The world is much safer with one global power. That was the ome benefit of Pax Americana. We really do not want to live in a world with more than one global military power.
The Pentagon is planning for war with China and Russia — can it handle both?
- Thread starter Skooby
- Start date
History has shown you do not fight land wars in Russia or Asia. History has also shown relying on air power to win a war is asking for disaster.
The Pentagon has had war plans to fight Russia, China and damn near every other major global player since the building itself was built. All this is is just a routine update and the defense industry increasing the scare meter.
Make no mistake if we ever came to a actual shooting war nothing is the same from that day forward.
The Pentagon has had war plans to fight Russia, China and damn near every other major global player since the building itself was built. All this is is just a routine update and the defense industry increasing the scare meter.
Make no mistake if we ever came to a actual shooting war nothing is the same from that day forward.
Much ado about nothing
You can't either, though. It would follow that you think Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya (and anywhere else we've expended ordinance in the past 30 years) were all net-positives for America (and worth the suffering they've caused for those on the receiving end of that ordinance).
I can't agree with that. I mostly can't agree with the idea that the safety of Americans supersedes the safety of everyone else in the world.
Plus the the whole Ben-Franklin-trade-off-between-liberty-and-safety thing.
Pax Americana...when was that?
i say we just launch nukes and then they counter with nukes of their own and let the chips fall. they all plan, but they ain't about shyt. the big countries are about fukkin with the little guy not each other.
No, Iran is physically smaller, so it can't be harder.
Afghanistan would like a word with you.
I really don't think that America can defeat both simultaneously. The best way to win a war would be to go at one enemy at a time.
The real challenge wouldn't be the fighting (not that China & Russia are going to be pushovers; if America tries them both at the same time I am confident it will get washed) but what comes after. America couldn't even maintain Iraq even though the military aspect of the campaign was perfectly executed. It's one thing to successfully invade a place, it's another thing entirely to hold down the spot once you've taken it, as history has shown time and again. I do not see America being able to maintain the public order after winning those wars. So a tactical victory might still end up being a crushing defeat strategically. What's the point of sinking trillions of dollars and potentially millions of lives into two wars if you can't keep the people in line with what you want them to do?
The real challenge wouldn't be the fighting (not that China & Russia are going to be pushovers; if America tries them both at the same time I am confident it will get washed) but what comes after. America couldn't even maintain Iraq even though the military aspect of the campaign was perfectly executed. It's one thing to successfully invade a place, it's another thing entirely to hold down the spot once you've taken it, as history has shown time and again. I do not see America being able to maintain the public order after winning those wars. So a tactical victory might still end up being a crushing defeat strategically. What's the point of sinking trillions of dollars and potentially millions of lives into two wars if you can't keep the people in line with what you want them to do?
Nobody said Iran is easy, just that Russia and China are harder due to their size. I mean shyt, you try fighting in Siberia in winter!
Truth is there's no 'easy' place in the world to invade. Have a look at how the Saudis are struggling to win in backwater ass Yemen; they have the upper hand but the Houthi rebels refuse to give in. They fight because it's in defence of their home. But some places are definitely harder than others, and if I was in charge of an army, I would much prefer to be ordered to invade Afghanistan or Iraq than Russia. I'd know that worst case scenario, I just wouldn't be able to win. Go to Russia in the middle of the winter and I might lose the entire army.
The reason the Pentagon unveiled that new strategy is b/c the US has weak cards to play, there's a short term window of technological superiority another 10 years max. The Chinese are getting aggressive because they know they can fight right now but it will be too costly. In the early 2000's a war would have been a cakewalk at sea and air for the USA just like the 1991 Gulf War.
Today China can hurt the US bad, probably wipe out 2/3 of the pacific fleet for horrendous losses.
As for Iran, their entire military has been trained for an invading army.
And Russia is huge though its military Out of 766,000 active troops, only around 200,000 approach NATO quality, the rest are shyt. China has been doing better at modernization and its forces are professional and quality of training is increasing. And India is doing even better at training levels than China but India has less advanced weapons technology.
Russia is not ready for a modern war any time soon, it will hold its own if NATO is stupid enough to attack into Russia, it might even start winning if there is a protracted war longer than 20 days, as there are massive bottlenecks in production of advanced missiles and electronics.
You will run out of the advanced stuff in a matter of a couple of weeks, and start raiding all your storage depots around Europe and North America.
Longer than 3 weeks you will not be able to manufacture and deliver the needed advanced weapons in time for use because critical components can only be made in Japan.
Without all those fancy cluster bombs and smart bombs and anti-radiation missiles, you will get swamped by all the obsolete gear left over from the Cold War. The Russians are massive hoarders, they still have weapons from the 1950's in storage.
and those 2 million plus reservists can handle those weapons easily as they are idiot proof. By the time enough high tech gear is manufactured and delivered to the front by the West, Russia may very well have recaptured territory and created facts on the ground.
ZoeGod
I’m from Brooklyn a place where stars are born.
1989-2001.
Doesn't seem long enough to justify such a characterization.
I think size is less important than the potential willingness of a population to pledge loyalty to the conquering government. Those that were best at it in the past were those who offered the full benefits of citizenship to those that were conquered.
If I had to guess, Russia would be the most amenable in that regard.
Last edited: