US-infantry, any good?

Badger, the point is that America cannot lay waste to any nation even if it wanted to. The US relies on many other countries to project its power around the world, should that facility be lost then it would be very difficult for it to wage any kind of sustained war. Americas position on the Planet puts it at an immediate disadvantage because of the distances involved.

To try and project power of the force required to subjugate any nation is simply not there, virtually everything would have to go by sea which takes time and also puts ones forces at risk over long distances and any successful attack looses valuable assets that cannot be easilly replaced and would also incur massive loss of life.

America's convention forces literally rely on 12 carriers at the most and a few long range bombers, Both of which would and do require the permission of other countries they overfly or pass through territorial waters. America's armed forces are big but not as big as many think they are, right now its forces on the ground are getting stretched in Iraq and Afganistan plus all its other commitments. The army has about 850k which sounds alot but not when you look at what they have to cover.

reply to post by StellarX


I believe Blue is correct when he said that Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world during the First Gulf War. This fact was brought up by several members of Congress when they didn't want the US to get involved.

Do you have a source of some sort stating they weren't? I couldn't find one myself, but my google skills are a bit lacking today.

Jerico, Blue was correct but it is of no inmportance when the force is poorly equiped and led. It does beg the question that if they were just how much damage could they have inflicted if they decided to fight more effectively. Perhaps if the US makes the fatal mistake of attacking Iran we shall find out very quickly.

You don't have to occupy a country to lay it to waste.
If the goal is to cause massive damage to it's infrastructure and disrupt it's capability to care for and protect it's citizens and interests, a few hundred cruise missiles and a protracted air campaign would do the trick. It's not a long term solution by any means and it would require massive preparation in advance, but can you think of any other nation that could do it along the scale needed to be effective.

The are plenty of nations that can do the job but do you think the nation that you are attacking will just sit back, and do you think others will sit back and let America do it. But I'm sure we will get a demonstration soon when the US attacks Iran. If anyone thinks that will be a push over they are in for a rude shock and should the US or Israel us any kind of nukes they will loose what friends they have left in the World.

America does not by any stretch of the imagination hold all the cards, there are people and countries right now plotting its downfall should it continue on its World control trip.

Badger just as a foot note in ww2 the Germans fired 9,000 Vi and V2's, at the UK and about a third actually hit and that was after several years of war and continuos bombing raides but we did not loose did we.

I never said or implied that there wouldn't be any loses.
As to the V1 and V2 attacks, different war with different weapons. The V1 were launched in a general direction with a crude, by today's standards, guidance system, same for the V2s. Modern weapons will be more effective as they will hit the intended targets.
Again, it's not about defeating or occupying a nation, it's about smashing it's infrastructure and it's ability to care for it's citizens and it's interests. If food can't be delivered, the sick and wounded can't be cared for, it's goods can't be sold or bought or produced, or the national governments can't communicate with or control it's population or military, the job is done.

Badger I think if you should look at just how these high tech weapons wernt that effective in Iraq 1 and they do have their limitations. Using Iran as an example we know that many sites are deep under ground and only the us of tactical nukes will have any chance of success. Raising the stakes to that level opens pandoras box. As the US is the only nation to use nukes on people before and now we have many countries with them its a dangerous game and I wonder just how many American citizens at home will be sacrificed in such a conflict.

If the Americans did really believe that Iran has nukes then there is a high risk of them landing on US soil.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
If the Americans did really believe that Iran has nukes then there is a high risk of them landing on US soil.

Landing? I don't think they have the delivery systems to get their nukes over here. Unless it's on the backs of whatever suicide troops they have lined up.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Jerico, Blue was correct but it is of no inmportance when the force is poorly equiped and led. It does beg the question that if they were just how much damage could they have inflicted if they decided to fight more effectively. Perhaps if the US makes the fatal mistake of attacking Iran we shall find out very quickly.

I beg to differ. I wouldn't want to be armed with a heavy machine gun by myself and have to face 500 guys armed with spears. Sure, a lot of them are gonna die, but I'll probably get overrun. If you have any doubts about that, google "The Korean War" specifically "Chinese human wave attacks."

And a war with Iran will be just like with Iraq, unless it goes nuclear. We'll overrun them (probably with more losses than in Iraq), then it will degenerate into their insurgents fighting our troops in a unconventional environment.

How many ships visit the US, the Ruskies did it in the sixties with Cuba so how difficult can it be now. I'm sure they could sit off the US coast and hit it from a approach that the US would not expect.

Jerico, you wont overun anything, have you got any idea how big Iran is and its armed forces are far more formidable and dedicated that Iraq's ever were. And the US will have to go nuclear if it wants to take out the deep underground facilities. Its shortly after using them that Rusian and Chinese Nukes start landing all over the US.

