quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC The US's strategy for decades has been to be able to fight two huge major wars and a peacekeeping mission and win them decisively.

Yet we are bogged down in two "minor" wars and our forces are taxed to the limit?

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC If China invaded Taiwan, under our treaty with them we would have to help. We have plenty of resources to do that. Not sure about exact numbers but maybe 10% of our forces are in Iraq or Afganistan.

Actually something along the lines of 40-50% of our forces are combined in Iraq or Afganistan, with a significant number either out of rotation or in support roles for both those campaigns. Not to mention logistically speaking we are already devoting a lot more machine power than we should be for these missions.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC We can still kick China's bum. They have old equipment but are modernizing right now. They're also buying alot of naval ships and anti-ship missles to counter our strong Navy and Marine Amphibious Assualt ships that would respond. Also bought a dozen or so personnel transports for their troops. It will be another 10 years till they feel confidant they can take our Navy and Marine Corps to invade Taiwan. But Taiwan would be devastated and do they really want to control a devastated island and the survivors while having lost tens of thousans of soldiers and dozens of ships/subs for it?

Taiwan is a nuclear gambit, plain and simple. It is in the same position as Berlin/West Germany was during the Cold War (and very much like Japan could be in the next decade).

Do NOT kid yourself, a war with Taiwan would quickly escalate to a point where nuclear weapons are used.

You are right, China has older equipment, but they are upgrading fast. But, untill the technological gap is closed they will continue to rely on numbers and raw power. That means massive amounts of troops for land combat and the use of nuclear weapons at sea.

And they can easily make that gamble.

Think about it this way. A carrier strike force sails into the Taiwan straight to fight. China has no conventional means to counter. They use a nuclear device on it. Thats a lot of dead sailors. What does the US respond with? China has no super carriers, no massive naval armada? Do you hit a city/industrial area, do you strike troop deployment areas near the coast? If you do that you risk a Chinese strategic response. China has the means to kill a good portion of the large North American cities, and no they can't only reach the west coast. They can hit Seattle to Miami, San Diego to Boston.

Of course we could park a couple of boomers off their coast... 192 warheads... 15 minutes... 320 million dead Chinese. There is the posibilitly we could win a nuclear war with China with minimal loses on our side... but is anyone willing to take that risk?

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC In 10 years most of the 'old guard', the old communist hardline old timers will be dead and the younger generation aren't all butt-hurt as them over Taiwan's independence to get them involved with a major war with the United States. Right now they like making money, they have an economy dependant on the west and the US. They don't want to throw that all away for a small strip of land.

True, the old guard is on the way out, the last of the Maoists are dying off, but that makes them all the more dangerous. They might see Taiwan as the last unfinished part of the revolution. You never know.

With the younger generation the problems shift east to Japan... but thats a whole other story.

Exactly, they know the only way to win is by
nuclear war which is exactly why they wouldn't
invade Taiwan anytime soon like others try to
imply. And using nukes wouldn't even guarantee
a win. If Tawiwan is nuked then what the hell
was the point of the conflict? It's a no-win
situation for all parties involved.

By the time their military is upgraded in 20
years their economy will be more dependant
on it's neighbors and us so war would be a
bad thing. Nothing good would come out of
invading Taiwan. Better to sit back and keep
making money.

I think cooler heads will prevail. Yes you can
claim we're dogged down in Iraq and Afganistan
but if an aggressor attacked us or our allies
we have sufficient might to fight back and win.
Our losses will be larger than if we weren't in
Iraq or Afganistan thou. One, our forces when
back at home are doing more anti-insurgency training
than other types like winter/jungle/combined arms
and such. And second they have shorter training
periods between deployment. So we'd have more casulties
but our technical superiority will gurantee we hold
our own and defeat the enemy.

Also what no one takes into account these days is
we have an experienced, combat hardened military now.
No longer one that sits and gets fat at bases in friendly
countries but serious warriors who slaugther the enemy
when on one on one engagements between infantry. It's
why they resorted to IEDs and hit-run tactics. Fallujah
and the Sadr uprisings show they are no match for our
troops even without air support. A standing army with
air force would also get creamed. We will always have
air superiority and will make short work of their ground
forces. Only guerilla tactics can give us a bloody nose
but it won't defeat or push us back but hey, that's
assymetrical warfare for ya.

