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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


Thanks for your OPINION.


But the fact remains Russia outside of nukes is not as strong as it once was and they know that. That's why they are in such a hurry to make a nuclear arms deal even though they are at odds with NATO/US in Georgia. Let's consider what you're saying about forced conscript army. Say they arm every single Russian man, woman, and child including Senior citizens. Then look to their East. China can roll right over them if numbers are really all that. 175 million people would be spread horribly thin when you consider the shear size of the Russian land mass lets now consider over a billion Indians on their southern border. Yeah they would be spread pretty thin.

Now lets look at Europe there is no longer a buffer zone in eastern Europe.

Come on when was the last time either of those two countries fought a real military power?

If you say Afghanistan and Georgie Russia isn't looking that good. Not to mention what happened to China in 1979 in Vietnam. If you want to use China's recent military history in Tibet I'm sorry but beating up and shooting a bunch of unarmed monks as an example of how powerful their fighting force is I'm sorry I'm not buying it.

So lets get real here.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by SLAYER69]




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
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.


If you refer to Vietnam, the fact that goals weren't realized, in my opinion, was not the fault of the men in the field, but rather could be laid at the feet of some spineless politicians, and a small, but vocal, minority of what was termed "peaceniks", much like we have today, and the sins of whom, in this latter day, are shaping up to be paid for by our returning vets, as it was in your war. A lot of these guys will undoubtedly run into the same thing upon their return as you did, and will entertain the same self doubts, not because of their own actions, but because of the stinging words of spineless, and ungrateful, people.

If that is the case, and you fought in Vietnam, please accept my humble, and public, apology for having assumed that you hadn't been to see the elephant.

It will be the men of your generation, who have already been run through the wringers, and sorted it out for themselves, who will be able to assist the Iraq vets in coming to terms with the problems sure to follow.

You are absolutely correct that ALL military action is neither right nor proper. But sometimes it is, as well as necessary, and there are those here who appear not to be able to see that.

[edit on 2009/7/3 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
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.


I could run down to the sporting goods store right now and put on some camouflage and combat boots, that doesn't make me a soldier. Do you have a source for this assertion that "every young able bodied man in Russia is wearing camouflage and combat boots right now" in the first place?

And, a "small volunteer army?" Are you kidding me?


If I were about to wage a war against somebody, then please, give me 2 million volunteers over 3 million conscripts any day.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Ehh... sry for disappointing u, but according to current Russian military doctrine, there's no f way they will fight in all-out war without going nuclear from start. Im talking about tactical nukes here. (using nukes on enemy invading army formations and military bases, but not on enemy territory/cities (in case with USA - there will be different story with China).... if things wont get worse, of course.)

So when u talk about war with Russia, u should take into consideration that u have to somehow deal with tac nukes.... (in case u're not going to nuke their territory, because then their Strategic forces come into play)

Speaking about any invasion on American soil - even USSR ALWAYS had 1 way to deal with USA itself - ICBMs.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Knjaz]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knjaz
Speaking about any invasion on American soil - even USSR ALWAYS had 1 way to deal with USA itself - ICBMs.


Yup and missiles fly in both directions.
The USSR was once a giant now Russia on paper looks good. Their recent military actions however makes the US actions of late look brilliant.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Ehh, u dont get what i say?

I told that USSR NEVER had any plans on making invasion into continental USA. Its just doesn't worth it.
Red Dawn scenario is b*, absolute "0" compared to reality.
and in case continental USA should be destroyed - ICBMs. Yes, they fly both ways - thats why there wasnt a real war for last 64 years.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Knjaz]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
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.


I could run down to the sporting goods store right now and put on some camouflage and combat boots, that doesn't make me a soldier. Do you have a source for this assertion that "every young able bodied man in Russia is wearing camouflage and combat boots right now" in the first place?

And, a "small volunteer army?" Are you kidding me?


If I were about to wage a war against somebody, then please, give me 2 million volunteers over 3 million conscripts any day.


If you are going to quote me then don't do it out of context please. I inferred with the words just about in front of that sentence that you are coyly omitting and strangely demanding a source on all of the sudden. Why did you deliberately try and misconstrue my words by leaving out those words from that sentence?

Also, I think the Germans once had that opinion of the Red army too as far as their training is concerned. They needed only to kick down the rotten door as they put it. I think history has taught us a lot about your misguided assumptions on Russian troop capabilities.

Your assumptions are just as skewed as your misrepresentations here. Shame on you.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
Also, I think the Germans once had that opinion of the Red army too as far as their training is concerned. They needed only to kick down the rotten door as they put it. I think history has taught us a lot about your misguided assumptions on Russian troop capabilities.

Your assumptions are just as skewed as your misrepresentations here. Shame on you.



Yeah and the Japanese thought Americans were too fat, Lazy and Corrupt to fight a real war with them.

Well

They got fat and corrupt part right apparently but we fought anyway...




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The real question is, can anyone win a war?

I think it depends on your definition of "winning", when many people die and suffer, is that truly winning? Or is it simply getting past that stage.

