Can the US win a war ? ...

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Skelkie3
The English have always been pirates, but, at least US has thrown more and more of that influence off...

Just when I thought I was understanding your point, you throw in this incomprehensible twaddle. What do you mean. Pirates? I know the Pirates of Penzance and Edward Teach (aka Blackbeard) and a host of other sea dogs came from the English shores, but your point is lost on how these are related to the ability of our American cousins to win a war.

Regards

I was being generous towards my own English family ( whom I do dearly love ) by calling them pirates. Most have other expressions... the Spanish, I believe- call us perros...





[edit on 3-7-2009 by Skelkie3]

Originally posted by Amagnon
Why are Americans always talking about fighting and winning wars?

We're not, though if that's the way your media portrays us, that works. Or perhaps it's because, god forbid, you're on the _weaponry_ forum.

Because their MSM propagnda has conditioned them to believe that they are surrounded by enemies - and that war is justified and normal.

Really? You must be watching a different MSM than me, much less making some a broad claim about our entire media industry. What country are you from? I'm hoping not the United States since that'd suggest you're ignorant of your own culture.

Have they have no idea that everything they are being told is a lie? Do they simply believe everything they hear on the MSM?

Pretty broad brush strokes.
Any specifics? Or do you like blowing generalizations out your rear?

Do they really believe that a starving nation like Afghanistan, where the population is so decimated that the average age is under 20 can pose such a threat to the US that they constantly need to be there - bombing and killing them?

In most developed countries, barring baby booms, about half the population give or take, is young. Hell, let's look at Russia. And how have we constantly been there? Pretty sure we weren't there when I was born, in grade school, or most of middle school.

For what purpose? They are no threat - it is a lie - NK does not want to attack anyone, it just wants to be left alone - but the US is imposing sanctions - harrassing their ships - to what purpose? To create a conflict - to bring them under the control of the Bilderscum.

This suggests you're ignorant of the conflict. The Afghanistan state is not a threat barring collapse and regional instability - it's the forces that the Afghanistan country possesses, but are not subject to the central government, that is a threat. -And tell me, can you show me evidence of sanctions on Afghanistan from the U.S., or harassing their ships?
I'll be waiting patiently - I've got a long summer.

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
America ability to win a war on all fronts has been disabled, both against a massive conventional force and the assymetric ones too.

This should be interesting!

Starting with the latter, no clear objectives: The US is a force of occupation, securing forward facing bases in or around actual 'energy/resource interest' countires. History tells us going back 4000 years, all occupying forces will be repulsed or withdraw under stalemate/defeat.

No clear objectives are a characteristic of assymetric battle and not a failing attribute of the United State's military. And how are the U.S. forces one of occupation? -If I recall, that was a reason Iraq went so poorly. We were designed to roll across Europe and lay waste to conventional, established entities and forces. -How was Vietnam, Korea, etc. an energy/resource interest? Nice use of nationalist b-sh-t you've got going there. And really? 4,000 years? Nice arbitrary number. Even better statement - what you're saying suggests all imperialist objectives have failed. Ever. I'll have a discussion with the Roman, British, French, etc. empires.

Secondly, the US couldn't fund or fuel a 'major conflict' for more than two or three weeks. Firstly, the USA as a country is broke.... any major war would see BRIC countries stop buying US treasuries and they'd go broke within a month. Secondly, Russian, Chinese or Indian subs would take out the ant trail of oil tankers crossing the atlantic and the war machine would dry up and idle within weeks. America is only self sufficient in generating hot air and bull#

This is brilliant. Please look up 'strategic reserves'. Most countries have them. And really, oil is the lifeblood of most countries, you think neutral countries wouldn't sell for profit, or that potential enemy states - Russia, Iran, etc. have the economic ability to drop the American market? They' d collapse long before we would. And particularly if the U.S. dollar collapsed - which under global wartime conditions I imagine would be detached from the global market. It'd be inexcusably ignorant to suggest such contingencies aren't thought out before hand. We've suspended the public market for minor occassions before, what makes you think a large-scale disruption wouldn't be defended against?
And, feel free to take out the tankers. China and India would be killing their own industries much faster than ours. And Russia? Let's see how long those oil fields last - and they have much smaller strategic reserves at present time if I recall. [Can't remember the source, may be incorrect about the last point.]

