chinese and Russian threats given persistent tensions with Iran—the product of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign” of imposing severe sanctions against Tehran, and the Iranian regime’s determination to keep supporting militant groups in the Middle East. Earlier this month, following missile attacks by Iran and repeated rocket firings by Iranian-backed Shiite militants, Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, said the U.S. is keeping two aircraft carriers in the region and will move Patriot antimissile batteries into Iraq to protect bases where U.S. and coalition troops are located. Regardless, the Pentagon leadership says the budgetary priority is planning for future war. “It makes no sense to buy stuff that isn’t in alignment with” the new defense strategy, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told Congress this month. China’s missile and naval forces are eroding U.S. military advantages in the western Pacific. Photo: Weng Qiyu/Imaginechina/Zuma Press To free up funds for the future projects, the military is planning to retire older but still functioning weapons systems. That would add to the strains it faces in carrying out its current missions before new systems come online. “We’ll end up having to take some more risks in the next couple of years,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Kelly. The Air Force is planning to retire 17 B-1 bombers, 44 A-10 attack planes, as well as 16 KC-10 and 13 KC-135 refueling tankers, so it can channel more spending to future projects. Within the military, nobody is proposing more far-reaching changes than Gen. Berger. He served as the top Marine commander in the Pacific, then headed the Marines’ Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va., which develops war-fighting concepts and oversees training. The command has run classified wargames such as “Pacific Surprise” and “Ghost Fleet,” which looked at how the Marines might counter the Chinese threat in the decade ahead. For the Marines, the new Pentagon strategy raised questions about whether it should adapt for a toe-to-toe fight against China or should concentrate on lesser but still challenging dangers. “The wargames do show that, absent significant change, the Marine Corps will not be in a position to be relevant” in a clash with a “peer competitor,” said Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, who succeeded Gen. Berger as the head of that command. Gen. Berger’s answer was to reconfigure the Corps to focus on a China threat. The Marines would fight within reach of Chinese missiles, planes and naval forces to blunt any aggression. While other services might lob missiles from long range, the Marines, in military parlance, would operate inside “the weapons engagement zone.” A landing craft packed with Marines approached the shore in the Marshall Islands in 1944, during World War II. Photo: U.S. Coast Guard/ASSOCIATED PRESS Some retired Marines caution that too heavy a focus on China may make the Corps less flexible in dealing with conflicts that might erupt in the Middle East and other distant regions, which they consider to be more likely. “I think it is a mistake to organize yourself in a way to go after a specific region,” said Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general who led the Central Command. “Something could happen tomorrow with the Iranians. The answer is to be ready, expeditionary and balanced.” At the heart of Gen. Berger’s plan is the establishment of new naval expeditionary units—what the Marines call “littoral regiments”—whose mission would be to take on the Chinese navy. Share Your Thoughts Are the Marines doing the right thing by pivoting to face the China threat? Join the conversation below.
If a military confrontation loomed, the regiments would disperse small teams of Marines, who would rush in sleek landing craft to the tiny islands that dot the South and East China Seas, according to Gen. Berger and other senior Marine officers. Armed with sensor-laden drones that operate in the air, on the sea and underwater, the Marines would target Chinese warships before they ventured into the wider Pacific Ocean. The Marine teams, which could have 50 to 100 personnel, would fire antiship missiles at the Chinese fleet. Targeting data also would be passed to Air Force or Navy units farther away, which would fire longer-range missiles. To elude retaliatory blows, the Marines would hop from island to island every 48 or 72 hours, relying on a new generation of amphibious ships, which could be piloted remotely. Other Marine teams would operate from U.S. warships with decoy vessels nearby. Gen. Berger said the wargames showed that the new Marine capabilities and tactics would create “a ton of problems” for the Chinese forces. “It is very difficult for them to counter a distributed naval expeditionary force that is small, that is mobile, but has the capability to reach out and touch you,” he said. To carry out the strategy, the Marines would deploy new missile batteries, armed drone units and amphibious ships. A major push is being made to ease the logistical burden, such as exploring the use of 3-D printing on the battlefield to make spare parts. The strategy requires deeper integration with the Navy, and Marine teams might perform other missions like refueling submarines or sub-hunting planes. While most of the effort to transform the Corps is focused on the Pacific, the Marines would retain other forces to respond to crises world-wide, including floating 2,200-strong Marine expeditionary units To fund the new capabilities, the Marines will dispense with all of its tanks over the next few years, eliminate its bridge-laying companies and cut back on aviation and howitzers. “We need an Army with lots of tanks,” Gen. Berger said. “We don’t need a Marine Corps with tanks.” Some defense experts are supportive of the plan. “China is the major competitor,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines are rightly stepping out to change their approach to combat.” A Marine tank during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Marines are phasing out all of their tanks. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images Other retired Marines question the feasibility of putting Marines on tiny islands the Chinese would try to bombard. “It is very easy when developing concepts on paper to underestimate the challenges of logistics,” said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. “With this concept, the Marines need to figure out what in fact is viable and hedge for the possibility that they got it wrong.” Gen. Berger said that adjusting over the next 10 to 20 years is part of the plan, and that the Marines are proceeding with “the cleared-eyed view that the threat is moving also.” “Some of the capabilities we assume might pan out, will not pan out, and other technological things will come along that we have not even considered,” he said. The Marines, he said, will use their new plan “as an aim point and monitor the threat all along as we go.” Write to Michael R. Gordon at [email protected]
“China, in terms of military capability, is the peacing threat,” Make sense. Any rising power is the peacing threat in front of the ruling power. 修昔底德陷阱 The rising of the US is a peacing threat to confront the UK during the 19th. And so on many cases in history.
Marines Plan to Retool to Meet China Threat
The Marine Corps is undertaking its most sweeping transformation in decades, pivoting from a focus on fighting insurgents in the Middle East to developing the ability to hop from island to island in the western Pacific to bottle up the Chinese fleet.
The 10-year plan to revamp the Corps, scheduled to be unveiled this week, follows years of classified U.S. wargames that revealed China’s missile and naval forces to be eroding American military advantages in the region.
“China, in terms of military capability, is the pacing threat,” Gen. David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant, said in an interview. “If we did nothing, we would be passed.”
To reinvent themselves as a naval expeditionary force within budget limits, the Marines plan to get rid of all of their tanks, cut back on their aircraft and shrink in total numbers from 189,000 to as few as 170,000, Gen. Berger said.
Gen. David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant, is directing the restructuring of the Marines. Photo: SAUL LOEB/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
“I have come to the conclusion that we need to contract the size of the Marine Corps to get quality,” he said.
The changes are part of a broad shift by all branches of the armed forces, which are honing new fighting concepts and planning to spend billions of dollars on what the Pentagon projects will be an era of intensified competition with China and Russia.
Among an array of new high-tech programs, the Air Force is developing a hypersonic missile that would travel five times the speed of sound, and has been experimenting with the “loyal wingman,” an unmanned aircraft that would carry bombs and fly in formations with piloted planes.
The Army, which has established a Futures Command to oversee its transformation, tested a cannon at the Yuma Proving Ground earlier this month that fired shells about 40 miles—roughly twice the range of current systems. The Navy, for its part, has been developing tactics to disperse aircraft carrier battle groups to make them a less inviting target for Chinese medium-range missiles, and it is pursuing the development of unmanned submarines and ships.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper has vowed to make this the year when the Defense Department moves toward “full, irreversible implementation” of the strategy shift. The Pentagon’s $705 billion spending request for the 2021 fiscal year includes the largest research-and-development budget in 70 years: nearly $107 billion.
Nearly 20 years ago, the military was pivoting in a very different direction. After decades of preparing for combat with Soviet forces and other large conventional armies, U.S. troops found themselves battling militants in Iraq and Afghanistan who used suicide car bombs and roadside explosives but had no air force or heavy mechanized forces. Focused on its counterinsurgency mission, the Army allowed its capabilities for electronic warfare to atrophy while the Pentagon trimmed funds for other major weapon systems.
While the U.S. focused on the Middle East, however, China and Russia worked on systems to thwart the American military’s ability to assemble forces near their regions and command them in battle. If war broke out, U.S. officials concluded, China could fire hundreds of missiles at U.S. and allies’ air bases, ports and command centers throughout the Pacific, jam the U.S. military’s GPS, attack American satellite systems and use its air defenses to keep U.S. warplanes at bay.
