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.

 

Can the US win a war ? ...

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Skelkie3
 


I think we would. Americans hate fighting other peoples wars, but we also aren't going to sit by and let some other country whoop on us. If some country attacked us invasion style, millions of people would want to get back at them. Remember how people were following 9/11, everyone it seemed wanted blood. Even yours truely signed up for the marines. So imagine and old fashioned invasion. We might be lazy miserable souls in the country, but we don't like anyone trying to mess that up for us.




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I've read a few of these replies and a lot of people here are on the right track as far as how a real opponent like Russia or China would completely change the face of battle that the U.S. is not accustomed to.

Let us consider what happened to the finest fighting force in the world back in the early 1940s. The German Wehrmacht. They had the best weapons, best technology, and the best training that the world had to offer at that point. But what the Germans lacked was overlooked and became a crucial deficit.... The correct psychology to fight the Russians. Let me give it to you all from the German's themselves who said: When fighting the western allies there would be breaks in the fighting in order for the wounded to be evacuated for both sides. Fighting would knock off at sunset and over running an enemy would cause him to surrender. But when fighting the Russians they had to contend with a determined enemy who would drive right over their own wounded in order to get the opportunity to kill more Germans. If you over ran their positions this did not mean that the fighting ended by any means because now you had to worry about being shot in the back so you'd best eliminate the entire pocket of resistance before you pressed on.

The Russians were known to do things like this too, such as marching shoulder to shoulder through mine fields just so they could keep the pressure on the Germans and diminish their chances for orderly withdrawals. When they were short on nylon they would fly low and have their paratroopers jump from the planes without chutes. The ideology there was that a certain percentage of them would live in order to harass German rear positions.

Has America faced this kind of mentality before? Yes, but this was against a Japanese opponent with vastly limited firepower in almost all cases. The U.S. also faced China in Korea and was in no hurry to fight the Chinese again when they barely fought their way to a truce.

Now, Russians and Chinese will be much better equipped and have weaponry that is usually at parity with the U.S. soldiers and in some cases will be surprisingly superior. They are likely to have superior numbers too. I don't know how many of you know this, but numbers work. In a field of battle casualties mount quickly. If you don't have the reserves to fill the opening gaps then you will have no choice but to continually withdraw or contract in order to cover your flanks. The Germans found this out the hard way.

Also, now that we have opened the casualty can of worms let's focus on how the U.S. will quickly be at a disadvantage. The Iraq fatality numbers were on the order of about 7-10 soldiers a week for a while. This would not be the case against a truly equipped and trained army. We would be facing thousands of casualties a week and sometimes per day. Would American popular support stand for this? I think not. We would be driven to the negotiating table inside of 2 months with a battle with either the Russians or Chinese. Don't let this assessment escape you. Casualties will be horrendous on both sides but our side will not have the manpower nor psychology to withstand such staggering loss of life. This is why the U.S. has been picking on little countries lately. The Pentagon boys know their limitations people.

Here is another crucial tidbit that should be considered. Our media and generals like to gloat over how our special forces mounted daring behind enemy lines raids. Well at least for the Russians sake, they will be doing the same things to our army. But they won't be doing photo opps to rescue soldiers in skirts I assure you. They will be doing nasty things like Command infiltration and elimination. Blowing up supply centers etc. Imagine a press conference being blown sky high right in the middle of broadcasting! Wouldn't that just be a pisser for public morale?

The days of dictating the battlefield would cease with either of those two opponents.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Why are Americans always talking about fighting and winning wars?

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

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

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?

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.

Get over it - war is a lie - for god sake, stop believing all the lies.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skelkie3

The initial post indicated a hypothetical situation in which :

1. The enemy may have very very good intel all the way to the top, perhaps sold to them by unscrupulous ' allies ' who have their own agenda,
a condition of internationalising ( corporatizing ) the defense dept. Some persons may act in downright traiterous ways because of ' multiple loyalties ' . I don 't mean some tambourine - whacker on the street.