Russia has plenty of oil/gas to fuel a successful defensive war in eurassia.....China doesn't and is in a similar energy position to the US. I'm sure all those Ipod Factorys though could quickly retool to churn out 1 million AK-47s a week and billions of round of ammunition.

Really? Now we're discussing Russia in the European theatre? You think your refineries and pumps would exist past two or three hours? The U.S. wouldn't even need to bother with those targets, you have the European Union to deal with. And China is in a much more fragile position than the U.S. as far as energy. Cut off it's single prime African supplier and Iran, and it's gone. The U.S. supplies the majority of its oil domestically - in-house and with Canada, it's largest energy trading partner.
You might want to review your own[?] armed forces as well - the AK-47 hasn't been standard for decades, and your weapons require much more industry to produce.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Iblis]

The America of today is very different of that of the mid 40's early 50's ... all this high tech gadgetry, the bits/chips come from Asia... the US couldn't retool for sustained combat, they've lost all the plant, technicalskills and finance to do so.

So have many countries - you think Sukhoi or Mig is an entirely domestic industry? And the majority of our hardware comes from Britain and Japan, an our own soil. The _vast_ majority. Neither of which are light-weights, and if you're about to do the disservice of both countries to suggest their war-time industry could be anhilated while Russia's magically couldn't, that's more "hot-air" as you kindly put it.

Looking at who's got the biggest gun or exotic stealth bomber doesn't even come into it anymore

Well, you guys technically have the biggest gun. Cannon, non-standardized nuke, and now, the FOAB. But.. thanks? And how would a B-2 not come into it? Not as though we're producing anymore, so whooptie-doo with the industry. The B-2 was designed to instantly and without warning decapitate enemy command and control. Twelve of them should be able to fulfill their intended purpose. Hell, two or three could. They were originally not intended to become standardized as conventional bombers.

The money numbers to fund the USA military against the Chinese Peoples Army or Russians who can field fighters at a fraction of the cost & at high effectivity levels equal to that of US combat troops.

Not entirely sure the point you're making here.
The Chinese army is not yet professional, much less well equipped, much less with standardized equipment, MUCH less have proper logistical support. China couldn't invade Europe or North America if they wanted presently. How do you feed and mobilize that army? I've yet to ever hear an answer to this question - so if you could legitimately provide that, I'd be enthralled.

The complexity and cost means the US have a defunct Military doctrine... even thought the Pentagon has had a Decade to change the structure, the top brass still go for Star Wars type programs with massive budgets, pork barrelling, and cronyism on defence contract and equipment procurement.

Military doctrine is relative to the present conflict, so your point is ambiguous and moot. And I'd enjoy any kind of particulars on this. Suggesting we abandon one spectrum of combat in favor for another is suicide.

For example: Who would have thought that artillery shells and tanks rounds turned into massive roadside bombs would have taken out more tanks and APCs than the Iraqi army during invasion as the munnions were intended. One dimensional outlook, some cheap but insightful lateral thinking, unconventional tactics and the US war systems breakdown. It can't adapt quickly enough and complex systems will collapse due to chaos theory.

Most people. That's the concept behind landmines. Particularly when the underside of the vehicle is the least armored, and your call is to _not_ kill every civilian on site. And what's your idea of quickly enough? Have you not seen the latest vehicles? You think it's just random luck that there have been substantially fewer casualties?

Too much opinion, not enough fact in many posts here I fear.

reply to post by Skelkie3

As a veteran and military academy graduate, I assure you we can win any war. As far as government involvement, it has always been so. We were not allowed to bomb sensitive areas in Europe, like the cathedral at Notre Dame, etc. Similarly, orphanages and hospitals in any war... You see, we have a sensitivity for people and history. Patton and Eisenhower were particularly well-educated academy graduates on these points.

Your tax dollars have given our military capabilities that you do not know. These are kept secret or top secret, obviously, for safekeeping so our potential threats do not know our weaknesses.

