Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?

  • 396 Respostas
  • 66790 Visualizações
*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 10669
  • Recebeu: 1641 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 4383 vez(es)
  • +262/-130
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #315 em: Fevereiro 15, 2020, 10:42:09 pm »

2021 US Defense Budget Overview
https://www.youtube.com/user/HSMW/videos

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

Lusitan

  • Perito
  • **
  • 560
  • Recebeu: 224 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 200 vez(es)
  • +173/-37
  • Hic et Ubique
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #316 em: Fevereiro 20, 2020, 02:36:20 pm »
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2533.html

Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces

The results of the analysis provide consistent evidence for the deterrent effects of heavy ground forces and air defense capabilities, especially when deployed in the general theater of interest but not necessarily on the front lines of a potential conflict.
The more mobile forces are, the less evidence there is that they deter. This is possibly because mobile forces represent a lesser degree of high-level or long-term U.S. commitment or possibly because measuring their effects is more difficult.
When U.S. forces, particularly light ground forces, are stationed inside the borders of the ally or partner to be defended rather than in nearby states in the broader theater, they are associated with an increased likelihood of militarized disputes.
Analysis shows that, when the United States has surged forces forward in an international crisis, there has been a large decline in the incidence of major clashes or war. Deployments of ground and air forces, in particular, were associated with an extremely low incidence of further escalation.
Countries supported by U.S. crisis deployments appear no more likely to achieve their strategic goals in a crisis than countries that do not enjoy such support. These results suggest that U.S. crisis deployments can help maintain the status quo at reduced risk of war, but they do not readily translate into bargaining leverage or improved long-term positions for partner states.
 

*

Lusitan

  • Perito
  • **
  • 560
  • Recebeu: 224 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 200 vez(es)
  • +173/-37
  • Hic et Ubique
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #317 em: Junho 26, 2020, 12:41:54 pm »
https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/the-100-ship-navy/

Um artigo sobre uma potencial redução do número de navios da US Navy. Um exercício especulativo muito interessante.

THE 100-SHIP NAVY

Finally, given narrowed mission sets, what would a 100-ship Navy look like? This is an unlikely scenario but serves as a useful thought experiment. The number “100” is intentionally restrictive; it tests what trade-offs are possible if assumptions about future force levels are not just slightly wrong, but catastrophically so. And when it comes to imagining a future where defense dollars are scarcer, ship quantities are easier to grasp — for policymakers and practitioners alike — than labyrinthine defense appropriation categories, all operating on different timelines.

These younger Americans’ foreign policy preferences bode poorly for military spending. For instance, a 2020 poll found that among millennials and Generation Z (Americans born after 1996), only about 14 percent believe America is “exceptional.” That proportion is two to three times higher among their elders. Faith in American exceptionalism has underpinned decades of consensus in the U.S. foreign policy community on the wisdom of America’s overseas security commitments.

[...]

Meanwhile, at least half the members of the silent generation (born between 1928 and 1945)  believe that the rise of China and political instability in the Middle East are serious threats to the United States. For millennials, those numbers are 35 percent and 27 percent, respectively. By contrast, 62 percent of millennials consider climate change a grave threat. Millennials are also the least likely generation to support deploying American troops if South Korea, Taiwan, or a NATO ally were invaded. The new voters, Generation Z, also care more about climate change than most other threats. At the same time, they are both less confident in the military and more supportive of redistributive economic policies.

[...]

Some of these missions are already diminishing in importance. During the first Gulf War, the United States was a net energy importer; today it is a net producer, with oil imports at their lowest level since the 1980s. Natural gas, which the United States has in abundant supply, will comprise most growth in hydrocarbon usage in the coming decades, and worldwide demand for oil will likely start declining by 2030. The transport of hydrocarbons through the Persian Gulf will remain important, but its disruption may not require the instantaneous response that justifies today’s forward presence.

