Is the Government setting up the armed forces to lose?

i came across this article,that was quite interesting. For all those that think 'we ought to just stomp in and kill Russians',well,better think again. This is about a book that has just been written(as far as I know) that paints a picture of some major failings of our armed services.But an even bigger picture of our bought out congressmen pushing technology that doesn't work,and therein lies the problem.

For those that are thinking right now,we are America,we can do it! I would suggest you read this. A retired Marine General proved that they would lose if they tried to fight the Russians with this. I am going to go buy the book and read all of it. Should be interesting.



www.informationclearinghouse.info...

originally posted by: Dimithae
i came across this article,that was quite interesting. For all those that think 'we ought to just stomp in and kill Russians',well,better think again. This is about a book that has just been written(as far as I know) that paints a picture of some major failings of our armed services.But an even bigger picture of our bought out congressmen pushing technology that doesn't work,and therein lies the problem.

For those that are thinking right now,we are America,we can do it! I would suggest you read this. A retired Marine General proved that they would lose if they tried to fight the Russians with this. I am going to go buy the book and read all of it. Should be interesting.

Lol...yes because Russia's old crappy equipment is better than our....

Have you ever served?

I did.

Our equipment is not the greatest but it is more than adequate for a conventional war with russia.

a reply to: johnwick

Then how did a retired General prove that the Russians would lose in a mock battle he was challenged too by the armed forces? Sorry I mean the Americans would lose.

a reply to: Dimithae

So you are saying, that the US spending more on military funding than the entire rest of he world combined is setting the armed forces up to fail?

How long have you been watching Fux News?

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Did you read the article?
second line

a reply to: Dimithae

Lol there is no link in your post.. its very hard to read.

a reply to: Dimithae

Please folks, at least read the article I linked. It explains the how and why. I didn't want to blast anyone with a wall of text on here,so I gave a brief summary and a link. At least read it so you can agree or disagree armed with what the article is saying.


My apologies for that. I don't know what happened when I linked it,but I messed up something.

a reply to: Dimithae

Dim you didn't post any links

bad boys, bad boys, watcha gonna do (second line)

Just had to fix it before I hit submit!!!

Did you read the article?

I would if I could find a link?

a reply to: Kukri

HAHA Thought you had me! Jk, Heck if I know what happened to my stupid link,but had to go back and fix it.No wonder no one was reading it. lol

information clearing house is a personal BLOG site. The guy is rampant anti-US. I'm positive if you seriously want to know how a military confrontation between Russia and the US would play out that you can find many more credible sources.

I am sure movies like this can bring something in mind..
I wonder what abilities these forces do have.. looking forward to when someone has read the book.

a reply to: Dimithae

Okay read your link even looked up some reviews. And I say baloney, there are always generals bitching about something generals said the tanks wouldn't be any good they were wrong, generals said tanks should be used to support infantry they were wrong, Admirals still believe battleships were superior up to World War II they were wrong. And chances are this yo-yo. Is probably wrong to.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Read the article,it is about a book this guy wrote that researched it. He states what he saw.

But Cockburn’s book is not without humor. He tells the story of Marine Lt. General Paul Van Riper, the scourge of the Unmanned Revolution in Military affairs, who repeatedly expressed contempt for the scientifically unsupported theories of unmanned war. To humiliate Gen. Ripper with a defeat in a massive war game as leader of the enemy Red force against the high-tech American Blue force, he was called out of retirement to participate in a war game stacked against him.

The Blue force armored with a massive database (Operational Net Assessment) and overflowing with acronyms was almost instantly wiped out by General Ripper. He sank the entire aircraft carrier fleet and the entire Blue force army went down with it. The war was over. The 21st century US high-tech, effects-based military was locked into a preset vision and was beaten hands down by a maverick Marine general with inferior forces. www.informationclearinghouse.info...

a reply to: Greathouse

I would say that 2 groups of SEALS and a group of Army Rangers getting shot up,is pretty conclusive on how well this system works,wouldn't you?

a reply to: Dimithae

Nope

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Dimithae

So you are saying, that the US spending more on military funding than the entire rest of he world combined is setting the armed forces up to fail?

How long have you been watching Fux News?

Yes.

All the money and the weapons in the world are useless if the politicians won't let the military use them. Do you really think the American Army and Navy LOST to the North Vietnamese because of military issues? They weren't allowed to win because the politicians did not want them to win. Do you really think the American Army could not have rolled into Baghdad and taken out Saddam during the FIRST Gulf War? They weren't allowed to because of the politicians.

And Fox News is a whole lot more reliable than Above Top Secret. But, of course, so is the National Enquirer.

I just heard the attack on Tikrit is resumed...

The strategy is now to flatten the place with air strikes, because lots of buildings have been rigged with explosives and they couldn`t take it.

So all the superior technology has resulted into "old style" flattening again.

Ok ok I know it is hard for civilians to understand what an exercise is. It is not a battle simulation. It is design to give to how specific scenerios are handled so that lessons can be learned. Sometimes it is to test agains a specfic threat, sometimes it is more random but, you almost always lose. Then you are brought back, get some feed back and do it all again. Before the Desert Shield/Storm the press got wind of a military exercise of and Iraq war scenerio where the US suffered massive losses, so all the sudden you had new stations predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths. Of course in that exercises every crazy thing that be imagined was tossed in bythe people running the exercise.

Another example is NATO always lost its biggest exercise to the Warsaw Pact. Until one year in the 90s they did not. That meant that with the end of the Warsaw Pact and collapse of the Soviet Union, nobody could up with a way no matter how for NATO to lose. That was the last time the exercise was run, because no it has not value.

Another thing that is often done that tricks civilans is when they are told of some Officer not following the rules of an exercise and defeating the superior forces againts him then getting trouble for doing it. Again people do not understand the reason for an exercise. If you are on exercise to teach your squad how to fight off and ambush and the OPFOR instead laying and ambush calls in and airstike and wipes you out, the nothing was learned and the exercise designed to teach a specfic skill is ruined.

What you can look at it real life. The Arab Israeli wars were pretty a small scale version of a NATO Soviet conflict. Desert Storm completely shook China who used the same equipment and tactics. This is how things have alway shaken out.

Now look at Russia's latest conflicts against Georgia and Ukraine. Even against obsolete poorly trained forces like those Russia has struggled. In Georgia they had to call off air support because of communications break downs leading to them shooting down their own planes, units were lost, and the entire thing which should have been quick and bloodless was a mess. Hundreds of officers were fired, and reforms started that ended when all the money for reforms was absorbed by corruption at every level.

Something the US takes granted like a ground movement of a couple thousand miles by US armor forces is looked at by Russian officers with enevy because for them to do the same would mean lossing at least half their force to breakdowns.

So no, in no way shape or form could Russia come close to defeating the US on the battlefield.

In a real shooting war with russia, im not sure who would win but what i do know is that both sides would lose many many troops and i think it would affect the american troops more. America has started many invasions and has been in many fights but have lost comparitivly few.

When american forces start to lose entire companies and battalions fighting in a land thousands of miles from their homeland for reasons of the politcians, thsn we will see how determined american forces are. One thing fir certain, the war will not be fought on american soil....it will be fought on the 'others' homeland and streets....