The US is not an aggressor, and desires only to provide peace on earth. We work in cooperation with the United Nations to provide a canopy of protection in hostile zones to foster growth of democracies that are sensitive to human rights and world cooperation. We do not occupy. All of our forces are in countries at the request of the countries, including today in Iraq. Afghanistan, a corrupt nation, has been providing the world with heroin for a very long time. Afghanistan has also lacked central regulatory bodies that are capable of governing the populace, leading to human rights violations and discrimination against women. If you lived in these countries, under these rulers, you would not know peace and safety. You would not sleep well, and you would sacrifice your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness.

In the early 1700s, Scots came to America. It was during this time that America wanted freedom. The movement for freedom was a product of Scotland in America. Perhaps you have seen the movie with Mel Gibson called "Braveheart." When the Scots were driven out, many came to American soil and began to push for freedom from England. That love for freedom rings true in the hearts of most Americans today. Most are willing to fight for freedom wherever it can exist. Some do not care.

While we respect the sovereignty of other nations, we question the internal tactics of some against their own people. It is an international effort, spearheaded by the Americans, to provide a safer and more peaceful world. It is not an effort to make a New World Order.

Some nations choose to oppress their own population, such as North Korea. While we do not interfere, we watch. When the world calls for action, the US is first to step up to fight for the freedoms of others. We do not boast of this, we quietly support the basic human nature to have freedom to choose in life.

We make mistakes. We try to be conservative politically. Sometimes it frustrates our military forces. However, we have the most loyal and spirited military force in history, who see that the larger picture of peace on earth means peace at home.

God bless the military man and woman that defend peace, wherever they are called to fight. While it may not appear to assist us directly at home, it indirectly moves the world toward a more stable peace for generations to come.

When you see the fireworks, remember it started in Scotland. You have the Scottish to thank for the love for freedom in our country. America was here from 1492 to 1776, that's almost 300 years, before a Scotsman called for independence...

Let freedom ring around the world in due time.

Eisenhower mentioned that the person who wants war the least of all is the military man or woman. I think if you look back in history at our nation, you will find that America seldom if ever declared war when a President was in office who had been in the military. The Bush family was an exception to the general rule, probably for other reasons.




[edit on 4-7-2009 by Jim Scott]

reply to post by Jim Scott


Well said my friend.
Mr Scott has made some valuable points.
many of which will be summarily dismissed by the anti US crew.

Originally posted by Skelkie3

Originally posted by C0bzz

2. The US military uses lots of high technology that can be easily defeated by a sophisticated enemy. Guided weapons, drones, etc.- rely on secure communications to operate. Jamming is as old as radio... ' nuff said.

As is ECCM.

Nuff said,

Let me reiterate - you don't know what you're talking about.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by C0bzz]

Well, that's the question... even given the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about... what happens to these lines off comm., when somebody who knows what they are doing wants to take them out ?
ECM ( electronic countermeasures ) have been around since WW2.

Are you ( thank God ! ) the only one who knows about this stuff ?
I was worried there for a moment !

Well the details of ECM and ECCM (Electronic Counter Counter Measures) are generally classified however it is not a common view among analysts, defense experts, and studies, that modern military communications can be easily jammed. A great deal of time, money and testing has been invested in ECCM, and furthermore ECCM can be used to detect an neutralise ECM components, having exactly the opposide of the intended effect. This is because ECM itself is emitting energy.

Unless you can explain to me why ECM 'easily' defeats Western ECCM (and vice versa) then any claims will be ignored. The correct answer should be, "I don't know", and neither do I.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by C0bzz]

I would like to add to my earlier comments that the Original Post seems to assume that the Iraq war is emblematic of US warfighting.

I think it should be considered that the Iraq war could arguably have been conceived as little more than a raid on the US Treasury. Some would say that it is not an example of greed competing with national security, but of greed running completely unopposed under the guise of national security. So we cannot assume that the problems which have haunted Operation This Can't Possibly End Well will be nearly as pronounced in a war which the United States takes seriously. Even Antal's books, which some would consider pessimistic, attribute a significant portion of the danger to arrogance rather than inability, and in fact only even dignifies the question of inability with regard to logistics (which, unless we go to war with the UK or Australia, is mostly justifiable [I'm not sure why, but people who speak English have a real knack for killing- Candians notwithstanding, God bless them]).