2.The hypothetical enemy has the ability to render most tactical and probably most strategic real-time recon non-existant. At least in their own backyard.

3.Our lines of communication and supply are considered ( for the sake of argument and coincedentally mimicking decades of history now ) longer.

The hypothetical situation doesn 't take public support into consideration. It may not ( hypothetically speaking ) be required.



Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see your post before. Public support absolutely must be taken into consideration. We still have the power to speak with our votes in this country (somewhat.) Without public support, the government loses political support. When political support wanes, all kinds of flags go up. Soldiers have less morale, Congress becomes a bigger tightwad on the budget, and eventually the power of Democracy trumps the power of the military.

Case in point: We didn't lose Vietnam because our bases were overrun in the Tet Offensive. We pulled out after that mouth breeder Walter Cronkite started flapping his lip and destroyed what remained of public support for the war. The Vietnamese later admitted that after the failure of that offensive, they were on the brink of defeat until we just suddenly got up and left.

In addition, our military is not a sequestered part of our society. When not on duty or in training, our soldiers are part of the public just like anyone else. If you're negating public support as a factor in your scenario, then your entire hypothetical situation is invalidated. Everything matters, *especially* whether or not the soldiers believe in what they're fighting for.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Ok so I'm thinking in its current state could the US win a war, with wars going on in Afghanistan and Iraq... no.I think if Russia or somebody of power with a well equipped military could take over most of the US before we would have time to regroup. I mean think of how long it took us to get enough people to help the situation after Katrina.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner

Now, Russians and Chinese will be much better equipped and have weaponry that is usually at parity with the U.S. soldiers and in some cases will be surprisingly superior. They are likely to have superior numbers too. I don't know how many of you know this, but numbers work. In a field of battle casualties mount quickly. If you don't have the reserves to fill the opening gaps then you will have no choice but to continually withdraw or contract in order to cover your flanks. The Germans found this out the hard way.


That's a common misconception.

1. Russia is now just Russia not the Soviet Union. That means they have lost most of their manpower their population is around 175 million. Compare that to the US's 375 million. Not to mention the EU. Not only that they no longer have the Warsaw pact to throw into the battle. Their huge advantage in armor was fragmented when the USSR broke up and all the little republics took their share of equipment. The only things Russia has going for them is an advanced Avionics industry and a huge Nuclear stockpile. The Russians can fight we all know that. But they cant mount the vast overwhelming attacks like they potentially could in the past. As far as influence? Canada has a greater economic pull than Russia.



2. China has a huge military and a smaller Nuclear force. They have some modern divisions but nothing on par with the West YET! Key phrase there YET. They are making huge gains. They do not have the ability to reach around the world and touch anybody YET. Again with the YET! They have over a billion people big wow. That actually becomes a hendirance not an asset!

In this day and age of modern warfare if an Army unit is caught out in the open then numbers don't mean squat.


It no longer takes days or hours anymore to destroy an army.
It can all happen in a matter of minutes.




[edit on 3-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genus
You can ridicule my friends and I all you want, but you cannot deny the pictures that have surfaced all over that show it. Such attempts from the disinfo handbook will never rattle me, as I am not really saying anything that is not already known, I just have the courage to say it out loud.


I didn't ridicule your friends, I said I didn't know them. Not the same thing.

Disinformation comes in many forms.

However, your post DOES show where your loyalties lie. That's great, and I'd expect no less from a grownup. Mine do too.

Just don't expect me to smile and nod, and agree with "reports" that are in gross conflict with the ones I get, from people I know and trust.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Skelkie3
 


Wars involving the US since WWII have not be "real war". What I mean by that is it is not TOTAL WAR.

Total War = a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use of their rival's capacity to continue resistance. In a total war, there is less (or no) differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every person from a particular country (or opposing area), civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

With the threat of nuclear weapons, total war probably won't happen again. But if it were to happen and no restrictions were put on what can and cannot be done during a conflict, like in Iraq/Vietnam etc, I believe the US with its resources, technology and the Atlantic and Pacific providing a natural barrier they could simply wipe out any army of the world, without using nukes... In fact I think most countries understand this. I don't really believe at this point that there is parity with Russian and Chinese technology.