___________________

Electric Zoo 2010! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVE-RutexSE

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Exactly, they know the only way to win is by nuclear war which is exactly why they wouldn't invade Taiwan anytime soon like others try to imply. And using nukes wouldn't even guarantee a win. If Tawiwan is nuked then what the hell was the point of the conflict? It's a no-win situation for all parties involved. By the time their military is upgraded in 20 years their economy will be more dependant on it's neighbors and us so war would be a bad thing. Nothing good would come out of invading Taiwan. Better to sit back and keep making money. I think cooler heads will prevail. Yes you can claim we're dogged down in Iraq and Afganistan but if an aggressor attacked us or our allies we have sufficient might to fight back and win. Our losses will be larger than if we weren't in Iraq or Afganistan thou. One, our forces when back at home are doing more anti-insurgency training than other types like winter/jungle/combined arms and such. And second they have shorter training periods between deployment. So we'd have more casulties but our technical superiority will gurantee we hold our own and defeat the enemy. Also what no one takes into account these days is we have an experienced, combat hardened military now. No longer one that sits and gets fat at bases in friendly countries but serious warriors who slaugther the enemy when on one on one engagements between infantry. It's why they resorted to IEDs and hit-run tactics. Fallujah and the Sadr uprisings show they are no match for our troops even without air support. A standing army with air force would also get creamed. We will always have air superiority and will make short work of their ground forces. Only guerilla tactics can give us a bloody nose but it won't defeat or push us back but hey, that's assymetrical warfare for ya.

Finally someone who at least seems to know what they are talking about on this board regarding military stuff!

I'd have to partially disagree with you though about a combat hardened military... Iraq is a war, yea, but its not the kind with defined lines and constant combat. If anything we have a bunch of trigger happy and paranoid kids, thats not to say that some groups are coming out of Iraq worse off, the USMC have gotten a few good licks in, especially in the kind of engagments that are considered more "traditional"

All I can say is its sad that we have to fight these friggin radicals when we could be fighting so much more. It's not that I crave war, its that if you are going to wage it, wage it in a fashion that will actually do some good for your country. Iraq isnt helping us. Its wearing us down, its making our military look like a joke to those at home and abroad, and in the end its going to leave us weaker than we have been in a long long time. At least at the end of Vietnam we still had to face the Soviets in Europe... we do not have that incentive now.

I think we need to pull back, consolidate our forces and prepare for a war that will actually mean something.

In the words of Leonard Cohen:

Give me back the Berlin wall

give me Stalin and St Paul

I've seen the future, brother:

it is murder.

Partially agree. Current conflict is tiresome and demoralizing
with it's attrition.

I don't agree that other countries thikn we're weak. This is
what I think they care about :

That when we invaded Iraq, both times plus the overthrow of the
Taliban, we completely destroyed all enemy forces that stood in
our way and we overran them very very quickly. Iraq during the
1st gulf war had the largest standing army I believe. their 'elite'
republican guard divisions were easily defeated.

I think a foreign country looks at that and has understood that
the same can happen to them. Yes yes you can say the insurgency
and guerilla tactics are hurting us. But by that time their
country is occupied. Their army and government are gone. The
people in power will no longer have offices. No more luxuries
or power/influence. 100k enemy troops are in their country and
they can't get rid of them unless they try to resist with those
tactics for years and years hoping we'll quit and they can get
their cushy jobs back.

No longer do they have confidence their divisions and air force
will protect them and their way of life. They've seen thousands
and thousands of well trained and equipped armies/air force overran
in a couple of weeks and fear that can easily be their fate too.

So they can sit in their office and play ball, or oppose us and
hide in a hole like Saddam the great dictator of Iraq did. Guerilla
tactics are after the fact that your country is in enemy hands
and your grand army done for.

___________________

Electric Zoo 2010! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVE-RutexSE

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Partially agree. Current conflict is tiresome and demoralizing with it's attrition. I don't agree that other countries thikn we're weak. This is what I think they care about : That when we invaded Iraq, both times plus the overthrow of the Taliban, we completely destroyed all enemy forces that stood in our way and we overran them very very quickly. Iraq during the 1st gulf war had the largest standing army I believe. their 'elite' republican guard divisions were easily defeated. I think a foreign country looks at that and has understood that the same can happen to them. Yes yes you can say the insurgency and guerilla tactics are hurting us. But by that time their country is occupied. Their army and government are gone. The people in power will no longer have offices. No more luxuries or power/influence. 100k enemy troops are in their country and they can't get rid of them unless they try to resist with those tactics for years and years hoping we'll quit and they can get their cushy jobs back. No longer do they have confidence their divisions and air force will protect them and their way of life. They've seen thousands and thousands of well trained and equipped armies/air force overran in a couple of weeks and fear that can easily be their fate too. So they can sit in their office and play ball, or oppose us and hide in a hole like Saddam the great dictator of Iraq did. Guerilla tactics are after the fact that your country is in enemy hands and your grand army done for.