War truly is complicated.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You don't owe me an apology, friend. I was unclear and more than a bit maudelin in my rambling
I think your assessment of Viet Nam war is spot on. I could go on and on about that, but it wouldn't pertain to this thread.

My service wasn't there, but it might as well have been .... SSDD.

If I'm stern with myself and stay directly on thread, I think that the U.S. can win any war, IF one defines win as "having more resources left after the war than the opposition."

Thanks for your even-handedness. You could've been a lot harder on most of those you've been talking with in this thread. I think you're a very fair person.


You are absolutely correct that ALL military action is neither right nor proper. But sometimes it is, as well as necessary, and there are those here who appear not to be able to see that.
Probably the most profound and truthful quote I've seen in a long time concerning the dogs of war. Necessary. Can't argue with that a bit.



[edit on 3/7/09 by argentus]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The individual Soviet soldier was hell on wheels, and I have no reason to suspect the modern Russian soldier is any different. That's as individuals. Their biggest hindrance, in my opinion, was that the individual soldier, each individual cog, appeared to be afraid to fart without an order from above. That may have changed now, with the change in government, or it may not have. Military structures are often slow to change with the times. The net result of that situation was that on a larger scale, they were less effective than they could have been, because there was always a "lag" while they got their orders sorted out.

With the same sort of individual soldiers, and a looser command structure with more individual initiative, they'd truly be a force to be reckoned with, in my opinion. To be honest, I'd rather they were on MY side!



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


Thanks for your OPINION.


But the fact remains Russia outside of nukes is not as strong as it once was and they know that. That's why they are in such a hurry to make a nuclear arms deal even though they are at odds with NATO/US in Georgia. Let's consider what you're saying about forced conscript army. Say they arm every single Russian man, woman, and child including Senior citizens. Then look to their East. China can roll right over them if numbers are really all that. 175 million people would be spread horribly thin when you consider the shear size of the Russian land mass lets now consider over a billion Indians on their southern border. Yeah they would be spread pretty thin.

Now lets look at Europe there is no longer a buffer zone in eastern Europe.

Come on when was the last time either of those two countries fought a real military power?

If you say Afghanistan and Georgie Russia isn't looking that good. Not to mention what happened to China in 1979 in Vietnam. If you want to use China's recent military history in Tibet I'm sorry but beating up and shooting a bunch of unarmed monks as an example of how powerful their fighting force is I'm sorry I'm not buying it.

So lets get real here.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by SLAYER69]


Oh we didn't fare too well against the Vietnamese either now did we?

Are you making the assumption that Europe would aid the U.S. in another misguided police action in the Middle East? Because I don't believe they will as most didn't with Iraq. I think if the U.S. get's itself involved in another unilateral conflict they can count European help out. Then it would be the U.S. vs. Russia or China or both in a head to head conflict. Oh, maybe England would help for a little while or maybe not.

I just don't see the U.S. being able to absorb the casualties that either of those two armies are willing to endure. Their weapons would be at a close enough parity to negate our slight technological advantages and they would not fight us the way that we would want them to and this is the key.

You see, the U.S. has enjoyed fighting enemies on it's own terms lately. We know what happens to the U.S. army when this is not the case. The Russians and/or Chinese would be capable of forcing their own conditions just as often as the U.S. would.

I don't see the U.S. armed forces being capable of slugging it out against opponents who can absorb losses on the levels that those two armies have proven willing to endure. And don't forget that those two armies would be quite capable of hitting the U.S. forces just as hard who would not be able to suffer those same losses for long.

I think the U.S. is very good at short engagements or engagements where they enjoy far superior fire power. But let it be a protracted battle against an army that is capable launching it's own true offenses with fully equipped and trained divisions of infantry/tanks/aircraft/artillery who knows how to coordinate such actions and I think you would see the U.S. faltering rather quickly in the face of it.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
I think you're a very fair person.


SHHH! Progressives might hear you!


Coming from you, that post was high praise, of the sort I value more than gold. I'll probably be insufferably pleased with myself for over a week.

I can understand your definition of "winning" a war. Largely, "winning" may be more a matter of semantics than anything else I've seen discussed here.

The possibility and likelihood of a "win" would be in how one defines the term.

Well, how the survivors define it,anyway.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
Also, I think the Germans once had that opinion of the Red army too as far as their training is concerned. They needed only to kick down the rotten door as they put it. I think history has taught us a lot about your misguided assumptions on Russian troop capabilities.

Your assumptions are just as skewed as your misrepresentations here. Shame on you.



Yeah and the Japanese thought Americans were too fat, Lazy and Corrupt to fight a real war with them.

Well

They got fat and corrupt part right apparently but we fought anyway...



As did the Russians who soundly defeated the best army of the world at that time.


If the western allies hadn't jumped in at the end then the Red Army would have overun all of Europe.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


The whole problem with your argument is that you seem to assume that we would fight the Russians the way the Germans fought them or fight them on their terms. I just do not see that happening. As far as WWII goes. Like many here at ATS repeatedly like to mention that's Ancient history. I'm talking about examples of how their militaries have done in action since the end of WW-II. They don't look too hot.

