It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Would Fight Without Air Support for Weeks if War With Russia Began

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Haha !

The pond is getting smaller...




posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Right... USA... USA... thé bestest ever country on the planet and no-one else counts...

Right...

Take off your slippers and look over the wall carefully before jumping over and invading directly...



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 05:44 AM
link   
There are far far too many false prophets as it is . It doesn't help that they're vastly underinformed .

If war broke out with Russia , maybe then , or shortly afterwards , people would be involved that there is in fact a vast military alliance waiting for any American strike , and that that alliance means that losing any war with it is a very real possibilty .

Why dont the West want to call out the enemies as they really stand ?

The trouble seems to be , that the West , roughly defined by the OECD , dont want to have to admit , that they all in the first place are part of a plan which continues with a system that equates to being a unipolar world , where America dictates , effectively ., Or if explained properly , they 'd have to explain that America the nation is just the primary tool of an even higher elite , forming an international 'conspiracy-of-sorts' , a cop=operative agency, a league of Western nations, for that is where power lies, not just in complimentary corporates, over which one might call The Co-Operation Organisation, as being in charge .

And then they'd have to explain that this unipolar world is being challenged , by the opposing alliance , which is not just Russia , by any means at all . They have declared their belief in a multipolar world , and even if it is just gesturing , that is a mighty gesture towards the American led West . It says " we're here to end your dominance" . Also By example ignoring the petrodollar control of world oil markets , is the more than a gesture but they are starting to bleed the beast, as it were.

So keep speculating everybody , but while the Russians really are tickling the underbellies of the sharks , with plenty of back-up from other actors too , people claiming no evidence of Russian meddling are
1. Not being informed properly and
2. Waffling on without doing any serious reading on international affairs .
Advice : dont rely on media articles for your learning , but wikipedia is more the place to go for harder facts without weaker opinions . If anyone tells you otherwise , dismiss them



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: pravdaseeker

Also...


I’m not sure this isn’t a good thing beingsold as if it is a negative..


There re 2 ways to view this...


1) “ the army could be without air support for weeks if it came to war with Russia..”

2) Russia’s Air Force and defense could only hold out against the US Air Force for 2 weeks..”


Don’t get me wrong. To the front line troops 2 weeks is an eternity..

But in the scope of an international war. 2 weeks is nothing...



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 06:18 AM
link   
If war broke out with Russia and it did not go nuclear, then there would be one winner...

Defence budget of NATO - 1 trillion USD
Defence budget of Russia - 70 million USD

Even without the US, the defence capability and spend in Europe exceeds Russia by quite a way.

People over-play Russia's capability. They are good at beating their neighbours like Ukraine and Georgia, but in a fight with real professional armies they would have real problems. Not wishing to demean Russian military, but NATO is in a different order.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: pravdaseeker

AMERICA. Pick a fight with CHINA, see how it goes.


edit on 29-3-2018 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Thanks PraetorianAZ...(I used to live in Az for 40+ years.) I see your point.... But I think the Russians demonstrated a lot of their new wonder weapons not long ago.. and that T-38 they made in the mid 20th century was simple but tough and worked.

Here's to hoping we don't ever need to find out who can kick whose behind..amen?

Their fighter jets prove they should not be taken lightly..

Many made the mistake of underestimating the Japanese in WW2... then found out they were some of the toughest meanest men around..and it required high casualties to defeat them, and you needed air support, artillery, and overwhelming numbers of men..to make it happen in most cases.

I am pretty sure they tested these new tanks pretty severely, to make sure they could/would cut the mustard.. An ex M1 Abrahms dude I know says these new Russian tanks would be a pretty bad a** enemy tank to go up against. And I have seen video or two of the Abrahm's tank getting shredded to pieces with a Russian missile..That fancy Abrahm's turret didn't last very long at all in the videos I saw.

I appreciate your input and thoughts, thanks for that.

Pravdaseeker


Dear Mr Propaganda

It is quite funny that you would bring up the T-38.