If you can control the air you can destroy an enemies ability to even wage war.


When it comes to ground/urban based guerrilla combat it would be a different story like we are seeing in Iraq, Which in total war probably would not be that much of a concern. There would simply be nothing left...

Hopefully this never happens.






[edit on 3-7-2009 by drock905]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
No one ever wins a war. That's an arbitrary measurement applied by arbitrary minds.


I may not be able to "win a war", but I can make the other guy lose. That's good enough for me, because then he'll leave me be in peace. Often on a permanent basis.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
No one ever wins a war. That's an arbitrary measurement applied by arbitrary minds.


This is true...wars are fought for one reason and one reason only..... financial and trade reasons. Once hostilities are over, the victors takes advantage and we have an economically unsustainable situation. Capitalism has a short term myopic view on ROI thus favours war more than any other ideological systems

Nobody wins in the long run.

Co-operation and collabration are much better policies to employ with much better returns/benefits than military engagement


That about sums up Neville Chamberlain's view of things, too.

Didn't work out so well for him.

[edit on 2009/7/3 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I wanted to add ( no offense to any military people) that the people I know who are joining the military right now aren't doing it because they are "fools" or because they care about "freedom" they are doing it for :

1. bored
2. adventure
3. travel
4. a steady paycheck
5. fraternity

I have yet to meet someone who has told me they are joining for idealogical reasons. Granted the majority of them are in the navy



[edit on 3-7-2009 by drock905]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


It's not only Americans that do this, so are all nations of the world brainwashed too? Let's see this is a topic under weaponary, so I imagine war topics often go with the territory right? Americans are not conditioned anymore than anywhere else in the world about having enemies all around. Plus, regardless of what you may of read or may think, we aren't obsessed about wiping everyone off the planet, nor do we think everyone in the world is out to get us.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Alot of America ( n ) bashing , even though this thread was designed only to consider some alternatives...

But- how about some alternatives ? Almost no one but a desperate Cuban can stand the thought of Russians in a condition of control.

The Germans ? ask me again in six or eight centuries...

The French ? Can anybody say, just for once, French Indochina ( instead of ' Vietnam ' ) ?

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

Ask anybody who lives within a thousand miles of the Chinese what they think... or, the Japanese.

Anyway, in this screwed up world where we insist on remaining animals, apparently someone has to be the top dog. Damn we ( well most of us ) have been lucky !

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Skelkie3]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


well, if you want to mince words you can...

It is all war, fine

But... what kind of war when you don't even break out the best weapon you developed over 60 years ago the A Bomb?

Or Bio weapons

or g-d only knows what we have right now...

If you equate a war to 20,000 guys on each sides with guns and tanks in a basically fair fight... there might be many nations who could win... all it takes is a good general and heart from there, desire...

But, in reality, we have not attempted to destroy anyone, that's what i'd call a WAR, an attempt to destroy your opponent completely and occupy his territory permanently or make in uninhabitable.

Any talk of traditional war is... an obtuse argument, like fighting over soccer teams, anyone might pull off a miracle.

All i'm saying is, we have the ability to destroy the entire civilized world, from nukes to bio weapons and then... G-d knows what defenses given our Black Budget, we could bust out anything

In a scenario in which we we are threatened we can not be defeated...

Same perhaps could be said for Russia, maybe China

I just find these kind of Yankees vs Mets discussions about the USA or the above Nations even... to be, kind of pointless... winning for any other nation is not even an option.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I know. I was there. I lived, and for a period that was "win" enough. Now, looking back, it feels more like survival of the fittest, but was decidedly lacking (for me) in any realized goal that felt like a win.

Perhaps that's just semantics on my part though. I would've liked to have felt like we did some good, preserved some freedom factor, but perhaps that's a self-doubt that doesn't affect every soldier. Perhaps only a few felt like cannon fodder. Jungle fighting gives the advantage of those who are native.