We should remember that the US air campaign in the former Yugoslavia faced tech-savvy countermeasures (most likely thanks to the aid of Russian advisors) and was still about as effective as air campaigns ever are (I'm the last person who will ever claim that a war can be won from the air though).

We also need to remember that wartime graft and intelligence leaks existed even during the world wars, which the US faired pretty well in. Sure, the Bush family opened American resources up to our enemies, a few people got paid for wasting time on stuff they knew would never work, and some secrets got sold, but it happens to the enemy to. That's the nature of plans- they go horribly wrong. But we managed to come out on top.

And last but not least, we should keep in mind that nobody has done it. There's no shortage of people who want to see bad things happen to America, and some of them have millions or even billions of dollars to invest in buying intelligence, and designing new weapons and teaching troops new tactics.
Iraq knew we were coming again for 10 years, they had the Russians in their corner, they had modern nations skirting sanctions to supply them with technology and equipment they shouldn't have had, they had a plan to fight back, some of them even managed to carry out that plan- and they got the royal snot kicked out of them by an American force that was too small, too weakly supported both internationally and domestically, and badly wanting for many preparations that should have been a given for a military like ours (like interpreters and food).
And where's the North Korean army? Still in North Korea I presume?

My point is not that we're invincible because we haven't been taken down yet. My point is that you and I aren't really in a position to know if our plans would work, so we can only make assumptions. I assure you, Saddam thought his plan would work. He may well have felt much as we do about our insights into the weaknesses of the US military. And he's dead now.
If you or I can sit in front of the computer alone for 20 minutes and come up with a way to do what an entire nation failed to do with 10 years of prep time, then either we are two of the greatest military minds in history, or our plans are flawed, or the US has a countermeasure in place which we are not aware of. And I don't know about you, but I'm not one of the greatest military minds in history.

Again, far be it from me to claim invicincibility for the US. I'm usually the first one to attack the post gulf war paradigm of US supremacy. I'm just saying that a lot of smart people in a lot of powerful nations seem to feel like they can't stop us from being total jerks, and the ones who felt like they could stop us so far ended up being wrong, and that might mean something.

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by 3DPrisoner

 

What, you think you can win a debate by dodging a question and resorting to semantics? My question stands regardless of your sad attempt at misdirection. What source do you have that "just about" every able bodied Russian is in camo and army boots?

I can resort to semantics when you are using them to misrepresent what I said. You were caught red handed. This is tantamount to dishonesty so whine and cry now all you want.

If it is not in your knowledge base that Russia still has a full fledged draft that vacuums in just about all able bodied young men (even the ones fresh out of college) then this coupled with your deceptive methods of debate is enough to earn you the brush off.

Good day.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
You keep dancing around the fact that the U.S. is in no way capable of taking the losses that these two armies have endured in the past regularly and who have shelled out a good amount of casualties to the belligerants who they fought in turn.

That was then; this is now. Do you honestly think that the Russians would eat up that many combat casualities now?

The US Army can take casualities; it's the civilian population and the government that can't. When US troops first arrived in Bosnia, two guys were killed in a helicopter accident. Right after that, the anti-war crowd were screaming it was like Vietnam, we were going to lose, and we needed to leave.

In a head to head confrontation with the U.S. I certainly believe that the ratio that the Russians will endure will far outreach what the U.S. will stick around for. And yes I do believe that the Chinese will certainly eat up those exact numbers if need be today.

I don't disagree with your second paragraph at all. And this will be used to the advantage of a Russian or Chinese army. Think about it.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Curious, that few are knowledgeable of Scots contributions to Empire, much less the US...
My grandmother's people from Argyleshire were forced out to America ( via Canada ) in one of the migrations of which you speak.
However, wasn't the Mel Gibson movie about Richard the Bruce, and isn't this an episode many centuries earlier ?

Calligraphy support!



I

reply to post by 3DPrisoner


My quoted post included the words "just about" as anyone who looks at it can see. It was never my intention to intentionally misquote you, or I would have done so through the whole post. You're just seeing a slight where none was intended so that you don't have to own up to the fact that you made a statement that you aren't prepared to back up... with a source.