The urgency of U.S. contributions to missile defense and deterrence has also fallen as regional partners’ capabilities grow. Israel has fielded the Arrow 3 missile system, capable of exo-atmospheric engagement of ballistic missiles. It already has nuclear and conventional deterrent capacity, deliverable by ballistic missile and strike aircraft. Saudi Arabia will soon acquire high-altitude intercept capability with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. The kingdom has also upgraded its air force and embarked upon domestic ballistic missile production to supplement existing inventory.

The growth of Israeli and Saudi organic capacity in strike and missile defense reduces the demand for on-station U.S. Navy guided missile submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers. This could permit the Navy to retire aging platforms or redeploy others to different theaters. Strike capacity will remain possible with the U.S. Air Force’s “Global Strike” capability, which already provides the bulk of coverage. Finally, given Americans’ evaporating interest in Middle Eastern escapades, maintaining local expeditionary capability (with amphibious warfare ships) is a declining priority.

In U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the objective is ensuring a stable balance of power that dissuades China from making revisionist territorial claims. To this end, ships conduct freedom-of-navigation operations, ballistic missile defense of allies and U.S. territories, and theater security cooperation. Relying on dispositions like the carrier strike group and amphibious readiness group, these activities aim to reassure partners of U.S. commitments.

The challenge is that China’s attempts to outmaneuver U.S.-led partnerships often summon nonmilitary instruments of national power, such as tactically oriented trade agreements exemplified by its Belt and Road Initiative. Many of these economic agreements carry security implications. Beijing undermines local states’ diplomatic ties with Taiwan, eroding their incentive to aid Taiwan militarily and limiting U.S. capacity to use these states as staging areas for the same purpose. Kiribati, for instance, the site of the Battle of Tarawa, severed diplomatic relations with Taipei prior to joining the Belt and Road Initiative.

China’s drive for “reunification” with Taiwan threatens the regional balance of power not just because of Taiwan’s strategic location but because Japan and South Korea consider Washington-Taipei relations a barometer of U.S. credibility. If Japan began to question the U.S. security commitment, Tokyo might finally adopt a more muscular defense posture. A militarized Japan would upset already-fraught Seoul-Tokyo relations, and a South Korean counter-buildup could destabilize the Korean peninsula.

But survey data indicate that U.S. military intervention on behalf of Taiwan is highly politically unpopular. So how could the United States prevent Chinese aggression against Taiwan if U.S. amphibious warfare ships, with their ability to provide air and ground support, were withdrawn from the region? The key will be raising the costs of a Chinese invasion.

First, this means increasing Taiwan’s self-defenses on its west coast. Next, the U.S. Navy could shift away from “big deck”-centric operations, since China has already prepared for that fight. Rather than aspiring to the increasingly difficult mission of sea control, which relies on multiple carrier strike groups or amphibious readiness groups deployed simultaneously, the Navy could flip the script. Shifting to denial capabilities provided by multimission surface action groups, subsurface forces, and unmanned technologies could help make it prohibitively expensive for Chinese forces to cross the strait.

Ballistic missile defense of Japan, Guam, and the homeland would remain a core mission area due to the persistent North Korean threat. A redeployment of ballistic missile ships from Central Command, as described previously, could help meet this need in addition to augmenting Japanese capacity through its Kongo-class destroyer. Secondary missions like maritime security, humanitarian response, and protection of shipping can shift to regional partners like India and Australia, whose capacity-building efforts the United States must continue to support.

[...]

If shifting public attitudes forced the Navy to limit its ambitions to immediate natural security priorities, the following might be possible: in Central Command, reducing ballistic missile defense and deterrent strike forces while retaining minimal multimission surface combatant capability for response to oil-shipment disruptions; and in Indo-Pacific Command, meeting ballistic missile defense requirements with redeployed assets from Central Command while replacing sea-control capabilities with sea-denial ones. Given these reimagined missions, we consider the impact of simultaneously freezing essential capabilities in place, eliminating the platforms underlying the most politically unpopular mission sets, and proportionally shrinking the remaining force.

