Future service academy graduates/going into war

[MemberLG]

There is an awful lot of strange conjecture in here, little of which is based on anything but wave top new items and broad-brush generalizations.

Why is Iran our immediate current threat?
Where do you see widespread hatred for Israel in this country?

There is great folly in assuming that conflict with either Russia or China will be dependent upon conventional military force, or sheer numbers.

plus China and Russia are pretty far away from where we are. Folks often forget that the military build up for Desert Shield/Desert Storm and OIF were unopposed and easy shipping by sea.

 

[MemberLG]

Let's be honest if its nuclear its sheer numbers -- (numbers of nukes, peoples, population distribution)

Its nuclear, numbers don't matter. There is no scenario when two countires with fights and one side uses nuclear weapon that the other side won't use her nuclear weapon.

 

[matty]

You are assuming that both Russians and Chinese view immigration the same as progressive Americans. What do you base that assumption on?

Well, the fact that the UN lists Russia as 2nd or 3rd most number of total immigrants (it was some article put out by some economy newspaper a year ago). That sounds pretty progressive to me (USA is #1).

Russia and China cooperate when it suits them. They also have a history of border conflicts when their interests don't align. During the Cold War there was also a large ideological split between Soviet and Chinese communism. Add to that clashes between European and Asian cultures, nationalist egos, and outright racism.

Sure they have a history of border conflicts. Hell, we have a history of border conflicts with Mexico. In this day and age having an enemy sitting right next to you is so much more detrimental, and I do not think that they will disagree with each other when a time comes to fight.

 

[matty]

plus China and Russia are pretty far away from where we are. Folks often forget that the military build up for Desert Shield/Desert Storm and OIF were unopposed and easy shipping by sea.

Lol, you are thinking of going over the wrong ocean. Its about the same distance going over the pacific. But, if the time comes, I think our mates down under, maybe Japan, and maybe South Korea will probably team up with us, although they will get the first of the pummeling. I agree with you though, shipping anywhere in the world against Russia or China in wartime against them will not be easy.

THEORETICALLY.

 

[matty]

Its nuclear, numbers don't matter. There is no scenario when two countires with fights and one side uses nuclear weapon that the other side won't use her nuclear weapon.

.......yes...... so if we concentrate our entire legislation, heads of military, and other important folks all around DC it doesn't take very much to knock that out..... which is why numbers of nukes, number of peoples, and population distribution matters. What is Russia, like twice the size of the US?

 

[cb7893]

Well, the fact that the UN lists Russia as 2nd or 3rd most number of total immigrants (it was some article put out by some economy newspaper a year ago).

Did you ever hear of the USSR? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Which dissolved into 15 separate countries, leaving millions upon millions people of various nationalities stranded in "foreign countries", most notably Russia. I'm surprised the "economy newspaper" didn't mention that.

Did it mention this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...why-russia-is-growing-more-xenophobic/280766/

or this if your worldview is a little further to the right:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370083/racism-runs-deep-russia-cody-boutilier

What is Russia, like twice the size of the US?

Congratulations! you got one right.

Lol man, i don't know what you were even saying.... Happy 4/20 -- keep on blazin it.

When I woke up this AM, I was no longer stoned. What's your excuse?

 

[MemberLG]

Lol, you are thinking of going over the wrong ocean. Its about the same distance going over the pacific. But, if the time comes, I think our mates down under, maybe Japan, and maybe South Korea will probably team up with us, although they will get the first of the pummeling. I agree with you though, shipping anywhere in the world against Russia or China in wartime against them will not be easy.

THEORETICALLY.

Distance is not an issue, rather departing, arriving, and moving on are the hard part. Have the clarify that my points are about fighting conventional battles in China/Russia.

Pacific Ocean - Japan could be a staging base, but still need a land connection to China/Russia move our heavy formations. Land invasion to the heart of Russia/Chnia from Korea is not practical at all, if not impossible.
Atlantic Ocean - Have to traverse pretty much the whole Europe to get to Russia. Our forces will be worned out even before we get to Russia.

 

[MemberLG]

.......yes...... so if we concentrate our entire legislation, heads of military, and other important folks all around DC it doesn't take very much to knock that out..... which is why numbers of nukes, number of peoples, and population distribution matters. What is Russia, like twice the size of the US?