"You should already know that" is not a source. Try again. Or give me the "brush off" because my one simple request is too much for you to handle. It's your choice, but remember that the one you're going with so far makes you look rather silly.

reply to post by 3DPrisoner


3D, my five year old granddaughter knows more about military capabilities, strategy, and tactics than those you postulated.

And she doesn't know (fill in the blank.)

First misconception. Numbers. Numbers mean absolutely nothing. Assuming one maintains freedom of movement, numbers mean diddly squat, and any student of history, and more specifically military history can find and recount hundreds of examples that prove that fact.

Guagemela. The Chosin Reservoir - and by the way the Marine Division was surrounded by 22 Chinese Divisions, inflicted the highest casualty ratio in history, destroying seven CHINESE divisions in the process. And by the way, a Marine Division consisted of 12,500 men, and the Chinese Divisions each contained 16,500 men.

And while we're talking about the Chinese, after the US pulled out of Viet Nam, some of the Chinese citizens who lived in North Vietnam felt they were being mistreated, and the Chinese Army invaded across the border to "teach them a lesson."

The North Vietnamese Army kicked their asses. The same Army that the US never suffered a loss to.

Go do some homework. Guagemela, Xenophone and the Ten-Thousand, LZ X-Ray, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea. Midway, Cowpens, Rourke's Drift.

You think the Chinese are badasses?

On October 28, 1951, Lt. Lloyd C. Burke led an assault on three fortified bunkers putting out heavy fire which stopped the assault cold. Burke mad a lone charge and wiped out one bunker, killing the crew. Making another lone attack on the center bunker, he threw grenades and killed the three man crew with his pistol. Ordering his men to attack the third bunker, Lt. Burke caught several enemy grenades in midair and threw them back at the enemy, somewhat inspiring his men. Securing a light machinegun and a few boxes of ammo, he positioned himself on a knoll and poured fire directly into the enemy, killing another 75 enemy soldiers. Cradling the machinegun in his arms, he led another assault, killing another 25 enemy soldiers, securing the position.

On September 4,5, of 1952, Private Alford McLaughlin on his voluntary second tour in Korea, found himself alone manning a forward post, under constant artillery and mortar fire, as he alone, worked to improve his position. The first night McLaughlin was attacked by an enemy battalion which he engaged with continual, devastating fire, alternating between his two overheating machineguns, his carbine, and grenades. Painfully wounded that evening, he would fire a machinegun from the hip until overheating blistered his hands, forcing him to drop that machinegun to cool while he grabbed the other. When both machineguns became too hot to handle, he picked up his carbine and grenades and continued to engage whole shouting to his distant comrades to encourage them to hold. And they did. McLaughlin alone accounted for 150 dead and another estimated 50 wounded.

Numbers don't mean diddly squat.

Never have.

Never will.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by dooper]

...but in spite of this the Chinese pushed Western forces out of North Korea, which kinda blows your theory.

But why were we removed from Korea?

Reading some of the gung-ho meathead drivel makes me want somebody to come along and whoop the stupid out of the US, and that's where I live. No wonder our reputation precedes us.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I would like to add to my earlier comments that the Original Post seems to assume that the Iraq war is emblematic of US warfighting.

Well,uh...yeah - I did.
That is, except for some large encounters of the Korean War- Iraq has been representative ( emblematic ? ) of US ' warfighting ' for about sixty years...

You can build bigger carriers, and call it a new strategy- if you wish.
Replace those thunderbolts and corsairs with A10 Warthogs...
Substitute Hue City for Falujah all damn day and talk about the ' new warfighting ' - but, this may make you seem a less than an astute observer, at least.

Bear in mind, I have been corrected twice in this thred already !

REWIND!!!
From the OP:
"Mercenaries ( Russian ) are known to have highjacked various laser guided munitions during the Iraq invasion... causing ( in some cases ) very expensive bombs to fall into empty fields. It's likely that most aborigines cannot figure out laser- light frequencies, but my hypothetical question has to do with people who are MODERN and Who Would Fight Back."

I'd like to hear a little more on this please.

Regards,
Maestro