Well minus the first gulf war and NATO/UN peacekeeping missions in Europe during the 90's we have not fought a comparably equipped military force.

The Taliban was barely a military... hell most of them didnt even have uniforms (why we can skirt around the Geneva convention! ).

Iraq in 2003 was a cake walk. We were fighting a country that had been under over a decade of sancations, militarily and against its civilians. It was a weak state to begin with. Their armies were unequipped and untrained. Most of them were reserves, hell most of them were Shiites that didnt even like Saddam in the first place!

This is not to say that the US is weak force. No, the US is the strongest military power on the planet at this time. It has been unrivaled in strength since the USSR fell, but that is not to say we don't have capable opponents.

Look at Iran for instance.

If we were to want to take Iran (god forbid) for some reason that means troops on the ground, slogging it out.

Iran is a capable military force. We would win, but first week casualities on our side during the ground war would probably be the same as we have had 4 years in Iraq, if not more. Of course if that is the case, Iranian casualities would probably be off the charts.

It comes back to "do we risk it", look at anger people get over ALMOST 3000 dead over 4 years, granted most of them have died playing neighborhood cops more than they have died being Marines or Soldiers, which is sort of sad.

But imagine the outcry if we had to fight a war where we have 3000 dead in one week, 12,000 dead in a month.

A war like this will come, probably in our lifetimes, and hubris developed from Iraq and Afganistan will be the cause.

I doubt we'd occupy Iran. A ground engagement would
be a piece of cake thou. The parts I wrote about foreign
governements watching us take out enemy divisions quickly
is true. When we fight formal military divisions, they
are wiped out, even without air support. First gulf war
our untested Abrams took on the newest most advanced soviet tanks
and we had engagements were we didn't lose one tank and
destroyed dozens in just tank on tank battles.

War to cripple Iran's nuclear weapons research wouldn't
take a huge invasion. Mostly air power projection would
be needed. We wouldn't send divisions on a rush to Tehran.
Basically I think we'd sit back and let them counter-attack
us. And defense is the best position, they'd have a really
hard time attacking us either in Iraq or elsewhere with their
land forces.

They do invest alot into anti-air defenses but so did Iraq
both wars and they were still not a match for cruise missles
and stealh technology that took them and their radars out.
Plus we got UAV fighters not too far away in the future coming.
(unmanned aerial vehicles)

Difficult thou would be the strait near them. They've occupied
an island near it (not officialy Iranian territory) and based
anti-ship missles and garrisoned some troops on it. They would
try to disrupt oil tankers at it's smallest gap where I believe
a thrid of sea based oil tranports go near. But I think that
would just seriously piss off the entire world and give them
more negative attention. Right now they got a few friends, mostly
China and Russia but I think even they would get pissed if Iran
messes with the oil supply.

The other arab countries don't like Iran and it's nuclear ambitions.
They wouldn't be pleased with the situtation on the strait but
they def don't want a persian nuclear power. Well except Syria.

Anyway point being I don't think we'd have heavy casualties during
the conflict anywhere near the 3,000 of the 4 years of the Iraq war.
Would be mostly a naval and air force battle and our technical
superiority would be a great advantage. They did test a new super-sonic
torpedo but I think we have good counter-measures for those if they
even get close with them. That would be a danger, the anti-ship missles
aren't as bad as we've trained to counter those for decades with
our own missles and computerized gatling guns on board most ships
just for that purpose.

EDIT:

Also I'd like to point out, a HUGE problem with arab armies
is the lack of a strong NCO corps. Most soldiers leave the
military as soon as they can, not sticking around to move
up to NCO ranks. So in the enlisted corps it's mosrly new
soldiers with little experience and almost no leadership
experience. The Officer Corps are distant, they are members
of rich families and think they're alot better than the
common soldier who mostly comes from poor families.
There's a huge gap between them, this means the enlisted
soldiers don't trust the officer's abilities and vice versa.
They don't want to risk their lives or say "I'd follow you
anywhere" like many other armies who have respect for their
officers. Kinda tired so not making much sense but you get
the picture I hope. Without a good NCO corps bridging the
gap, their armies won't be very effective, as we've seen
many just surrender and little 'espirit de corps' in their ranks.
Officers think they're too classy to get their hands dirty
and have no respect from lower ranks and no NCOs to rely
on. This means ALOT during combat ops. Sgt's are our backbone
and without them we'd be lost.

___________________

Electric Zoo 2010! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVE-RutexSE

Last edited by DevilDogUSMC on Dec-29-2006 at 13:09