posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 03:44 PM
You are failing to take into account the REALITIES of war. I am talking about an actual war, composed of ground troops invading a foreign country. I
am talking about the US fighting an opposing army, composed of professional soldiers, and not an action like we've witnessed in Iran or Iraq. Even
the Gulf War is way below what I am describing. Look at the problems the US had in the Gulf War alone, when there was not even severe opposition. The
US overextended their invasion force, and ANY modern army that is well-trained could have really caused major problems.
During that particular war the US used the Nazi Blitzkrieg tactic, although it is not labelled as such. One of the drawbacks to such a strategy is the
fact that the invasion forces overextend themselves from their supply lines, and this happened during the Gulf war. There were other problems as well,
which were not that big of a deal because the Iraqi army did not put up a full scale resistance. I personally do not believe this was due to the US
forces gaining the flank either, although they did do so and surprised the main defense force.
And take the more modern "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has encountered all kinds of problems, and have lost thousands of soldiers, and they
are not even fighting a well equipped force. That type of guerrilla warfare WILL be used in a modern army versus army war, and I personally believe
the US military could have handled the situation in a better way, and would not have taken as many casualties. Even with all the "advanced"
technology, the US is having trouble with these guerrilla groups.
But maybe that has no bearing on a nation versus nation war. So let's just forget about that. Let's talk about this advanced technology that the US
itself solely possesses. There is not all that much that only the US has. And even though the US is more tech advanced than any other army in the
world, that is not enough to win a massive war. For instance, the air superiority advantage the US is used to having will be negated by the weaponry
of a modern army. Drones will not be able to fly around unmolested like they do right now. Neither will US jets. It is true that the US fighters are
superior to those of all other countries, but some of these other countries do have jets that can compete. So gaining air superiority, which is
essential to winning any modern war, is NOT a given. Especially considering an invading force must deal with the anti aircraft systems in place all
over that territory.
The opposing force could never send a jet into the sky, and wreak havoc from the ground on air systems. Of course the US has stealth bombers and
fighters that are difficult to detect via radar, and are also so fast that they are difficult to shoot down, but some of these other countries have
quite advanced anti aircraft systems. And, something that shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that if the US uses ONLY these types of aircrafts, they
would not be putting a very large force in the air at all. They MUST use less sophisticated aircraft, which are not capable of easily evading systems
that are trying to bring them down.
I think you are overlooking this fact, just like many people do. They fail to realize the sheer scope of a large war. The superiority the US enjoys in
modern times happens only because there are no forces trying to shoot them down. When this does occur, the likelihood of a breakdown increases
dramatically. A war with any other modern military will be bloody, and the US will lose tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of soldiers,
not to mention the hardware.
Iran's military has its own internal problems, but it still is a relatively modern military. And like I said, the US will not possess superiority in
every single aspect of a war. And since this is the case, there will be a sort of evening out, which means a drawn out conflict that will cost many
lives. And this is all considering that nobody uses nuclear weapons. I think most modern nations would not use them, but if they are desperate, one
And Iran has technology of its own. It DOES have missiles that can evade radar, and that could potentially strike US targets on the ground. And
something that should be remembered is this: look at the problems these guerrilla forces have caused for US ground troops. They are fanatical. Now
think of an entire army of that nature. Look at what the US dealt with during WWII with the Japanese. They were just as fanatical than these modern
forces. Iran's military will be told this is a holy war, and since the majority are Muslim, they will be ferocious on the field of battle. This will
not be the case with US soldiers, and that will have some impact on the overall fight.
I could go on about technology and superiority all day long, but here is the point that should be made...If the US got into a major war with any
modern country, it will NOT be a cakewalk, or a given victory. The technology the US has is offset by the technology of these other militaries, who
often have similar systems, and maybe even advantages in certain areas. The US navy however IS powerful. However, many modern militaries have systems
designed for taking out ships. Then the US has to deal with, like everyone else, detecting incoming missiles on ships and bringing them down. Missiles
have a lot to do with modern warfare. Detecting them is easy when the missiles are older and slower, but more advanced missile tech is not just
possessed by the US.
But I will say that I agree with you on one point...I think the US probably will come out on top of any major conflict. It is not a given, but the
technology coupled with everything else, such as a powerful navy, gives superiority enough to EVENTUALLY defeat a modern enemy. And the US economy, if
behind the war, almost ensures a victory in a war of attrition.