Russia similarly would use the surface-to-surface missiles, air defenses and antiship missiles deployed in Kaliningrad and on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea, which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014.
A Marine fighting in Afghanistan in 2009. The restructuring focuses on the western Pacific, not land wars against insurgents. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
U.S. officials worry that, even in peacetime, China’s and Russia’s new capabilities could become a means of political coercion, threatening America’s ability to defend allies and partners, from Taiwan to the Baltic states, who might conclude that Washington would be hard put to protect them.
The Chinese and Russian advances led the Pentagon to conclude that the U.S. was entering a new age of great-power conflict. A sobering assessment of how U.S. forces would match up against their rivals was prepared by the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment and the Rand Corp., a research center that carries out classified analysis for the government, and presented to then Defense Secretary Jim Mattis soon after he took office in 2017.
Before he resigned in December 2018, Mr. Mattis oversaw the development of a new national defense strategy, which asserted that the long-term competition with China and Russia was the Pentagon’s top priorities and cast North Korea, Iran and terrorists as lesser dangers.
The current Pentagon leadership remains committed to the strategy, which has spawned a new vernacular, including concepts like “joint all-domain command and control”—a targeting and command-and-control system that would connect all forces on the battlefield.
The Pentagon’s new strategy faces some significant obstacles. One big one is that the defense budget is more likely to stay flat or even contract over the next several years in the face of soaring federal deficits than to grow at the 3% to 5% rate, after inflation, that Mr. Esper has urged.
Another question is whether Washington will be able to concentrate on the Chinese and Russian threats given persistent tensions with Iran—the product of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign” of imposing severe sanctions against Tehran, and the Iranian regime’s determination to keep supporting militant groups in the Middle East.
Earlier this month, following missile attacks by Iran and repeated rocket firings by Iranian-backed Shiite militants, Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, said the U.S. is keeping two aircraft carriers in the region and will move Patriot antimissile batteries into Iraq to protect bases where U.S. and coalition troops are located.
Regardless, the Pentagon leadership says the budgetary priority is planning for future war. “It makes no sense to buy stuff that isn’t in alignment with” the new defense strategy, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told Congress this month.
China’s missile and naval forces are eroding U.S. military advantages in the western Pacific. Photo: Weng Qiyu/Imaginechina/Zuma Press
To free up funds for the future projects, the military is planning to retire older but still functioning weapons systems. That would add to the strains it faces in carrying out its current missions before new systems come online.
“We’ll end up having to take some more risks in the next couple of years,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Kelly. The Air Force is planning to retire 17 B-1 bombers, 44 A-10 attack planes, as well as 16 KC-10 and 13 KC-135 refueling tankers, so it can channel more spending to future projects.
Within the military, nobody is proposing more far-reaching changes than Gen. Berger. He served as the top Marine commander in the Pacific, then headed the Marines’ Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va., which develops war-fighting concepts and oversees training. The command has run classified wargames such as “Pacific Surprise” and “Ghost Fleet,” which looked at how the Marines might counter the Chinese threat in the decade ahead.
For the Marines, the new Pentagon strategy raised questions about whether it should adapt for a toe-to-toe fight against China or should concentrate on lesser but still challenging dangers.
“The wargames do show that, absent significant change, the Marine Corps will not be in a position to be relevant” in a clash with a “peer competitor,” said Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, who succeeded Gen. Berger as the head of that command.
Gen. Berger’s answer was to reconfigure the Corps to focus on a China threat. The Marines would fight within reach of Chinese missiles, planes and naval forces to blunt any aggression. While other services might lob missiles from long range, the Marines, in military parlance, would operate inside “the weapons engagement zone.”
A landing craft packed with Marines approached the shore in the Marshall Islands in 1944, during World War II. Photo: U.S. Coast Guard/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Some retired Marines caution that too heavy a focus on China may make the Corps less flexible in dealing with conflicts that might erupt in the Middle East and other distant regions, which they consider to be more likely.
“I think it is a mistake to organize yourself in a way to go after a specific region,” said Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general who led the Central Command. “Something could happen tomorrow with the Iranians. The answer is to be ready, expeditionary and balanced.”