The Soviet Union lost over 80000 tanks in WW2 compared to about 20000 german losses. That is a ratio of one to four.

By the way any tank turret can be shredded to pieces if you know where to hit. There are tons of videos of Russian tanks being taken out by all kinds of missiles.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: pravdaseeker

Are you a russian troll account?

I'm asking because it seems that you are just spouting nonsense.

A mig-41 that can fly in space? Really?

Russia isn't going to spend that kind of money on a Mig that can fly in space.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: pravdaseeker

AMERICA. Pick a fight with CHINA, see how it goes.




Hard to fight when your ass is on fire and your heads a catchin.




posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
AMERICA. Pick a fight with CHINA, see how it goes.


The Chinese military is particularly good at repression within China.
edit on 29/3/2018 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Ok, doesn't this sound a a bit like having a crazy war, not just terrible but crazy cream on top, with a red cherry? Troops without air support are dead troops; or at least very high casualties.. And if anyone wonders why they would be without air cover?



"Because of the power and the range and the lethality of these Russian air defenses, it's going to make all forms of air support much more difficult, and the ground forces are going to feel the effects," Gordon said.


Well, there you go... because they will be shooting down our planes left and right? Those new S-400 and/or S-500 missile systems and make the region "too hot" to fly in and offer troop support?


Russia has always had a professional military compared to Taliban insurgents or even real nations in the Middle East, so of course it would be a lot more difficult to fight them, compared to what the US is used to, i.e. you can't just fly the planes around indiscriminately. They don't need to have some sort of new super weapon to accomplish that. America has almost no anti-aircraft missiles on its own territory because Russia can't even reach there with conventional arms. And the doctrine is to defend with fighters, even if the Russians somehow were able to attack. Of course Russia would have certain advantages in a war in Eastern Europe, such as easily being able to deploy a lot of relatively cheap, mobile missile systems. The US would have to ship them over. Allies Europe have various missile systems in place, can't be bothered to look into it, I wish I knew all the stats compared to S-400 and 500. Just having longer theoretical max range or radar range doesn't necessarily change the game though, as far as I know.


originally posted by: Kandinsky

Senior U.S. Army officials on Monday mapped out a plan to dramatically increase the range of the service's artillery and missile systems to counter a Russian threat that would leave ground forces without air support in the "first few weeks" of a war in Europe.


Minus any evidence that Russia is about to invade Europe, 'senior officials' are flapping about how to respond to a possibility of their imagining. They're broadcasting their response to their own straw man which will motivate Russia to design their own version...


Well it's their job to imagine those possibilities and figure out how to respond to them, and I think Russia is already doing everything they can to strengthen their military. But I agree there's a ton of BS and propaganda. The press will publish whatever they can get away with to earn money, even it means scaring people. I guess it's the MIC too though, and generals always want more funding for their own field of expertise.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ZIPMATT

Well, your post has got me thinking on a larger scale than the usual trouble spots and media induced hyperbole. (Although Wikipedia is better than the general media, it IS a medium and has it's own flaws.)

Off the top, it would be delusional to think the rest of the world's peoples are has any more understanding than than the average person in the west. The west is largely blinded by it's own interests and the rest a generalized dislike of the west-U.S. dominance. To wit, it's fairly obvious that any likely replacement for U.S. dominance would almost assuredly would be worse in virtually every aspect.

Unless I'm completely blind, the Hegelian Dialectic game plan of the Elite has been defeated or at least rendered obsolete. No one actually 'controls' this mess. At best, influences it. Works to prevent/delay a complete and utter collapse. Control it, however? Sorry, it's too far gone for any group to control it.

Just my opinion and initial response, though.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   

it's fairly obvious that any likely replacement for U.S. dominance would almost assuredly would be worse in virtually every aspect.



Why is that?

A US Army Captain has said that the American military is perhaps not the best in the world because it is "not as prepared or ready for combat as their multinational partners".

Captain J Scott Metz wrote in an Army professional journal that he feels other countries' troops are "now tactically better than we are at company level and below because we do not train enough at home station".

He includes allies and "some potential enemies" as better prepared than US forces.