Well, do you think a nuclear attack against DC will prevent the United States from luanching a counter nuclera attack?

Your positions has contingent on a notion that any type of nuclear attack, especially between Russia and US, is controlable. Nuclear weapon is more political than military. Conventionally, we destoryed so many of the enemy units, industrical capacity, or population centers, sounds military, but a using a nuclear weapon changes equation totally. Japan didn't surrender when her cities were being bombed. The fire bombing of Toyko supposedly resulted in about between 80,000 to 100,000 deaths. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima supposedly killed about 80,000 immediately and upto 166,000 later due to effects of radiation. The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki supposedly killed about 39,000 - 80,000 in total. Since the U.S. lost is nuclear monopoly, no nuclear weapon has been used.

 

[matty]

Distance is not an issue, rather departing, arriving, and moving on are the hard part. Have the clarify that my points are about fighting conventional battles in China/Russia.

Pacific Ocean - Japan could be a staging base, but still need a land connection to China/Russia move our heavy formations. Land invasion to the heart of Russia/Chnia from Korea is not practical at all, if not impossible.
Atlantic Ocean - Have to traverse pretty much the whole Europe to get to Russia. Our forces will be worned out even before we get to Russia.

Very true. Perhaps from Europe is a better plan of action. Russia's access to the Atlantic is quite limited if the Scandinavian area is accounted for. Idk this is sort of fun talking about plausible scenarios.

In that case Germany would probably be the idea staging are with the base and such.

 

[matty]

Well, do you think a nuclear attack against DC will prevent the United States from luanching a counter nuclera attack?

Your positions has contingent on a notion that any type of nuclear attack, especially between Russia and US, is controlable. Nuclear weapon is more political than military. Conventionally, we destoryed so many of the enemy units, industrical capacity, or population centers, sounds military, but a using a nuclear weapon changes equation totally. Japan didn't surrender when her cities were being bombed. The fire bombing of Toyko supposedly resulted in about between 80,000 to 100,000 deaths. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima supposedly killed about 80,000 immediately and upto 166,000 later due to effects of radiation. The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki supposedly killed about 39,000 - 80,000 in total. Since the U.S. lost is nuclear monopoly, no nuclear weapon has been used.

Well if it goes undetected (somehow), yes, it will be quite difficult for America to stay on her feet. If bombs go off in Seattle, la, dc, ny, etc. chances are some edgy commander in Colorado is going to find a way to launch a counter attack without he necessary appropriate steps.

If however we detect launches then just watch the movie War Games for the outcome.

True it is more political than military, but they are after all bombs, they don't speak for themselves. Threatening with nukes is still threatening with NUKES.

I don't get where you are going with the fire bombing vs nuke analogy in Japan. Please help me understand -- it takes one bomb (nowadays missile) to do what several hours or days of firebombing does

 

[matty]

Did you ever hear of the USSR? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Which dissolved into 15 separate countries, leaving millions upon millions people of various nationalities stranded in "foreign countries", most notably Russia. I'm surprised the "economy newspaper" didn't mention that.

Did it mention this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...why-russia-is-growing-more-xenophobic/280766/

or this if your worldview is a little further to the right:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370083/racism-runs-deep-russia-cody-boutilier



Congratulations! you got one right.



When I woke up this AM, I was no longer stoned. What's your excuse?

Nope -- you're still stoned. Nice sources by the way.

 

[matty]

In other words, I could really care less about what someone else has to say about this. Like you quoted some Russian guy way up in this thread -- he isn't here discussing this. Both of those articles are pretty opinionated, and I got that just from reading the titles.

 

[matty]

And yeah... The economy newspaper didn't mention the rich history behind the end of the ussr because it's an economy newspaper.

 

[MemberLG]

Well if it goes undetected (somehow), yes, it will be quite difficult for America to stay on her feet. If bombs go off in Seattle, la, dc, ny, etc. chances are some edgy commander in Colorado is going to find a way to launch a counter attack without he necessary appropriate steps.

If however we detect launches then just watch the movie War Games for the outcome.

True it is more political than military, but they are after all bombs, they don't speak for themselves. Threatening with nukes is still threatening with NUKES.

