How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
If US invaded Russian soil, Russia would win, trust me. If Russia invaded US soil, US would probably win. If any country was a challenge to US, it would be Russia.




posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
now if you put 'politics' down to poor intelligence and lack of understanding of a culture, then i understand what your mean by 'politics' as your government let your troops down!!

but when you drop more explosives (on one nation) than what was used in the WHOLE of WW2, then i believe politics is just an excuse i'm afraid.

lol, you don't have to know their culture to beat the **** out of them.
What I mean by politics is that
1. There was no declaration of war, so the escalation method was used instead of having all the necessary manpoower, equipment, etc. available immediately.
2. The leaders back here at home had no clear strategy.

(why do you think the Powell Doctrine was created?)

3. The whole draft thing was a mess (that accounted for a lot of the stuff you posted)
4. All the restraints in place put the military leaders at odds with Washington


As far as more bombs being dropped than in WW2

Two COMPLETELY different types of wars. Plus, look at our Air Force during WW2 compared to Vietnam. Look at our arsenal during WW2 compared to Vietnam. Besides, which has more explosive power...A bombs or cluster bombs.
I'm not sure what you're getting at anyway. When we used primarily airpower, US casualties were low and the Vietnamese were high.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
If US invaded Russian soil, Russia would win, trust me. If Russia invaded US soil, US would probably win. If any country was a challenge to US, it would be Russia.

It's not even probably will win. It's definately will win. Geographically the US is in a perfect position for defense. In a conventional war, I don't see how invading the mainland US is even remotely possible.

And Russia would never challage the US alone. Just as the US would never challage Russia alone. It would be suicide for either country.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Russian soldiers would be killed in the shores. Like Rommel, the US military is smart enough to exploit the fragile nature of amphibious warfare and has lined the coast with everything neccesary to prevent any type of full-scale invasion. It doesn't matter though if your opononet has 10,000 nukes waiting. Russia would never start a war without using nukes, it would emp America, take out as much stuff as possible, and THEN invade the waste.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
If US invaded Russian soil, Russia would win, trust me. If Russia invaded US soil, US would probably win. If any country was a challenge to US, it would be Russia.
Tech wise they're close but they have horrible training and lack of funds.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

It's not even probably will win. It's definately will win. Geographically the US is in a perfect position for defense. In a conventional war, I don't see how invading the mainland US is even remotely possible.

And Russia would never challage the US alone. Just as the US would never challage Russia alone. It would be suicide for either country.


any 'established nation' with a capable military will always be faviourtes on home soil....(France, UK, US, Russia, China)!!

its like a sports event, the home team is always the favorite.

you compare that to countrys like iraq & alfganistan, those countrys are easy to control!!

they can only throw sticks and stones to the equpiment the above countrys have (yet allies lifes are still being lost)!!

iran will be a different story though, they have quite advanced equipment (looking at the pictures posted in these forums) a professionally trained military, and iran DEFINITELY do not want invaders in there country, unlike iraq (which the majority wanted saddam out)!!

iran has got vietnam written all over it, which is why i think the US/UK hasn't gone it yet and to be honest i can't see them doing so.







[edit on 5-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Putin is smart. Can't spend billions training the army? Then just send it to Chechnya for low cost training.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
If US invaded Russian soil, Russia would win, trust me. If Russia invaded US soil, US would probably win. If any country was a challenge to US, it would be Russia.


ok , against my better judgement . i will bite :

what bugs me about your statement is your assertion that a US invasion of rissia will DEFINITLY fail , where as you some how credit a POSSIBLE russian victory in a invasion of america

ok , HOW is russia going to acieve this victory ??

#1 - USN superiority un blue water navy -- and the ability to defend thier home waters against incursion and interdict any maritime resuply chain the russias may attempt to throw across the oceans ?

#2 - rusian lack of capacity in strategic airlify / and or / naval sea lift . how is rissia gong to get tanks , heavy equiment and artillery onto a US beachead -- and resupply them ??

