was unaware but seems likely or at least highly probable. you say some stuff i find accurate/agreeable,some not. that is immaterial. will agree,based on no experience but 80 or so volumes read that the US really has never faced a peer military at it's peak as you said about europe in 1944. i am afraid my general grade hero from then,patton,was wrong and it is a good thing he couldn't get a war with russia started in 1945. we would all be speaking russian now if so. we had the nuc but none left after 2 at japan. russia had beaten (with our huge supply help) one of history's most skilled armies. yes,the russians beat the germans,not us and for sure not the brits. just my .02 but best units in ww2 were the usmc-only really 5 divisions and the waffen ss-really only about 10 real divisions. our army in '90-91 was maybe the best army since alexander's or temujin's. iraq was no challenge and no test really. a shame what it has devolved into.
- Thread starter HenryTheAce
- Start date
Start with where you last left her.....dismembered in dumpster, run thru wood chipper, buried behind shed, sent out to take a shit and the hogs got her...
You know, the usual places you leave a wife.
wrong thread but who cares? not me.
The Japanese were truly shit soldiers for the most part. The Japanese Army really only excelled at killing unarmed civilians on the Asian mainland. Japan lost 14 soldiers killed for every 1 American/Allied soldier they managed to kill, a terribly pathetic ratio. No nation worth a damn would ever field a force so incapable that it cost them 14 of their own soldiers for every enemy soldier killed, particularly in light of the respective populations of Japan and the USA. If Japan had out-numbered the USA 40 to 1 in population, then trading 14 to 1 in losses might have been a reasonable strategy of attrition. In 1941 the USA had about twice the population of Japan, thus Japan's situation of trading 14 of their soldiers for every American soldier was not sound.
Now the Japanese did manage to kill about 30,000,000 Chinese civilians who were basically unarmed peasants. Most Americans cannot wrap their minds around the Chinese or Soviet losses in WW2, about 30,000,000 dead Chinese and 27,000,000 dead Soviets/Russians [about 9,000,000 of the Soviet losses were military, the rest civilian].
The USA entered WW1 in 1917 and fought a depleted worn out Germany for a few months of 1917 and then 1918.
The USA entered WW2 in Dec 1941, the last major power to enter the war, and then fought depleted Axis forces in North Africa in 1942-1943 in a theater the Axis considered a distant second to the Eastern Front, then fought second-rate and third-rate Italians in Sicily and Italy in 1943, then fought a handful of depleted German divisions in Italy from 1943 to the end of the war [the Germans dragged out the defensive campaign for 2 years], and then fought depleted second rate German divisions, Ostlegion, Static Divisions, and a few SS and serious Heer divisions in the West from 1944-1945.
The Americans went through WW1 and WW2 entering late and fighting depleted worn down powers who were definitely not in their prime.
The Americans should have handily won the Korean War but barely managed to achieve a stalemate. Think about it, with largely the same military from 1945, a lot of fresh and recent combat experience, institutional experience, a war industry that was still intact, no damage to the homeland; the USA should have been able to crush North Korea and the Chinese interlopers like insects. China wasn't even a near peer let alone a peer, it was a depleted worn out quasi feudal agrarian nation which had just come out of a civil war and before that it had been at war with Japan for almost 15 years. Mao's China should have been thoroughly trounced in Korea.
Beating Japan in the Second World War wasn't a huge accomplishment because frankly Japan sucked. Their economy was 1/15th the size of the USA and their basic soldiers were not particularly capable. Japan was delusional to think that attacking the USA would have positive successful results.
Could the USA have defeated the European Axis in their prime without the Soviet Union being involved? Highly unlikely. Only if the Western Allies maintained a continental blockade and starved the European Axis of crucial resources and food, similar to what the British blockade in WW1 was aimed at, although it would have been more difficult in the 1940s with Germany occupying most of Western Europe and the Soviet Union trading with Germany.
The USA does not have a particularly impressive track record for winning wars against strong competent powers. A lot of Americans insist that the USA could win a war against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, at the same time, while it isn't clear to me that the USA could defeat any one of those nations alone, let alone a combination of them or all of them simultaneously. Unfortunately the USA is probably going to have to lose a war and have a Versailles style peace inflicted upon it, before Americans realize, acknowledge, and admit just how weak the USA is and how far the USA has fallen.
Our unrealistic national self-image makes it far more likely we will blunder our way into a major global war, convinced of our own invincibility, setting ourselves up for ultimately being humbled, humiliated, and possibly forcibly disarmed of our navy and strategic assets or even occupied, in the aftermath of the defeat.