I don't get where you are going with the fire bombing vs nuke analogy in Japan. Please help me understand -- it takes one bomb (nowadays missile) to do what several hours or days of firebombing does

Your point "it takes one bomb (nowadays missile) to do what several hours or days of firebombing does" is why a nuclear bomb is different from conventional bombing. If was about numbers, Japan shouldn't have surrendered. Japan withstood numerous fire bombings of their cities already. They lost more people in Tokyo than two cities that were bombed by atomic bomb. They had pretty good idea on what to expect and in their minds even mitigate the damage as not hard to detects hundred bombers flying and figure out likely targets. This point I believe Japan's goal was to make the pending U.S. invasion as costly as possible to perhaps reach a peace agreement. But they had no countermeasure agaisnt an atomic bomb and make it costly for the US to use them. So they surrendered. So the pure destructiveness of an nuclear weapon and its unique nature makes it highly unlikley for a nation with nuclear weapon to use it against another nation with nuclear weapon. Say Russian bombers bombed Anchorage (population 300K) , I don't think US will retaliate by attacking a similiar size Russian city with a nuclear weapon. But if Russian attacks say Sioux City (population 180K) , Iowa with a nuclear weapon, how would US respond? With a nuclear weapon, regardless of what the numbers are.

 

[matty]

Your point "it takes one bomb (nowadays missile) to do what several hours or days of firebombing does" is why a nuclear bomb is different from conventional bombing. If was about numbers, Japan shouldn't have surrendered. Japan withstood numerous fire bombings of their cities already. They lost more people in Tokyo than two cities that were bombed by atomic bomb. They had pretty good idea on what to expect and in their minds even mitigate the damage as not hard to detects hundred bombers flying and figure out likely targets. This point I believe Japan's goal was to make the pending U.S. invasion as costly as possible to perhaps reach a peace agreement. But they had no countermeasure agaisnt an atomic bomb and make it costly for the US to use them. So they surrendered. So the pure destructiveness of an nuclear weapon and its unique nature makes it highly unlikley for a nation with nuclear weapon to use it against another nation with nuclear weapon. Say Russian bombers bombed Anchorage (population 300K) , I don't think US will retaliate by attacking a similiar size Russian city with a nuclear weapon. But if Russian attacks say Sioux City (population 180K) , Iowa with a nuclear weapon, how would US respond? With a nuclear weapon, regardless of what the numbers are.

Cool history, but Japan didn't have nuclear weapons, which I guess was sort of your point.

Is your point that nations with nuclear weapons will never fight each other? I'm not sure about that. Sure nations stockpile nukes for political reasons, but given enough pressure and circumstances, I'm sure any nation will use them.

And if Russia nuked anchorage I'm sure the U.S. would nuke a similar Russian city at the very least for the reason of satiating civil unrest in American cities

 

[MemberLG]

Cool history, but Japan didn't have nuclear weapons, which I guess was sort of your point.

Is your point that nations with nuclear weapons will never fight each other? I'm not sure about that. Sure nations stockpile nukes for political reasons, but given enough pressure and circumstances, I'm sure any nation will use them.

And if Russia nuked anchorage I'm sure the U.S. would nuke a similar Russian city at the very least for the reason of satiating civil unrest in American cities

Nations with nuclear weapons have fought other nations with or without nuclear weapons but never use them. Supposedly Israel considered using nuclear weapon during the early phase of Yom_Kipper War. India and Pakistan have fough several wars. The Falkland Island War. The Cold War was fought between US and Russia.

 

[EDelahanty]

Cool history, but Japan didn't have nuclear weapons, which I guess was sort of your point.

Is your point that nations with nuclear weapons will never fight each other? I'm not sure about that. Sure nations stockpile nukes for political reasons, but given enough pressure and circumstances, I'm sure any nation will use them.

And if Russia nuked anchorage I'm sure the U.S. would nuke a similar Russian city at the very least for the reason of satiating civil unrest in American cities

This thread is fun, but it's costing me valuable IQ points. I'm worried for the good citizens of Anchorage, though.

 

[raimius]

Too much opinion based on Red Dawn and War Games, not enough on factual history and any real understanding of nuclear deterrence or the US National Command Authority.

 

[ArmyArmor]

You all underestimate the power that is the Luxembourg War Machine....

 

[scoutpilot]

The folly is in thinking the next conflict will surely be a symmetric, kinetic war.