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.
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.
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.
It no longer takes days or hours anymore to destroy an army.
It can all happen in a matter of minutes.
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.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
No one ever wins a war. That's an arbitrary measurement applied by arbitrary minds.
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
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
Originally posted by Skelkie3
The English have always been pirates, but, at least US has thrown more and more of that influence off...
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.
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]