At the heart of Gen. Berger’s plan is the establishment of new naval expeditionary units—what the Marines call “littoral regiments”—whose mission would be to take on the Chinese navy.
Share Your Thoughts Are the Marines doing the right thing by pivoting to face the China threat? Join the conversation below.
If a military confrontation loomed, the regiments would disperse small teams of Marines, who would rush in sleek landing craft to the tiny islands that dot the South and East China Seas, according to Gen. Berger and other senior Marine officers. Armed with sensor-laden drones that operate in the air, on the sea and underwater, the Marines would target Chinese warships before they ventured into the wider Pacific Ocean. The Marine teams, which could have 50 to 100 personnel, would fire antiship missiles at the Chinese fleet. Targeting data also would be passed to Air Force or Navy units farther away, which would fire longer-range missiles.
To elude retaliatory blows, the Marines would hop from island to island every 48 or 72 hours, relying on a new generation of amphibious ships, which could be piloted remotely. Other Marine teams would operate from U.S. warships with decoy vessels nearby.
Gen. Berger said the wargames showed that the new Marine capabilities and tactics would create “a ton of problems” for the Chinese forces. “It is very difficult for them to counter a distributed naval expeditionary force that is small, that is mobile, but has the capability to reach out and touch you,” he said.
To carry out the strategy, the Marines would deploy new missile batteries, armed drone units and amphibious ships. A major push is being made to ease the logistical burden, such as exploring the use of 3-D printing on the battlefield to make spare parts. The strategy requires deeper integration with the Navy, and Marine teams might perform other missions like refueling submarines or sub-hunting planes. While most of the effort to transform the Corps is focused on the Pacific, the Marines would retain other forces to respond to crises world-wide, including floating 2,200-strong Marine expeditionary units
To fund the new capabilities, the Marines will dispense with all of its tanks over the next few years, eliminate its bridge-laying companies and cut back on aviation and howitzers. “We need an Army with lots of tanks,” Gen. Berger said. “We don’t need a Marine Corps with tanks.”
Some defense experts are supportive of the plan. “China is the major competitor,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines are rightly stepping out to change their approach to combat.”
A Marine tank during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Marines are phasing out all of their tanks. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Other retired Marines question the feasibility of putting Marines on tiny islands the Chinese would try to bombard.
“It is very easy when developing concepts on paper to underestimate the challenges of logistics,” said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. “With this concept, the Marines need to figure out what in fact is viable and hedge for the possibility that they got it wrong.”
Gen. Berger said that adjusting over the next 10 to 20 years is part of the plan, and that the Marines are proceeding with “the cleared-eyed view that the threat is moving also.”
“Some of the capabilities we assume might pan out, will not pan out, and other technological things will come along that we have not even considered,” he said. The Marines, he said, will use their new plan “as an aim point and monitor the threat all along as we go.”
Write to Michael R. Gordon at [email protected]
🔥 最新回帖
不是说要中国减免债务吗。。。我突然想到辛丑条约这类的。
台湾人民投票表决，多数人同意独立，就独立。
不过说分裂，查查历史，就知道中华民国在前。49年中华人民共和国才成立。说到分裂，其实是49年的共和国搞分裂，从中华民国分裂出去了。现在好意思说台湾搞分裂，脸太大了。
那疫尊要是错过了收复台湾的最佳时机，不成了民族罪人吗？
🛋️ 沙发板凳
不用说对另一个核国家开战，就是为资本自己的利益也不会对中国开战
更不用说21世纪打的是网络和生物战，美国还自大的以为还是航母时代，早晚会吃亏
这次一个小小的病毒就把美国搞得几乎瘫痪，就是一个明证，病毒就是21世纪的新核武器
难道是因为我们喷中国，所以美国要打仗？
你咋还想股票呢这时候。大炮一响黄金万两啊。 打仗的话当然有利trump了。
胡说八道。我感觉全世界就华人一帮人巴不得打仗的。有这种消息各个和打了鸡血一样。打仗了你们真落到好处？一个个心理不正常到疯魔了。普通正常人谁想打仗？就华人上一帮疯疯癫癫的，唯恐天下不乱。
准备，你数落美国，野蛮
不准备，你又笑人傻，蠢，笨
反正永远都是你对
互扔原子弹
核平台湾的豪言壮语还在耳边...