Link : www.independent.co.uk...

Kindest respects

Lags
edit on 29-3-2018 by Lagomorphe because: Don't over estimate yourselves



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: ZIPMATT

Well, your post has got me thinking on a larger scale than the usual trouble spots and media induced hyperbole. (Although Wikipedia is better than the general media, it IS a medium and has it's own flaws.)

Off the top, it would be delusional to think the rest of the world's peoples are has any more understanding than than the average person in the west. The west is largely blinded by it's own interests and the rest a generalized dislike of the west-U.S. dominance. To wit, it's fairly obvious that any likely replacement for U.S. dominance would almost assuredly would be worse in virtually every aspect.

Unless I'm completely blind, the Hegelian Dialectic game plan of the Elite has been defeated or at least rendered obsolete. No one actually 'controls' this mess. At best, influences it. Works to prevent/delay a complete and utter collapse. Control it, however? Sorry, it's too far gone for any group to control it.

Just my opinion and initial response, though.




On the contrary , there are two large competing co-operation organisations by this point . And they are both under control through heads of state , acting over heads of government . Directly contrary to your proposition" Control it, however? Sorry, it's too far gone for any group to control it. " NATO forces for example ? Under a co-operation system , small numbers of heads of state make the decisions , directing over heads of government . That means the forces of all the countries can be utilized and that's exactly the nature of each economic and miliatary alliance structure . The West may be seen as more shady via it's organisation of structures , especially as the co-operation organisation itself is not a wikipedia availablility . On a good day with wikispooks , or within an international relations journals' paid for content , you might find mention of it .

The, what has become quite recently, the direct opposition for the Western CO - the SCO bloc has used BRICASTI meetings as a platform , belying the extent of its power , covering an enormous landmass on the main continent but inflitrating other continents such as South Africa and Brazil . Other joiners may include Venezula and other Latin Americans .

A whole world , governed by 'the other side' (we're British speakers but welcome anyone , we have a non-partisan approach to world affairs as historians) , is unlikely , unless that a war breaks out . In that event , we'd be in trouble . Potential future trouble spots may include Vietnam , and South Africa has begun to show signs of a re- melting down of the old order . America were asked/told to leave a central asian airbase relatively early in the timeframe of the rising of the sco's resistant standings , things have progressed a lot further since then and early days of 2001 .

So , what was said was that informed debate has to occur as well , and discussing wars with just russia is futile . If others want to get strategic with their military knowledge , they ought to see that there's an massive unpenetrable bloc there for a start , that the US is also fronted to the South , maybe even inside Mexico itself , that China India etc have been all over Africa for ages , that China is building inside Afghanistan , that Israel is fighting Iran inside Syria , and they should also see what 100 billion dollars of defence spending has bought and been built by Turkey recently . And then , stop talking about taking on just Russia , or just North Korea it's a ridiculous proposition the media or governments might fancy people to have . The other side has cannon-fodder prepared too , be assured of that !

edit on 29-3-2018 by ZIPMATT because: spelling



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: mekhanics

BWAHAHAHA

China didn’t have 25% of the military the US does..



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Sorry your thread's been hijacked but this is going to get stuck here too ;


Unipolarity’s unpeacefulness and US foreign policy: consequences of a ‘coherent system of irrationality’



Abstract Drawing on Hans J. Morgenthau, this article argues that a key contributor to the unpeacefulness of the post–Cold War unipolar order was the irrationality of US foreign policy. Post–Cold War US foreign policy was irrational in that it failed to base its strategy on the prudent evaluation of the empirical facts in the social and political context in which it was formulated. Instead, it reinterpreted reality in terms of a simplistic picture of the world as accepted by US policymakers a priori, and sought the use of military force as the sole national security strategy to impose the inviolability of the ideals entailed in this picture. This turned post–Cold War US foreign policy into a self-contradictory endeavour as far as the results were concerned: not only did it confuse desirable for essential interests in standardising the enemy – whether Milosevic, Saddam or Qaddafi – to fit the a priori categorisation, but it also opened a gap between the desirable and the possible. For one thing such an irrational post–Cold War US foreign policy failed to accommodate or annul was the empirical reality of conflicting interests in the social and political contexts upon which it sought to impose its a priori picture. This resulted in consequences that were untenable from the standpoint of US objectives and international peace and security, contributing, overall, to the unpeacefulness of the post–Cold War unipolar order.