The first consideration is what missions are both essential and beyond political reproach. Nuclear deterrence is a safe bet; even strict isolationists assume the United States will maintain secure second-strike capability. The nuclear industrial base must also be retained because it is among the most difficult sectors to rapidly scale in the event of full mobilization. Moreover, preserving nuclear vessels is advantageous because they do not depend on combat oilers, although carriers will still need to be supplied with aviation fuel. The ballistic missile submarines will thus remain untouched; per the 355-ship plan, their numbers will settle at 10 in 2037.

The second parameter is the cost-effectiveness of programs. Among the large surface combatants, the Navy will need to decommission the aging and maintenance-intensive Ticonderoga-class cruisers favored by Congress. In contrast, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are cost-effective, especially with multiyear procurement and block-buy options.

Third, proportions matter. Individual ships do not exist in a vacuum; they are organized into task-oriented groups, chiefly the carrier strike group. Perhaps the simplest way to reduce the Navy’s size is to reduce its number of carriers, which scales down the required number of escorts. Managing fleet size by proportional adjustment to a fixed number of capital ships is consistent with historical practice.

Because the carrier’s primary mission is power projection, reducing carriers to six would dovetail handily with the public’s declining taste for American presence abroad. The Navy can then reduce escort coverage with cruiser retirements and controlled replacement of older destroyers with the newer Flight III variants. Indeed, the carrier’s future role in U.S. Navy force structure, given advances in anti-access and area-denial technologies, is already under debate.

Similarly, expeditionary missions are increasingly unpopular. Amphibious warfare ships could be reduced to parity with the new number of aircraft carriers, allowing similar maintenance, training, and operational rotations while retaining limited forward-basing and joint forcible entry options. The Marine Corps itself has acknowledged the obsolescence of the requirement that previously determined the number of these ships.

[...]
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17088
  • Recebeu: 1755 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1624 vez(es)
  • +290/-1135
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #318 em: Setembro 10, 2020, 12:21:00 am »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: FoxTroop

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17088
  • Recebeu: 1755 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1624 vez(es)
  • +290/-1135
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #319 em: Novembro 04, 2020, 02:51:10 pm »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: HSMW

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 10669
  • Recebeu: 1641 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 4383 vez(es)
  • +262/-130
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #320 em: Novembro 04, 2020, 10:23:16 pm »
Quando acabarem de contar os votos já o Biden morreu.
https://www.youtube.com/user/HSMW/videos

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17088
  • Recebeu: 1755 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1624 vez(es)
  • +290/-1135
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #321 em: Novembro 05, 2020, 12:41:02 pm »
Joe Biden bate o recorde e já é o candidato presidencial com maior número de votos de sempre nos EUA

Enquanto os olhos do mundo continuam pregados no mapa eleitoral americano e ainda tudo é possível, o candidato democrata já pode gabar-se de um recorde (que estava nas mãos de Obama): recebeu mais votos do que qualquer outro candidato à presidência dos EUA na história do país

Os mais de 70 milhões de votos já contabilizados para Joe Biden, nesta noite de quarta-feira, podem não lhe garantir a vitória nas eleições presidenciais dos Estados Unidos, mas asseguram-lhe um lugar na história: o candidato com maior número de votos populares.

O recorde anterior pertencia a Barack Obama, na eleição de 2008, quando recebeu 69,4 milhões de votos (e 365 votos do colégio eleitoral), que lhe garantiram o lugar na Casa Branca, com o agora candidato Joe Biden como vice-presidente.

Com os Estados Unidos a caminho, por sua vez, do recorde da maior afluência do último século, aos 70 milhões de votos já contabilizados para o democrata, juntam-se os 67 milhões já ultrapassados por Donald Trump, na mesma hora.

https://visao.sapo.pt/atualidade/mundo/eleicoes-eua/2020-11-04-joe-biden-bate-o-recorde-e-ja-e-o-candidato-presidencial-com-maior-numero-de-votos-de-sempre-nos-eua/
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 12272
  • Recebeu: 601 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 236 vez(es)
  • +129/-110
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #322 em: Novembro 05, 2020, 11:15:13 pm »
 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: Cabeça de Martelo, HSMW, dc, Clausewitz

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 10669
  • Recebeu: 1641 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 4383 vez(es)
  • +262/-130
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #323 em: Novembro 06, 2020, 12:05:14 am »
https://www.youtube.com/user/HSMW/videos

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 11904
  • Recebeu: 2008 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 2699 vez(es)
  • +1654/-3466
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: HSMW

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17088
  • Recebeu: 1755 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1624 vez(es)
  • +290/-1135
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #325 em: Novembro 06, 2020, 04:02:22 pm »
DW fact checks wild claims about the vote count

As states continue to count ballots, DW Fact Check helps break down what is true and false when it comes to how ballots are counted and claims of fraud in US elections.