Airports, seaports, production facilities, energy production facilities, food and services distribution points, communication centers are extremely vulnerable, especially in smaller and more centralized countries. It's not all about the military in every case.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Jerico, you wont overun anything, have you got any idea how big Iran is and its armed forces are far more formidable and dedicated that Iraq's ever were. And the US will have to go nuclear if it wants to take out the deep underground facilities. Its shortly after using them that Rusian and Chinese Nukes start landing all over the US.

Whatever.

Russia was pretty big, and pretty formidable, too. Without using nukes, we would have really kicked the teeth out of their army in a fight. Of course, we'd have taken some really serious losses, too.

Deep underground facilities? You have to think, are these important to destroy? Are they just a command and control facility? If so, they won't have much to command or control if their military is defeated in the field.

Jeri, military planners inside and outside of the US are concerned that while the US is getting entangled ever deeper in the ME it will be used as an opportunity by others to take America out.

With regard to beating the Russians ahem, Napolian and Hitler failed and so would the US.

reply to post by magicmushroom



Well, magi, did it ever occur to you that we might have learned a lesson or two from France and Germany concerning Russia? Were you stationed in Germany during the Cold War? I was. It would have been sporting, but Russia would have schwacked pretty hard.

Jeri, I'm sorry to say no you have not lernt any lessons, you had plenty of practice in Vietnam but US forces in Iraq have not been properly trained and supplied for the job they have been given and as such thwy have had to endure high casulties because of same.

Back in ww2 the Ruskies if they had wanted to could have steam rolled right over all of us and kicked us out of Europe and we could not have done a thing about it. And on top of that the Ruskies suffered grevious losses not just to the Germans but from their leader as well. T date no one has ever beaten the Russian bear and I doubt if anyone could.

reply to post by magicmushroom


Little magi, other than US forces fighting an insurgency in Iraq, it's different from Vietnam.

And are you basing your opinion on how the US would fare fighting against the Soviet Union on actual military experience in that era?

I don't think any army is unbeatable. Even the US military. It would have been a tough fight, but the Soviets would have lost.

Jeri, there are a few things you need to know, ideology is important, we in the west have always been concerned about casulties, our own and our opponents. The Russians, Chinese and Japanese have a totally different mindset. They would sacrifice millilons for a small victory, we on the other hand would not.

As an example the US Goverment and others are trying to keep the lid on whats relly going on inside Iraq, the aformentioned would not give a toss, it would be all the our glorious dead speaches etc. You see wars are not just won or lost by men or equipment, ideology is the strongest driving force and we in the west have always been in short supply of it.

As stated before there are Chinese military planners who have assessed US forces as weak and inferior to there own. Does that mean that they are right, no it does not it just means they can loose 50 Chinese soldiers to one American and they have the numbers on their side.

Originally posted by jerico65
I believe Blue is correct when he said that Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world during the First Gulf War. This fact was brought up by several members of Congress when they didn't want the US to get involved.

And of all the arguments that one should not go to war that must the worse! We should not go to war because 'the enemy' happens to have the fifth largest army in the world? Did the senators mention that it really did not even approach the fifth largest even after calling up every reserve troop it could dig up? And Since when are US senators the type of authorities we use to defend our arguments?

Do you have a source of some sort stating they weren't? I couldn't find one myself, but my google skills are a bit lacking today.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think wiki also uses the number John Simpson provided and since wiki normally serves me well i don't have much reason to question it this time round.

Intelligence estimates put the number of Iraqi troops in the theatre of war at 540,000. After the war was over it became known that, when the Iraqi army was at full strength in early January [1991], there were fewer than half that number: approximately 260,000. Once the bombing began, the desertions began in earnest…

Mubarak was not the only one. According to Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, members of Congress who visited Saudi Arabia in August 1990 were told that "Saddam Hussein's command centers and communications, his air bases, offensive missiles and anti-aircraft emplacements can be destroyed by US and Saudi air power in a matter of hours." They were assured that Saddam's army numbered between 200,000 and 300,000 men, not one million. One Saudi official said: "They will panic. Without communications, how will they know what to do?"[59]

www.nybooks.com...

www.nybooks.com...

That number just better explains the casualties and the relative ineffectiveness of the Iraqi armed forces. If they had twice or three times as many Iraqi soldiers, as it turns out there was, there would have been less opportunity to bypass formations and destroy them from any chosen side. Iraq had plenty of reservist to draw on but little capability to suitable equip them for the type of war that was going to be fought.

So in closing i am open to the idea that the Iraqi's really somehow had a million man army but if so were where they?

Stellar