posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Yes you are right that there still is a threat from Russia, with cheap but effective tech.
The U.S. military is not set up for a war of aggression, it has been developed a a defensive force. Hence the loss in Vietnam and the current
quagmire of Iraq. If the U.S. were to invade Russia or China they would be soundly defeated with out question. But if Russia were to attack into
Europe they would be the ones defeated. The days of walking in and conquering other nations on a large scale are over. The potency of the civilians
in a insurgent/freedom fighter role, terrorist tactics have proven to powerful to ignore.
Also I do think that you overestimate Russia's willingness to take causalities they have pulled out of Chechnya before and agreed to ceasefires due
to their losses.
What makes you say it wasnt created for offensive capability, thats the opposite of what our military can do. The loss in Vietnam(which was a war of
defense, not offense by the way) was due the fact that we were fighting with one hand behind our backs due to politics, and by the time that hand was
let loose it was too late. If the bombing of Hanoi had been allowed sooner the NVA and VC wouldnt have had they supplies they had to fight at all.
Iraq isnt a quagmire, if you noticed the mission the military was set there to do is accomplished. The military went to Iraq, defeated their
military, and occupied their nation, theres not much more you can do besides maybe destroying the country completely, which isnt what were there to
do. Numbers dont mean what they used to anymore, you say the numbers defeat technology, while I say thats a falisty.
Why? Becasue technology has increased the effectiveness of even the individual soldier let alone a tank platoon, a mechanized infantry division, or
just a squad of soldiers. I would be willing to bet a squat today has double the firepower and effectiveness of a company during WW2. Better
weapons, technology, training, and uptodate tactics of the last 2 decades have led to this.
Look at Somalia, it was a defeat some say, but look at what we had, 160 men and twelve vehicles(hummves; no armor or even helo gunships) and these
men held out for a night when surrounded by thousands of Samalis. There were an estimated 1000 Somali militia casualties with aroudn 3000-4000
wounded. That shows you what a small attack force can do. 160 vs. say 5 thousand(total), most of the 160 made it back home in one piece. But I will
say the next day they were rescued by a joint force of US 10th Mountain, Maylay, and Pakistani forces who had armor.
If the US were to invade China or Russia, I dont know what would happen, I dont think you can say they would be defeated easily even with guerilla
style tactics. In iraq weve had around 2500 dead in the past 3 years our of the roughly 240,000 personnel that are there. And the insurgency says
they are winning. Thats about 1% casualties(dead) isnt it? I would say if the US were to assault Russia or China, it would use different tactics
than it used in Iraq, I think they day of leveling a city would come back. It wouldnt be close to the same as Iraq. Due to the different terrain and
type of war it would be.