The United States is one of the least capable major powers when it comes to achieving successful military operations and prosecuting major wars against major powers, yet we view ourselves as being the most capable and even invincible. Our image of our nation doesn't match up with the fairly unimpressive military history of the United States. This disconnect with reality is likely to lead us to make major policy plunders in regards to our actions on the world stage.
Imagine a local tough guy who is convinced he is tough because he has made a name for himself beating up old men who aren't train and cannot effectively fight back. When he finally encounters somebody who is an actual fighter, he is going to get it.
The US has accumulated 20-25 years of experience fighting what amounts to armed civilians operating as insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The USA has no recent experience with ship-to-ship combat, air-to-air combat, or ground combat against conventional combined arms forces. I believe the last time the USAF had aerial combat experience was in Vietnam. The last time the USA engaged in ship combat was in the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War [very limited], somewhat in Vietnam [very limited], mainly in WW2 [quite a long time ago]. The last time the USA fought against any semblance of combined arms forces on the ground would perhaps be Desert Storm, prior to that, some aspects of Vietnam, really you have to go back to Korea or WW2 to find real serious examples.
Since the 1950s the US Navy has enjoyed almost complete supremacy anywhere they have operated. The US Air Force has enjoyed aerial superiority and usually total aerial supremacy, in almost every theater or war. I believe the last time Americans were on the receiving end of shelling by anything larger than a mortar, it would be howitzers in Vietnam. American volunteers in Ukraine were not doing well being on the receiving end of overwhelming Russian air and artillery assets.
Fighting is a lot easier when you have complete control of the air, you have an AC-130 on stand-by, you can call in an A-10, the enemy has no night vision, and the enemy is a collection of armed civilian farmers and goat herders who have nothing larger than 82mm or the occasional 120mm mortar, but more likely RPG-7s and PKMs. When you're suddenly faced with a Russian Guards Tank Army of 60,000 men in a combined arms formation where they have overwhelming artillery, air power available, and the average soldier has at least 6-18 months experience in Syria and many had experience in Georgia or the Second Chechen War, and many had experience in Donbas from 2014 forward, it is a different situation.
For what the United States taxpayers spend on the military, the realized return is not impressive. It is a pretty bad investment in financial/economic terms.
Fortunately for the USA, almost all wars [except those like the Six Day War that are over too quick for war economy/industry to be relevant] are generally decided by antecedent economic, demographic, and logistical factors. The USA tends to "win" wars through economics, demographics, and logistics, which is a large part of how Republican Rome won most of its major wars.
As long as you're okay with taking a lot of casualties and spending a lot of money, there is nothing "wrong" with the American approach to "winning" a war. Hannibal crushed Rome in 4 separate battles, with the fourth being the Battle of Cannae whereby his forces killed about 50,000 Romans and captured at least 15,000 which effectively destroyed Rome's field army. Rather than surrender the Romans simply raised more legions and fielded another army. Most people cannot fathom 50,000 young men being killed in one day, in one battle, those sort of losses in that short of a time-span are mind-boggling to almost everybody who tries to contemplate it.
Battle of Cannae - Wikipedia
Keep in mind Rome had lost about 20% of its adult male population as the result of 20 months of combat [4 major battles] against Hannibal. But Rome resolved to raise another army and fight on. Would the USA be okay with losing 20% of its adult male population? I don't know. Should the USA ever be okay with such a proposition? Probably not, not unless the situation were utterly dire, critical, and the survival of the very nation was at stake, then it might be worth considering acceptance of such losses.
Last edited:
The Japanese were truly shit soldiers for the most part. The Japanese Army really only excelled at killing unarmed civilians on the Asian mainland. Japan lost 14 soldiers killed for every 1 American/Allied soldier they managed to kill, a terribly pathetic ratio. No nation worth a damn would ever field a force so incapable that it cost them 14 of their own soldiers for every enemy soldier killed, particularly in light of the respective populations of Japan and the USA. If Japan had out-numbered the USA 40 to 1 in population, then trading 14 to 1 in losses might have been a reasonable strategy of attrition. In 1941 the USA had about twice the population of Japan, thus Japan's situation of trading 14 of their soldiers for every American soldier was not sound.
Now the Japanese did manage to kill about 30,000,000 Chinese civilians who were basically unarmed peasants. Most Americans cannot wrap their minds around the Chinese or Soviet losses in WW2, about 30,000,000 dead Chinese and 27,000,000 dead Soviets/Russians [about 9,000,000 of the Soviet losses were military, the rest civilian].
The USA entered WW1 in 1917 and fought a depleted worn out Germany for a few months of 1917 and then 1918.