#3 - lack of a friendly " jump off point " - cuba is fine as and makes a great ` unsinkable aircraft carrier ` , but cuba doesnt get rusian boots on CONUS soil

PS - please do not use any hand waving or speacial pleadings , expect what ever strategy / tactics you use to be used against you too ,



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   


1) many troops had low morale (counting days)
2) desertion rates were high
3) serious drug problems
4) (could not stop the movement of the Vietnamese).
5) poor intelligence
6) wasn't prepared for guerrilla warfare tactics
7) Vietnamese conducted a 'peoples war' in which everyone played part
8) the American government didn't fully know the culture of the Vietnamese, it was believed that they could buy the people (ie: - give chewing gum, pop, ice cream) etc.
9) wasn't prepared/and could not cope with the high casualties (injuried and fatalitys)
9) and last but not least, america wasn't prepared for a 'JUNGLE WAR'


While you are partially right about many of your statements other things you seem to overlook.

Vietnam was a police action. Therefore the strategy and tactics were radioed in from Washington. This is a big problem and defiantly not the way that a War should be handled.

Underestimation of the enemy's movements it completely wrong. The Vietcong didn't move like you are thinking they hid out in holes in the ground. Worked in the fields with other non Vietcong during the day then went out at night killing Americans and so on.


but when you drop more explosives (on one nation) than what was used in the WHOLE of WW2, then i believe politics is just an excuse I'm afraid.


This is completely wrong.

Vietnam wasn't a war where you could bomb enemy infrastructure then move in with tanks and heavy artillery and win big battles. The jungle keeps tanks from being used and provides infinite hiding until point blank range. Therefore close air support strikes and artillery and so on are pointless if the enemy is only 25 yards away.

The massive carpet bombing only made the fighting worse because it hardened so many Vietnamese against the Americans , thus hardened the American troops against the Vietnam people and so on.... They didn't know who was who so soon mistrust for all of them took over. The fact that so many bombs were dropped IS THE REASON THE US LOST THE WAR.
Without support from the populace you are not going to win in a guerrilla war in the middle of the jungle. You don't get populace support by carpet bombing their crops and villages!!! This is what the Military knew and Washington refused to see.

American infantry killed in a ratio of about 10 to 1. That is they killed 10 Vietcong for every American killed. Thats very good if you ask me considering it was point blank shoot like hell and throw grenades at the shadows in the underbrush style war.

The only answer at that point would have been to wipe out the populace. That is obviously unacceptable.

The U.S. learned in this war that you don't win guerrilla wars by creating mass anger in the populace.



[edit on 5-5-2006 by Heckman]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
If US invaded Russian soil, Russia would win, trust me. If Russia invaded US soil, US would probably win. If any country was a challenge to US, it would be Russia.


Not true i would rather fight russia than china, with no nukes. China is on the rise russis isnt. Just look how the vp talks about you guys now, if you were a threat he wouldnt talk so tough. We didnt do it during the cold war because then you were more or less equal with the usa. But now we dont treat you like that, and its because your military is no where near what it was.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

its like a sports event, the home team is always the favorite.

you compare that to countrys like iraq & alfganistan, those countrys are easy to control!!

they can only throw sticks and stones to the equpiment the above countrys have (yet allies lifes are still being lost)!!

iran will be a different story though, they have quite advanced equipment (looking at the pictures posted in these forums) a professionally trained military, and iran DEFINITELY do not want invaders in there country, unlike iraq (which the majority wanted saddam out)!!

iran has got vietnam written all over it, which is why i think the US/UK hasn't gone it yet and to be honest i can't see them doing so.


Stop comparing everything to vietman, everyone said thats what iraq is. You cant compare when 3,000 died now and over 50,000 in vietman. We would not lose 50,000 troops if you invaded iran. Get that in your head, you are always making the usa out to be weaker than it is. Its pretty clear iran wouldnt stand a chance . the reason they havent gone is in is because if they dont try and talk all the eurpoens with freak out and say we jsut want war again. Thats what europe does talk talk talk, and no action.