With counting still going on in many states, people are understandably getting jittery about the results of the US election. 

Unfounded accusations of widespread fraud and deceitful vote counting have spread across social media. With cherry-pick information or manufactured videos, these claims have often painted an inaccurate picture of wrongdoing. 

DW Fact Check has looked into a few of the most viral claims.

1. Ballots burned?
Claim:

President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump retweet a video that he described as showing 80 mail-in ballots being burned.

Fact check:

The video went viral on social media with more than a million views, and was then deleted and reposted again and again.

Tens of thousands of accounts retweeted the video, for many because it was alleged proof for what several Republicans — including the president — had falsely claimed for weeks: That mail-in ballots lead to fraud and are more susceptible to tampering. But the video shows just sample ballots from Virginia Beach, as the City confirmed on its website.

City officials pointed out that the burned sample ballots didn't have any bar code on them, which can be found on actual ballots.

The video, according to officials, does not show valid votes for Trump being destroyed.

2. One-sided vote counts?
Claim:

In a viral Tweet subsequently shared on Facebook, a user claimed:

"Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back ahead by 100k...this is how it happens people."

Fact check:

This and similar claims in other states have been made about batches of primarily mail-in votes being one-sided in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden. Throughout the election, Trump and other Republicans cast doubt on mail-in ballots and concerns over the coronavirus. However, for vulnerable populations and those concerned about COVID-19's risk to their family's health, mail-in ballots may have been the safest way to vote.

Many, including DW, predicted ahead of the election that initial vote counts on Election Day would give a lead for Trump — but would later the vote tallies would swing back in Biden's favor once valid mail-in votes were counted. Pew Research Center's survey ahead of the election indicated 25% of Trump supporters planned to vote by absentee or mail-in ballot, whereas 51% of Biden supporters planned to vote this way. Moreover, some states do not allow mail-in ballots to be counted until Election Day, and this includes the key battleground states of Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania. And because there is an unprecedented avalanche of mail-in votes — in large part due to the pandemic — counting these votes takes more time than usual.


Election officials count absentee ballots on November 04, 2020 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

This is a factor that played out in Wisconsin and in other states. According to reporting by the Green Bay Gazette, Trump had a lead of more than 100,000 votes before the city of Milwaukee reported its absentee vote results, but once Milwaukee reported those results, Biden gained a lead of about 8,000 votes statewide. His lead then widened to 20,000 when the cities of Green Bay and Kenosha reported their results.

Some counties in this state count in-person and absentee votes together, so all of their results are released at once. Others, like the large metro-area of Milwaukee, count their absentee ballots in a central location and the totals aren't released until the last one is tabulated. This is what accounted for an increase in votes for Biden.

To the first part of the claim, Wisconsin election officials did not take a break. Vote counting continued through the night there.

Meagan Wolfe, Wisconsin's chief election official, said in a press conference on November 4: "Our municipal and county clerks have worked tirelessly throughout the night to make sure that every valid ballot has been counted and reported accurately."

3. 'Finding' ballots
Claim:

A viral video shows a man rolling a wagon into a vote tallying center in Detroit, which people on social media later claimed had contained 130,000 votes in a black box.

Fact check: 

This is false. The man in the video was a local TV videographer wheeling in equipment to cover the night of vote counting. The station WXYZ debunked the claim by showing the suspicious red wagon and the black box of camera material. 

The article on the conservative site Texas Scorecard claiming this was a case of fraud went viral — but has since been taken down.