The USA entered WW2 in Dec 1941, the last major power to enter the war, and then fought depleted Axis forces in North Africa in 1942-1943 in a theater the Axis considered a distant second to the Eastern Front, then fought second-rate and third-rate Italians in Sicily and Italy in 1943, then fought a handful of depleted German divisions in Italy from 1943 to the end of the war [the Germans dragged out the defensive campaign for 2 years], and then fought depleted second rate German divisions, Ostlegion, Static Divisions, and a few SS and serious Heer divisions in the West from 1944-1945.
The Americans went through WW1 and WW2 entering late and fighting depleted worn down powers who were definitely not in their prime.
The Americans should have handily won the Korean War but barely managed to achieve a stalemate. Think about it, with largely the same military from 1945, a lot of fresh and recent combat experience, institutional experience, a war industry that was still intact, no damage to the homeland; the USA should have been able to crush North Korea and the Chinese interlopers like insects. China wasn't even a near peer let alone a peer, it was a depleted worn out quasi feudal agrarian nation which had just come out of a civil war and before that it had been at war with Japan for almost 15 years. Mao's China should have been thoroughly trounced in Korea.
Beating Japan in the Second World War wasn't a huge accomplishment because frankly Japan sucked. Their economy was 1/15th the size of the USA and their basic soldiers were not particularly capable. Japan was delusional to think that attacking the USA would have positive successful results.
Could the USA have defeated the European Axis in their prime without the Soviet Union being involved? Highly unlikely. Only if the Western Allies maintained a continental blockade and starved the European Axis of crucial resources and food, similar to what the British blockade in WW1 was aimed at, although it would have been more difficult in the 1940s with Germany occupying most of Western Europe and the Soviet Union trading with Germany.
The USA does not have a particularly impressive track record for winning wars against strong competent powers. A lot of Americans insist that the USA could win a war against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, at the same time, while it isn't clear to me that the USA could defeat any one of those nations alone, let alone a combination of them or all of them simultaneously. Unfortunately the USA is probably going to have to lose a war and have a Versailles style peace inflicted upon it, before Americans realize, acknowledge, and admit just how weak the USA is and how far the USA has fallen.
Our unrealistic national self-image makes it far more likely we will blunder our way into a major global war, convinced of our own invincibility, setting ourselves up for ultimately being humbled, humiliated, and possibly forcibly disarmed of our navy and strategic assets or even occupied, in the aftermath of the defeat.
The United States is one of the least capable major powers when it comes to achieving successful military operations and prosecuting major wars against major powers, yet we view ourselves as being the most capable and even invincible. Our image of our nation doesn't match up with the fairly unimpressive military history of the United States. This disconnect with reality is likely to lead us to make major policy plunders in regards to our actions on the world stage.
Imagine a local tough guy who is convinced he is tough because he has made a name for himself beating up old men who aren't train and cannot effectively fight back. When he finally encounters somebody who is an actual fighter, he is going to get it.
The US has accumulated 20-25 years of experience fighting what amounts to armed civilians operating as insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The USA has no recent experience with ship-to-ship combat, air-to-air combat, or ground combat against conventional combined arms forces. I believe the last time the USAF had aerial combat experience was in Vietnam. The last time the USA engaged in ship combat was in the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War [very limited], somewhat in Vietnam [very limited], mainly in WW2 [quite a long time ago]. The last time the USA fought against any semblance of combined arms forces on the ground would perhaps be Desert Storm, prior to that, some aspects of Vietnam, really you have to go back to Korea or WW2 to find real serious examples.
Since the 1950s the US Navy has enjoyed almost complete supremacy anywhere they have operated. The US Air Force has enjoyed aerial superiority and usually total aerial supremacy, in almost every theater or war. I believe the last time Americans were on the receiving end of shelling by anything larger than a mortar, it would be howitzers in Vietnam. American volunteers in Ukraine were not doing well being on the receiving end of overwhelming Russian air and artillery assets.
Fighting is a lot easier when you have complete control of the air, you have an AC-130 on stand-by, you can call in an A-10, the enemy has no night vision, and the enemy is a collection of armed civilian farmers and goat herders who have nothing larger than 82mm or the occasional 120mm mortar, but more likely RPG-7s and PKMs. When you're suddenly faced with a Russian Guards Tank Army of 60,000 men in a combined arms formation where they have overwhelming artillery, air power available, and the average soldier has at least 6-18 months experience in Syria and many had experience in Georgia or the Second Chechen War, and many had experience in Donbas from 2014 forward, it is a different situation.