Unipolarity’s unpeacefulness and US foreign policy: consequences of a ‘coherent system of irrationality’ Haro L Karkour First Published August 25, 2017



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

it's fairly obvious that any likely replacement for U.S. dominance would almost assuredly would be worse in virtually every aspect.



Why is that?

A US Army Captain has said that the American military is perhaps not the best in the world because it is "not as prepared or ready for combat as their multinational partners".

Captain J Scott Metz wrote in an Army professional journal that he feels other countries' troops are "now tactically better than we are at company level and below because we do not train enough at home station".

He includes allies and "some potential enemies" as better prepared than US forces.

Link : www.independent.co.uk...

Kindest respects

Lags


So what? One person's opinion. There's no shortage of well trained combat units in the world some perhaps even better than the average U.S. soldier. The U.S. military gets the job done when the U.S. politicians permit it.

Besides, my comment was directed at an overall dominant replacement. Not just militarily. Name me even one potential replacement that's even conceivable. Russia? China? The U.N.? It goes downhill from there, from what I can see. Again, JMO.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ZIPMATT

Stop talking about Russia, you say? I'd love to, in fact. It seems the U.K. has other goals in mind...

I would withdraw from NATO, completely, and citing the hand-wringing of NATO in regards to Turkey, they can meet and discuss to their hearts content. These organizations seem leaderless.

One cannot separate the military from the political, as obviously the military is an extension of the political. The EU is a mess. Eastern European members seem far more aligned with U.S. interests than the EU's. Your own Commonwealth is in free fall of collapse, as we speak. Canada, Australia and your own May is burying the last of your cultures.

Tell me where China lies in these organizations. India? Russia?

Africa seems the next flashpoint between the U.S. and China. China and India have their issues in the Khyber Pass. Chinese bases in Afghanistan merely shows that China makes the same mistakes as Russia and the U.S.. (I'd jump with joy is China took over that mess.)

The original Sykes-Picot vs Levant fight in the ME is DOA. New coalitions include the Russia-Iran-Syrian vs SA-Israel-U.S.. A brand new mess to content with.

Yes, South America is also a mess. Brazil and Venezuela is a unmitigated disaster. The U.S. still has influence via Chile and the like.

South Africa's situation borders on genocide. Vietnam just gave the U.S.S. Carl Vinson an almost royalty level reception as virtually every neighbor of China is also doing.

You can cite 'organizations' yet the reality is this planet is in a state of chaos. So much for 'organization'.

Assuming the SHTF, the U.S. contracts back and uses both oceans natural buffer and largely becomes secure.

Talk? Organization? Talk is cheap. A percentile of all of those 'members' will bow out, bend knee and sit it out.

Of course, I have zero idea what he result would be, but know this, I won't lose one minutes sleep over it.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: carewemust

When its had nearly a trillion dollars annual thrown at it since 9/11, the idea that it "needs" "rebuilding" is insane.


The money we have spent on expensive planes and technologically advanced ships is not wisely spent. It is quantity of adequate jets and ships that is important. We need more planes, not blow three times as much on the flawed advanced jets. We need some F35s but also more of the less expensive jets to go along with them. What good is having ten thousand pilots to fly planes if you only have two thousand planes. A plane cannot be in two places at the same time. A plane can only hold so much ammo.

I think the last eight years have made us less secure overall, our fighter planes are worn out pretty much, we should have been keeping up numbers, not just technology. I do not know if Trumps new plan is going to do anything to fix this problem.
edit on 29-3-2018 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe


You are supposed to train the way you fight... we have been fighting for 20 years. Our military is ready for most types of fighting as long as its not WW1 trench fighting.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join