那请告诉大家，如果大陆如果开打台湾，你的观点是什么？
傻子呗，傻子最高兴打仗。不过中美打不起来，都是核武国家
这种动作感觉做之前是筹码，做之后是导火索
把伊朗和俄罗斯官员冻结资产的事也不是没干过
打不起来除非他要冒天下之大不韪
他会触犯众怒
ccp也不敢
都是嘴炮
双方都在备战吧，
美国最近几个月一直在南海挑衅中国大陆。
美国侦查机前几天还飞到了香港外海100公里左右
台湾最大论坛有人贴出了中国大陆也在备战。
这个版上聚齐了一帮不正常的，日常生活中你到哪去见这么一帮希望打仗的疯子。
是没有好处啊，所以谁能不能劝一下断交部那位赵发炎人？
包子虽然胆小如鼠，但同时也脑残，就不知道下决定的时候哪个优先了
这说明早想发战争财了，可说抗疫只花钱不能赚钱。一帮人渣。
哈哈 这个是真的
互仍核弹
不是明摆着吗，这些叫嚣的，不是港独就是台独。
美军的航母成了一个个公主号
你还真低估了trump，我觉得他啥都干得出来。他手底下的也没人会拦着。
互扔不一定，但是美方估计快了。
台独高兴，轮子高兴
冷戰的反義詞.
今年开头还没到三个月，就发生了认知上最大的挑战。一开始发现世界gdp第二大国医疗系统说奔溃就奔溃，要啥没啥。结果没到两个月，发现世界第一大国也一点不输得布其后程。。一切都完全凌乱了。。
它们精分，
我没有盼打仗，我只是悲哀这些事都不由得我来做主
台独就是一堆蠢货。中国大陆和美国打起来。
台湾就是前线。
到时中国大陆的卫士火箭炮，可以直接在沿海对台湾进行大面积的轰炸，都不需要飞机，也不需要登岛。
关键是火箭炮比导弹便宜多了。
美国受的攻击会小很多，毕竟远离中国大陆。 除非美国对中国大陆进行大面积的攻击，中国大陆应该不会动用核武器。
别提了，这3个月是认知颠覆
真打仗，叫嚣的这些人躲得最快，没必要为一份工作丢掉性命。中美大国的利益之争也不可能上升到战争。无论川普的种族歧视还是军事威胁，主要目的还是转移矛盾，疫情严重股市下跌这么多，总的给股民找个泄愤的口子吧。
re，不觉得现在美国有实力打仗
大概率就是俄国设计好的，包括这次瘟疫，还有甩锅战
就是，现在真怀疑是老毛子设的局
那些反共到了极端反华的人。不惜生灵涂炭，只为了消灭所谓“邪恶中共”的人。
N年前我还自我认为是老将。。。。现在这世道，不反华（恐怕还要加上粉川）都不好意思做老将了
那你相不相信包子的野心？
要台上换了邓江胡任何一个人我都觉得打不起来，然而包子首先把两届任期改成了终身制，为了长久的坐在位子上他肯定要堵下面的嘴，现在国际上让外交部频频挑衅，国内激起反美情绪，但光有情绪不发泄能怎么样？20年都到了，23年还远吗？
Senate Approves Legislation To Limit President's War Powers Against Iran
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805594383/senate-approves-legislation-to-limit-presidents-war-powers-against-iran 估计议员们也怕打仗
对，不是航母的时代了。所以到底是谁在为军舰下饺子自嗨。。
基本上一看到连任字眼的基本就是被国内政治书洗脑的，醒醒，连任了也就是再做4年，不是定于一尊，千秋万代
川普为了连任打仗？国内CCTV看多了， 还是先管管战狼们吧，都是牛二一样的命
看隔壁贴 国内要求大家把美金换人民币 还让所有党员捐款，你觉得谁没家底
周围的人都会并只会说 yes
这的确是很神奇的事，一直在这里喊打喊杀，不依不饶的也是这一批
re, 然后把红二代和财产做个表格，想办法弄到国内
哈哈笑喷！说的真是一针见血，这里面还夹杂了几个军盲，只能当乐子看了。