Kellye SoRelle, a lawyer based in Texas who recorded the video, in an interview on a conservative YouTube show on 4 November suggested the box could contain invalid ballots, but stopped short of confirming it was what she saw, saying the box being transferred was "very similar to the box we had seen and been watching and monitoring."

"The concern was just a security concern. We don't really know what was going on, with or what items they were bringing in or who was going in."

When asked if it's possible that people could be walking in with fake ballots, she replies: "Absolutely. This is a battleground state. We came up here to Michigan to help Trump because this is a state that's under fire."

The update from WXYZ, however, indicates the fraud suggestion is false.

Stay tuned for further updates and fact checks on this topic.

https://www.dw.com/en/dw-fact-checks-wild-claims-about-the-vote-count/a-55518780
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

dc

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 5212
  • Recebeu: 1606 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 402 vez(es)
  • +332/-243
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #326 em: Novembro 06, 2020, 04:14:11 pm »
País de malucos, parece um reality show.  :o
 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: Cabeça de Martelo, HSMW

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17088
  • Recebeu: 1755 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1624 vez(es)
  • +290/-1135
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #327 em: Novembro 06, 2020, 04:45:01 pm »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17088
  • Recebeu: 1755 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1624 vez(es)
  • +290/-1135
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #328 em: Novembro 07, 2020, 12:42:24 am »
Isto sim era um Homem, um Republicano e um Patriota!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4005900792833348&id=341163402640457

Qualquer semelhança com o Trump é mera coincidência
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: LM, HSMW

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17088
  • Recebeu: 1755 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1624 vez(es)
  • +290/-1135
Re: Estarão os EUA a ficar para trás?
« Responder #329 em: Novembro 07, 2020, 05:00:51 pm »
Principais meios norte-americanos declaram Joe Biden como novo Presidente dos Estados Unidos

Joe Biden, candidato democrata às eleições presidenciais nos Estados Unidos da América, foi declarado o novo Presidente dos Estados Unidos da América pela CNN, New York Times e Associated Press.



A declaração de vitória surge depois da atualização das contagens no estado da Pensilvânia, decisivo para as contas finais.

Joe Biden soma agora 273 votos no Colégio Eleitoral, enquanto Donald Trump contabiliza 214. São necessários 270, no mínimo, para ganhar a presidência.

Ao longo dos últimos dias, os olhos do mundo estiveram postos nos Estados Unidos da América (EUA), numa interminável noite eleitoral.

Dia 3 de novembro, os norte-americanos votaram em massa para escolher o novo presidente (e um recorde de 100 milhões de eleitores votaram antecipadamente).

De um lado, Donald Trump, presidente nos últimos quatro anos e candidato pelo partido Republicano; do outro, Joe Biden, candidato democrata e ex-vice-presidente de Barack Obama.

Joseph R. Biden, de 77 anos, é agora considerado pelos principais meios norte-americanos o 46.º Presidente dos Estados Unidos da América, o mais velho de sempre a entrar na Casa Branca.

Com quase 50 anos de vida política, Biden ocupa um lugar no centro moderado do partido Democrata, tendo sido essa a bandeira que usou durante a campanha para ser nomeado o candidato pelos democratas às eleições.

Ao seu lado terá Kamala Harris. A agora vice-presidente é a primeira mulher negra a ocupar ao cargo. Harris, de 55 anos, senadora pelo estado da Califórnia e procuradora-geral do mesmo estado, foi uma das rivais de Joe Biden nas primárias, mas desistiu da corrida e declarou publicamente o seu apoio ao agora presidente.

Trump tem uma bateria de centenas de juristas a colocar várias ações judiciais em diferentes estados, para tentar impugnar o processo eleitoral. Donald Trump tinha avisado na noite eleitoral que iria recorrer ao Supremo Tribunal para contestar o resultado das eleições.

Os democratas acreditam que as queixas são infundadas, mas dependendo das decisões de vários juízes estaduais e municipais, os recursos podem atrasar a formalização dos resultados, por dias ou semanas.

https://24.sapo.pt/atualidade/artigos/cnn-declara-joe-biden-como-novo-presidente-dos-estados-unidos
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.