Russia had a hell of a time preventing and maintaining all those break away republics. ooops I mean now independent republics.


Again I say they look good on paper but if their recent military actions are a measure of their ability one can see how seriously flawed they really are. Yeah look up how badly the Chinese got spanked in 1979 when they attacked Vietnam. Russia lost how many in Afghanistan? 14.000 or 15.000? We've been there what? 6, 7 years and we have lossed less than a 1.000 dead. Korea? We lost how many against the Chinese? 32.000? How many did the Chinese and North Koreans loose again????



I'm sorry but I'm not buying all the propaganda.

That goes both ways.



[edit on 3-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner

Oh we didn't fare too well against the Vietnamese either now did we?



There's a fundamental difference in the conduct of the Soviet Afghan war and the US Vietnam war.

In Vietnam, the troops were "winning" the war. They were winning because they fought area campaigns, instead of point campaigns. That's a bit more effective against a dispersed enemy, just not as effective as smaller units who can find the enemy, then bring smoke on 'em from the air. The politicians threw it away, out of fear I suspect. Fear for their jobs. A LOT of brand new voters were expressing displeasure, and the politicians panicked.

Much like the situation in the US today.

In Afghanistan, the Soviet Bear was routed through military inflexibility. Soviet tactics largely relied on massed firepower and overwhelming force, which is good for a point target, not so much for a dispersed one. Eventually, the Soviets were buttoned up on their bases, where they could be attacked, rocketed, and mortared at will by the muj, who would just disperse when the russians came out to play, thus affording them no target. The exception was Spetnaz, who would go out in the field in small hunter units for a week or two at a time, and call in air power, frequently from Mi24 attack helicopters, on whatever muj they could find. THAT was effective. Individual Soviet snipers were also problematic for the muj.

Eventually the Soviets had to cut their losses and pull out, believe it or not because of public opinion. That public opinion was much more pronounced, and widespread, than in the US during the Vietnam conflict. They were worried about a revolution at home, which eventually occurred. Had they pulled out sooner, before public opinion reached the level it did, there would in all likelihood still be a "Soviet Union".



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


The whole problem with your argument is that you seem to assume that would fight the Russians the way the Germans fought them or fight them on their terms. I just do not see that happening. As far as WWII goes. Like many here at ATS repeatedly like to mention that's Ancient history. I'm talking about examples of how their militaries have done in action since the end of WW-II. They don't look too hot.

Russia had a hell of a time preventing and maintaining all those break away republics. ooops I mean now independent republics.


Again I say they look good on paper but if their recent military actions are a measure of their ability one can see how seriously flawed they really are. Yeah look up how badly the Chinese got spanked in 1979 when they attacked Vietnam. Russia lost how many in Afghanistan? 14.000 or 15.000? We've been there what? 6 7 years less than a 1.000 dead. Korea? We lost how many against the Chinese? 32.000? How many did the Chinese and North Koreans loose again????


I think you have it in reverse. I think they don't look good on paper ever and that's where Napoleon screwed up, as did Hitler, and whoever is next like us if it comes to that point.

These numbers that you just spouted off do not exonerate your argument. They only prove the levels of casualties that these armies are willing to absorb which is my point all along.

I can give you even greater numbers against the Russians, like how they lost around a million men defending Moscow. About 1.5 million casualties in the Lower Dneiper operation, and over a million casualties defending Stalingrad. All this as opposed to the acceptable loses that the U.S. will tolerate.

Let's go back to Vietnam where you say that the Chinese got their asses kicked. Well, the U.S. lost around 50,000 men in that engagement and this was enough to make people fight the police in protests every day until we withdrew.

You keep dancing around the fact that the U.S. is in no way capable of taking the losses that these two armies have endured in the past regularly and who have shelled out a good amount of casualties to the belligerants who they fought in turn.





[edit on 3-7-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


What, you think you can win a debate by dodging a question and resorting to semantics? My question stands regardless of your sad attempt at misdirection. What source do you have that "just about" every able bodied Russian is in camo and army boots?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
You keep dancing around the fact that the U.S. is in no way capable of taking the losses that these two armies have endured in the past regularly and who have shelled out a good amount of casualties to the belligerants who they fought in turn.


That was then; this is now. Do you honestly think that the Russians would eat up that many combat casualities now?

The US Army can take casualities; it's the civilian population and the government that can't. When US troops first arrived in Bosnia, two guys were killed in a helicopter accident. Right after that, the anti-war crowd were screaming it was like Vietnam, we were going to lose, and we needed to leave.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by argentus
Has the U.S. ever won a war?

Has anybody?


Britain has repeatedly won wars. Also lost a few. The ones that counted were won. The ones that were lost were forgotten.

Regards
--------------

I don't believe anybody has forgotten that the British lost to the U.S- twice.

IMHO the next great war will be fought over food and water.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join