[Mod Edit: quote tags - fixed length and nested]

[edit on 5/5/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
....
Stop comparing everything to vietman, everyone said thats what iraq is. You cant compare when 3,000 died now and over 50,000 in vietman. We would not lose 50,000 troops if you invaded iran. Get that in your head, you are always making the usa out to be weaker than it is. Its pretty clear iran wouldnt stand a chance . the reason they havent gone is in is because if they dont try and talk all the eurpoens with freak out and say we jsut want war again. Thats what europe does talk talk talk, and no action.


The reason they havent gone in is because that is no solution. An attack on Iran would NOT be surgical. It WILL get messy. And you are misinterpreting the the "Vietnam" refernece: Of course Iraq isnt comparable to Vietnam in terms of casualties, it was a completely different war... Iraq isnt a war anymore since the hostilities ceased, now its peace enforcement.

But Vietnam is comparable to Iraq insofar as both lacked the commitment of defense politics, and gradually lost the support of the population when they realized that these interventions arent a piece of cake, that there wouldnt be a time "when it is done", and equally a growing misunderstanding why the hell your troops are even there. Particularly that last reason is even more intrigueing in the Iraq war whose reasoning was based on deception, faked and faulty intelligence and under the misleading motto of "the war on terror".

[edit on 5/5/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Until i see thosands in the streets protesting the war its clear that it is not as un popular as the vietnam was. Reason we arent losing that many men, and we dont have a draft. So yea the war is un popular but not on that level.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Look Iraq is not even a big deal IMo. I mean as far as logistics go its a cake walk and probably the easiest military occupation in US history. Shortman you are refusing to take Irans terrain into consideration though.

History has shown trying to fight an uphill battle will sacrafice quite alot. Iraq was easy money because it is pretty much all flat and open. Can not really hide anything except in the cities, which is why the cities is where most of the coflict and problems are.

Sure afghamistan had caves and mountains but seriously, as far as weapons they didn't have anything bigger than probably 50 calibur machine guns and small explosives. The Iranians can hide whatever they want in their caves. Anti-Air weapons, whole infantry groups, kamikaze squads. You send an attack force trying to bottleneck through the best maneuverable route uphill and you just might get surprised by the enemy running out of caves, holes and trenches that I am sure have already been dug. Air-Support can be easily shot down from the top of the hill/mountain and you would not get very far.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

"Air-Support can be easily shot down from the top of the hill/mountain and you would not get very far. "



Those tactics were already tryed in Afghanistan by the Tali ban fighters. I don't think you can walk out and shoot a bomber flying at 50,000ft from the top of a hill. They are not going to pull a huge SAM tank out of a hole in the ground on top of a mountain either.

Ok that being said an occupation of Iran would be much harder than Iraq in my opinion!!! For the simple fact that Iran is 4 times larger and troop moral is higher.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Heckman]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by verymad
i think that if england went agaisnt the usa in this war the usa would take one hell of a beating because of us. We probably woudnt beat you unless we had some really good plan but we would really hurt you


Whereas there is no chance of the US and Britian tangling there is also no way that Britian could last more than a couple days against the US...........



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5

Stop comparing everything to vietman, everyone said thats what iraq is. You cant compare when 3,000 died now and over 50,000 in vietman. We would not lose 50,000 troops if you invaded iran. Get that in your head, you are always making the usa out to be weaker than it is. Its pretty clear iran wouldnt stand a chance . the reason they havent gone is in is because if they dont try and talk all the eurpoens with freak out and say we jsut want war again. Thats what europe does talk talk talk, and no action.


dude, stop talking with anger and chill!!

all i said is iran is no walk over, take a look at this post:-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(there is another one somewhere aswell showing the equipment but i can't find it)!!

but as you can see these are professionally trained servicemen, not people in rags running around with a WW1 rifle (like in iraq and afghanistan)!!

iran also has a population of 68 million, in-which 68 million don't want 'foreigners' invading their land (just like vietnam)!!

can you now see where i'm coming from??

an invasion of iran will not only be a war against the iran military but a war against the people too.





