US repeatedly defeated in high end wargames

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: semperfoo
Russian doctrine has always heavily favored a massive cruise missile barrage.
Without defenses to stop them our airfields would be degraded, resulting in fewer aircraft getting airborne to defend against attacks.

There are simply too many military airbases and civilian airports in Europe and too few operational Russian Cruise Missiles for it to work out in their favor.
And defending Europe against cruise missile attacks is also not that hard. Lots of Legacy fighter jets around to fly BARCAP.

China, even if they can't meet us toe to toe in a stand up fight, has all the advantage in a fight for Taiwan.

Not really. Invading Taiwan is a nightmarish scenario. China does have the capabilities to force a landing. But then what? If the Taiwanese Army is willing to fight they are perfectly able to make short work of any invasion force while the US disrupts the Chinese supply lines. Of course Taiwan could just roll over once the first paratrooper lands on the Island, but if they dont - fighting against a decently equipped army in one of the more densely populated Islands one the wrong end of a shaky supply line could quickly turn into a nightmare for China.
Bascially its not feasible. They are better off playing the long game and of course they know this.

As for fighting China, the key question is how much time do you have. Early setbacks are inevitable if you let your opponent fire the first shot, no matter how well preapred you are. The main problem the US will be facing in a conflict against China is the pressure by the media, public and allies to end the conflict as soon as possible, no matter the terms.
China can only "win" a conflict against the US by seizing what they can within the first days or weeks at most and establishing a cease fire.
If on the other hand the US is willing to actually go to war with China and commit to a conflict lasting many months to potentially years, China will not be looking at a favorable outcome, no matter what.

It would be as simple as closing their shipping lines. They are already looking at having to import 80% of their crude oil by 2030. That’s just gone during wartime. As is anything else they import, coal, iron, copper and other ores, petroleum products, food… you can absorb that for a couple of months at most.

Guess what happens to their country if the US gets serious about winning the war. Going after the railway and energy network, pipelines are even easier to knock out. Ever thought about what will happen in megapolis of 20 million when there is no electricity for a week?
China would fold like that in a year if it came down to it. Only question, is the rest of the world willing to let a couple hundred millions Chinese die, just because Xi Jinping decided to snatch a couple of islands? I don’t think so.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"last couple of years from my own sources"

HAHA oh grow up. Are you Jesse Ventura or Greer now eh? lol

a reply to: Zaphod58

"last couple of years from my own sources"

HAHA oh grow up. Are you Jesse Ventura or Greer now eh? lol

a reply to: Zaphod58

Makes you wonder what the US government is doing with its defense budget since it's already 100% higher than Russia and China combined! Just saying.

a reply to: Dfairlite

And the North Vietnamese were a bunch of untrained guys running around the jungle in pajamas. And there was no way the Serbs could have shot down an F-117. And so on, and so on.

a reply to: mightmight

a reply to: FingerMan

Yeah, what am I thinking. We're the mighty USA. We're light years ahead of everyone else and no one can defeat our mighty military.

a reply to: ziplock9000

Been reading ATS for years Zaphod is one of the most respected knowledgeable members here.
I would take his view on such matters than most including you who I have never even noticed.

a reply to: ziplock9000

Take your own advice. People do actually talk to each other and share information.

Hubris has burnt many a civilization remember that folks.

The Second Lebanon war for Israel was a bit of a shocker, not the usual steam roll over backwards Arab armies, they actually were brought to a standstill by Russian tech supplied to Hezbollah. Also the recent Syria debacle, didn't work out for the West as expected and also saw Russian tech doing well, things didn't turn out as expected and the Russian side and tech won there as well. Both these events are a heads up for Western complacency

a reply to: Zaphod58

You sound like a broken record, I never once referred to the US as undefeatable or lightyears ahead of whomever. The point is the other side has its weaknesses too. And as its most often the case in war, it actually matters very little who has the better tech.


a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Actually the Israelis did steam roll over them when they were finally stopped #ing around with their air campaign and tactical incursions and let lose during the later stages of the campaign. Their ground forces were perfectly capable to advance over defended ground. They ended up taking casualties of course – a lot of unnecessary casualties – just like they did in the old days.
Read up on their old campaigns. They always had their fair share of screwups and Lebanon 2 was nothing different.
People just seem to have forgotten about that part, remember only the victory and not the war.
Don’t get fooled by the narrative. Its usually wrong.

a reply to: mightmight

And yet all I hear is how there's no way China or Russia could possibly defeat the US under any circumstances.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Define defeat. In a battle, a campaign, a war?

