"Am I missing anything?"

Yes, you are missing a fact that American Media like WSJ and Fox are there to advance certain agenda and are not there to report Reality. These Conservatives will never rest until we become a banana republic or totally broke / unraveled by their ultra-expensive, useless agenda and then they will pride themselves say that they got rid of Lefty states like California and New York when their Conservative Nirvana will consist of Texas, Alabama and few other Southern States which are welded to unrestricted 'cow-boy' policy and unrestrained jungle raj of Capitalism.

New York Times also has its ideological blind spots, otherwise we would not had such 'behind the curve' editorial by NYT -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26sun1.html?_r=1

Bottom line - American Media is hell bend on providing agenda driven reporting. In such absence of respectable journalism, we need to read Blogs to get better understanding. Why do you think we keep coming to your blog?

"U.S. satellites would detect an ASBM as soon as it was launched, providing a carrier enough warning to move several miles before the missile could reach its target. To hit a moving carrier, a U.S. government weapons specialist said, China's targeting systems would have to be "better than world-class.""

And I am sure that the US would just let China sink a carrier without consequence. Does the PLAN have a death wish? Don Bacon is a Netizen who can be safely ignored 99% of the time.

It's the tendency of democracies, broadly speaking, to under estimate security needs and marginalize looming threats - paradoxically, as far as America is concerned, it's the tendency of great powers to constantly be fretting about enemies. Thusly, no opinion expressed in above is perfectly right or perfectly wrong. I would say though that given the great responsibility that has fallen to America as defender of the Western tradition and, as Europe fades, its increasing isolation in that regard, I think we're better served by an over estimation of needs and an eternal vigilance against complacency.

Certainly, given America's commitments within its global strategy, it's much cheaper to stop wars before they start than to try and win them once the bullets start flying - which is why we have two carrier groups in the vicinity of North Korea right now and will soon likely have three. That's expensive - but given our goals much better to have the capacity than to be found wanting come crisis time.

Let's create a Security Threat Scale. The Soviet threat would get a value of 100%, given their capability to completely destroy the population of the United States, and their large military capabilitiies and some ideological appeal, and given their level of ruthlessness--less than during Stalin's purges, but enough to try to bump off a troublesome Pope and enough to send a HEzbollah leader's castrated son back in a box with his testicles in his mouth.

No threat to the US today would rank at more than say 10%. China 10%, Iran 10% (less capable but more ruthless, so a nuclear Iran means Centcom is pushed back to Tampa), North Korea 10% (very capable, very ruthless), AL-Qaeda 5%, etc. Even the sum total of these threats doesn't equal the Soviet threat.

But our expectations of victory are much higher than during the Cold War. We complain about victories in Iraq and Afghanistan that were, by historical standards, bloodless for the US.

Second, capabilities for Great Power war do not automatically equate to capabilities for imperial policing. A century ago, one battleship was less useful for imperial policing than a dozen or twenty gunboats, because one battleship could only be in one place. Eleven carrier groups can only be in eleven places, (really only four or five places). What todays gunboats are, I'm not sure, but I think we may need more of them.

....is not the only issue here. As a nation, we have come to depend on our National Security apparatus far too much. The principal reason that our economy has decayed to the point that it has is because we have spent too much time expending resources and not enough investing in or developing existing or new ones.

Physical security is the simple part.....more guns, more manpower and more money. The problem is that we don't have more money. We have sold off our industrial production capacity (I don't care what anyone says....weapons are industrial output), we have shut down our controllable domestic resource production and we have allowed our educational system to become largely second-rate. Without these things, the requisite money cannot be generated.

During the Cold War we had those assets at our disposal. Policies to implement them were rational and based on their availability, however, without those resources, pretending to exist in a comparable environment is sheer folly. Regardless of the "international focus", the situation cannot be met on reasonable terms unless adequate provisions are made....preferably in advance. The U.S. does not control its own fuel supply, electronic components (even critical ones) are imported, metals, textiles....need I continue? Under these conditions the question becomes, 'What kind of security are we fighting for?'

Yes, the Right-Wing punditocracy and politcos have themselves worked into a lather over things that generally do not exist. Their greatest failing will be failing to produce an economy capable of meeting tomorrow's challenges. Anyone can worry. Who has the plans to ensure that the GDP is sufficient to provide a slice large enough to create the needed military force? We know China will soon surpass us in both GDP and per capita output. How do we counter that? Will it even be safe to try?

Rather than attempting to build nations where we are not wanted we need to develop our country and rebuild the alliances we have come to depend on. Creating another Cold War is asking for trouble unless we are prepared in advance.

As a military officer, I recognize that defense will probably have to take cuts in these tough economic times, along with every other gov't bureaucracy. We can't have a world class military if we don't have a world class economy. But if you want deep cuts, you will have to accept some risks that may inhibit your foreign policy options, or raise the costs of credibly using military force. We can deal with a nuclear Iran, BUT--do you want the US Navy to still have the ability to clear the Straights of Hormuz where 1/3 of the world's oil passes through if tensions start flaring in the region? If we don't have that capability or it's severely reduced, you'll watch oil prices skyrocket and ripple across the global economy.

Do you want the Navy to be able to counter the new DF-21 missile China is fielding, or will we just call their bluff every time? In light of the 9-11 attacks and our lack of intel on Iranian and NK nuclear capabilities, are you willing to accept a reduction in our intel capabilities? This is what irks me because no politician wants to admit they're accepting those risks...they're usually out of office before the chickens come home to roost.

It's been a long time since I've seen a national security document that explains exactly what an administration expects the military to handle...it was last done under George H. Bush's admin who explicitly said we wanted the military to handle the outbreak of 2 simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRC). Since then, we haven't debated seriously our expectations of the military so we can size our forces appropriately to meet those objectives, and put any leftover capacity in the Reserve/Guard or conduct cuts from there.

So I will turn it over to the good professor: As a military officer, I accept we need to make some cuts because I believe gov't fiscal spending is eating away at our economy. But you tell me--what threats do you expect the US military to handle and what level of casualties (let's say high, med, and low with high being WWII levels and low being current levels) are you willing to accept? Do you want us to handle 1 MRC and 1 humanitarian/NEO effort? To maintain the tempo of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, but not both?

China is still far from a real threat to American hegemony. Currently China's biggest ambition is to secure the shipping lines. With a war undergoing in two neighboring countries (Afg-Pak), China has expressed little concerns publicly. When a figherman got detained by Japan, and when Ms Hilary Clinton unilaterally declared the South China sea is going to be the south America sea, the best China could do is just to protest. If you call that a challenger, then it must the lambest in the history.