[edit on 5-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

Originally posted by shortmanx5

Stop comparing everything to vietman, everyone said thats what iraq is. You cant compare when 3,000 died now and over 50,000 in vietman. We would not lose 50,000 troops if you invaded iran. Get that in your head, you are always making the usa out to be weaker than it is. Its pretty clear iran wouldnt stand a chance . the reason they havent gone is in is because if they dont try and talk all the eurpoens with freak out and say we jsut want war again. Thats what europe does talk talk talk, and no action.


dude, stop talking with anger and chill!!

all i said is iran is no walk over, take a look at this post:-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(there is another one somewhere aswell showing the equipment but i can't find it)!!

but as you can see these are professionally trained servicemen, not people in rags running around with a WW1 rifle (like in iraq and afghanistan)!!

iran also has a population of 68 million, in-which 68 million don't want 'foreigners' invading their land (just like vietnam)!!

can you now see where i'm coming from??

an invasion of iran will not only be a war against the iran military but a war against the people too.

the whole iranian army does not look like those troops in the parade or whatever it is. Of course they are going to show they best stuff thats their proaganda. When china marches its troops around and shows off its military hardware i dont remeber seeing any of there old planes which make up the highest % of their aircraft. their not gonna show there stuff that sucks, they only show the good stuff. Yea but to say we can lose that many troops is a joke. the thing is is iran keeps trying to get nukes its worth losing troops for. i would rather fight iran now than iran with nukes.




[edit on 5-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

but as you can see these are professionally trained servicemen, not people in rags running around with a WW1 rifle (like in iraq and afghanistan)!!


Those professional "trained servicemen" will not be able to stand against the US and allied forces. There is far to big of a tech gap there for a successfull conventional style war. The biggest threat to the US will be those people dressed in "rags" that are knowledgeable in guerrilla warfare and the use of civilians as camouflage and shielding. If you are equating this to Vietnam consider the fact that the Viet Cong were not well trained and were often dressed in dark pajamas and "rags" using simple weapons.

BTW lets not let this thread degrade into Iran and nuclear weapons.

Consider if China and North Korea allied with Iran in a conflict with the U.S.


[edit on 5-5-2006 by Heckman]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
First of all don't underestimate your enemy. The chinese are very tough fighters, along with all other asians the US has fought. China could raise some real hell. I am also from the US and know...well about the capabilities that have been released. China also has an army of over 2 million. Try around 200 million, along with a major industrial complex. WE also need THEM more than THEY need US.

Second, just because a navy doesnt have global capability doesnt mean its not formidable. What if China invades Taiwan, and tries for Japan, along with North Korea invading South Korea. That woudl cause some major problems for the US.


i believe the US hasn't used all of its capabilities in Iraq. Why? Because it cannot. Because it is a very small mind-altered nation. People in Iraq have heart and soul in Islam, to a suiciadal degree. I don't believe the people of China would defend their country too much, unless the USA was trying to conquer it. and even if USA was trying to conquer it, i still don't think they'd put up a fight.... ur talking about the same people who despise their goverment/lack of freedom but can't say so out loud without SEVERE penalties. in a war with China, their military(uhhh, "slaves") would surrender as soon as much of the government is disabled. and i suspect most of the Chinese government would be severely fractured and destabalized within days. short moments later the military "servants" and the people of China would not fight back..... and then, China will have lost it's most valuable asset-- its people-- while the people will have lost it's most invaluable asset.... it's government.

As for DPRK.... i don't care how much they spend on their military, the reason we are not concerned about them is because they don't want to nuke anyone within their current missile range. we could destory DPRK faster than Iraq, because... we could do what we did in Iraq(Navy and AirForce wise) and not have a religious insurgency to worry about. basically, DPRK is DPRK, Iraq has supporters(regular people with their lifeblood in Islam and belief that US is enemy of Allah- and some governments) in several surrounding nations. that is why we are not struggling... but rather, its a prolonged win.

final proof of the fact that we could ruin DPRK withing weeks, if not days- is that the whole world know they have Nukes... but we just don't give a damn.





new topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join