Can China sink a US Carrier? Of course it can, nothing is impossible in war. The relevant question is whether the US would be willing to fight on, entering a allout conflict lasting possibly years over a couple of Islands. I doubt it.

How Russia's most advanced military equipment stacks up against NATO hardware
US Air Force F-35s wrecked their enemies in mock air combat
US aircraft carriers are the world's most powerful ships and are nearly impossible to kill — here's why


Yet after the article these three links above are included also. I was always told what you see in the military is 2 generations behind in current dev and commercially it is 3. Meaning what we see and hear about is about obsolete when it hits the media.

The US would never lose it's homeland but we could be attacked by cyber and EMP methods. Breakdown delivery across the nation and we are screwed. One Second After is a great book to read about that. The only thing a world conflict would do is bring us home to defend the US. Call everything back. Bases around the world could and would be destroyed but at this point, in the global sense, there is no 'need' for a war yet.

Question - Are these games showing the reactionary measure to an invasion/attack or the US initiating? I just cannot see us not laying waste if we were given the oppurtunity for an opening salvo/attack against any country.

Raise your hand if you think actual results of US v China/Russia war games are for public consumption.

Raise your hand if you think a computer can simulate the spirit, grit, determination, and patriotism of a soldier, marine, sailor, pilot.

Raise your hand if you think a couple US government funded think tanks justify their existence by finding "inadequacies" in current strategies and capabilities.

Bonus...
Raise your hand if you think that the members of a US government funded think tank who are also receiving funding from US government contracted manufacturers of military supplies/weapons, might have incentive for finding failures in the status quo BECAUSE THEY JUST MIGHT HAVE IDEAS ON WHERE TO BUY NEW BUT EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT DEPLOYED SOLUTIONS.

Bonus bonus, Hillary Clinton was involved with the rollout of CNAS in 2007, just sayin.
CNAS, Hillary, 2007 Rollout Event

a reply to: matafuchs

Carriers are hard to kill, but you don't have to kill them. Put a hole in the deck and they're done until it's fixed. Pop a couple screws so they can't get up to speed, and they're done until they're fixed. There's more than one way to kill a carrier.

a reply to: primus2012

Raise your hand if you have a realistic view of military capabilities and don't go around thinking we're unbeatable because we're the US.

Raise your hand if you ignore politics and see the degradation going on in our military over the last 20 years.

Raise your hand if you're capable of seeing the reality of the BS games our leadership has played with our broken procurement system.

Bonus- Raise your hand if you've bothered to pay attention to the fact that our readiness rates are # because Washington has sat around saying we're the greatest military in the world and we can't be challenged, while killing morale, wearing our equipment out fighting an endless war in the Middle East, and expanding our requirements with less and less.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This post is 100% spot on.

Ask me why, if anyone doubts this.

a reply to: Zaphod58




Too much complacency and too much 'American exceptionalism' thinking in all branches.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: imitator

If we decided to pump out airplanes and tanks today, the question would still remain "out of what" ? There aren't giant stockpiles of steel and aluminum laying about and what is would be quickly snapped up.

True... however missiles don't need that much metal on them and can be quickly made. UAV's can also be quickly made, the US trains more UAV pilots than fighter jet pilots.

The way of planes, ships and tanks is almost a thing of the past. Not only that, the technology we have today allows civilian planes, ships etc. to be fitted with the latest technology to engage our enemy from up to thousands of miles away.