I will always be a patriot of the United States, and I love the country...... however I never promised to forever regard all military action as right and proper.

cheers friend.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



To make an attempt at analogy, I once had a horse that was killed when it stepped on a yellow jacket nest, before I could get it out of that mess. The horse died within minutes. That was because the horse wasn't geared to fight that sort of battle, but the yellow jackets were


I don't believe I can recall a better analogy. Thank you. That's much of what I was trying to express in my backward way.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Hey guess what, just recently the politicians decided that in the Afghan war theater, the military forces are not allowed to bomb in towns and villages even if they confirm there are Taliban in it. So we just gave the Taliban a chance to win by hiding in towns and cities as havens and extended the war so to avoid collateral damage, great job! Had this policy being implemented during WW2, we would have lost.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 

Gen. Petraeus says Taliban is a resilient enemy

The new troops will be led by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was President Barack Obama's recent choice to take over the NATO-led conflict in Afghanistan.

All commanders have received new orders to prevent troops from shooting at the Taliban if there is any risk of civilian casualties.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner

Now, Russians and Chinese will be much better equipped and have weaponry that is usually at parity with the U.S. soldiers and in some cases will be surprisingly superior. They are likely to have superior numbers too. I don't know how many of you know this, but numbers work. In a field of battle casualties mount quickly. If you don't have the reserves to fill the opening gaps then you will have no choice but to continually withdraw or contract in order to cover your flanks. The Germans found this out the hard way.


That's a common misconception.

1. Russia is now just Russia not the Soviet Union. That means they have lost most of their manpower their population is around 175 million. Compare that to the US's 375 million. Not to mention the EU. Not only that they no longer have the Warsaw pact to throw into the battle. Their huge advantage in armor was fragmented when the USSR broke up and all the little republics took their share of equipment. The only things Russia has going for them is an advanced Avionics industry and a huge Nuclear stockpile. The Russians can fight we all know that. But they cant mount the vast overwhelming attacks like they potentially could in the past. As far as influence? Canada has a greater economic pull than Russia.



2. China has a huge military and a smaller Nuclear force. They have some modern divisions but nothing on par with the West YET! Key phrase there YET. They are making huge gains. They do not have the ability to reach around the world and touch anybody YET. Again with the YET! They have over a billion people big wow. That actually becomes a hendirance not an asset!

In this day and age of modern warfare if an Army unit is caught out in the open then numbers don't mean squat.

[/atsimg]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by SLAYER69]


Sorry but wrongo. Your assessment of Russian troops that can be fielded against U.S. troops is entirely flawed. Yes the U.S. does have a larger civilian population now but Russia still has a much larger army than the U.S. does. You forget that that U.S. is still working from a small volunteer army. Russia still has a draft and just about every young able bodied man in Russia is wearing camouflage and combat boots right now.

The U.S. doesn't dare enact a draft in a foreign war for the sake of losing all civil support. Therefore the troop amounts will remain small unless there is an invasion of U.S. soil and then that becomes another matter all together.

Also, if you are going from the assumption that the Russians will be fighting us with their aged 2nd rate arms that they've been selling to third world nations then I think you might want to study up on the Russian army a little more than you seem to have done so far. The Russians are in no way shape or form as dependent as the U.S. is on Satellites for GPS and weapons guidance. The first thing the Russians will do is take out our eyes and ears over there. Then you're left with a real dog fight. Artillery duels, tank battles, and hand to hand fighting once things get good and bogged down.

As to China I am not working from the assumption that the Chinese would try and invade the U.S. Let me be clear about that. I'm working from the assumption that the U.S. get's involved with a conflict over in Asia or the Middle East that involves the Chinese. Or perhaps the U.S. might foolishly try and defend Taiwan when China decides to take it back. I'm afraid all that you will see is harsh words rather than true deeds on that account.

Bottom line, if the U.S. engages either of those two armies in Europa than the U.S. will not have enough troops to hold back those armies, such as perhaps doing something stupid like helping Israel attack Iran or something. In this case you would see Russia or perhaps both of them swooping down to engage the U.S.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join