For what the United States taxpayers spend on the military, the realized return is not impressive. It is a pretty bad investment in financial/economic terms.
Fortunately for the USA, almost all wars [except those like the Six Day War that are over too quick for war economy/industry to be relevant] are generally decided by antecedent economic, demographic, and logistical factors. The USA tends to "win" wars through economics, demographics, and logistics, which is a large part of how Republican Rome won most of its major wars.
As long as you're okay with taking a lot of casualties and spending a lot of money, there is nothing "wrong" with the American approach to "winning" a war. Hannibal crushed Rome in 4 separate battles, with the fourth being the Battle of Cannae whereby his forces killed about 50,000 Romans and captured at least 15,000 which effectively destroyed Rome's field army. Rather than surrender the Romans simply raised more legions and fielded another army. Most people cannot fathom 50,000 young men being killed in one day, in one battle, those sort of losses in that short of a time-span are mind-boggling to almost everybody who tries to contemplate it.
Battle of Cannae - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Keep in mind Rome had lost about 20% of its adult male population as the result of 20 months of combat [4 major battles] against Hannibal. But Rome resolved to raise another army and fight on. Would the USA be okay with losing 20% of its adult male population? I don't know. Should the USA ever be okay with such a proposition? Probably not, not unless the situation were utterly dire, critical, and the survival of the very nation was at stake, then it might be worth considering acceptance of such losses.
you talk a lot but so do i. i find nothing above to disagree with. all pretty consistent with what i already know to be true. the shame is our incompetent political and military leadership over our short (by historical standards) life span. our founders developed a political system unique in human history. not perfect but of more benefit to the ordinary people than any in human history. our leaders have been victims of huge doses of malignant human imperfections,incompetence,idiocy,hubris and self delusions. we are now cursed with the greed,perversion and delusional self destructive mentality of our ruling masters. i fear that a gov by and for the people will end up in history's dust bin.
In our society "Christian patriots" will listen to a 3 hour lecture by a Christ denier such as Ben Shapiro, but they claim a few paragraphs written by a fellow believer on a topic that might be of relevance is, "too much to read."
Most people don't read, won't read, and many can't read much of anything.
Expecting Americans to care about anything is generally expecting too much. The USA is in steep terminal decline and will likely collapse and fall in short order. It makes very little difference to me, because one way or another my life goes on, and if it doesn't then it doesn't.
I guess Iwo Jima never happened.
Wake Island ?
Okinawa.
Midway
A whole shitload of other battles.
Domination of China a country at least 50 times larger than Japan ?
Nah, the Japs were fucking pushovers, right ?
You're an idiot.
I didn’t get what he said as the Japanese were pushovers. They were very well entrenched in their fortifications and it cost us dearly. But despite their preparations they died in droves. From what I’ve read the average Japanese soldier completely lacked initiative, motivation, and individuality. They did exactly what they were told - and nothing more. No innovation or creative thinking. When conditions changed they did not counter, did not adapt. They died.
P
US prosecuted the air war in Desert Storm, one of the most overlooked and conveniently left-out campaigns of the 20th Century when making similar lists (I argue probably the most important), and erased the world’s 4th-6th largest Army/Air Force in a matter of about 2 weeks. Saddam had better IADS because it included both European and Soviet systems, some of which were manned by East German advisors and technicians (who were some of, if not the best of all the Soviet era/Warsaw Pact nations).The Japanese were truly shit soldiers for the most part. The Japanese Army really only excelled at killing unarmed civilians on the Asian mainland. Japan lost 14 soldiers killed for every 1 American/Allied soldier they managed to kill, a terribly pathetic ratio. No nation worth a damn would ever field a force so incapable that it cost them 14 of their own soldiers for every enemy soldier killed, particularly in light of the respective populations of Japan and the USA. If Japan had out-numbered the USA 40 to 1 in population, then trading 14 to 1 in losses might have been a reasonable strategy of attrition. In 1941 the USA had about twice the population of Japan, thus Japan's situation of trading 14 of their soldiers for every American soldier was not sound.
Now the Japanese did manage to kill about 30,000,000 Chinese civilians who were basically unarmed peasants. Most Americans cannot wrap their minds around the Chinese or Soviet losses in WW2, about 30,000,000 dead Chinese and 27,000,000 dead Soviets/Russians [about 9,000,000 of the Soviet losses were military, the rest civilian].
The USA entered WW1 in 1917 and fought a depleted worn out Germany for a few months of 1917 and then 1918.
The USA entered WW2 in Dec 1941, the last major power to enter the war, and then fought depleted Axis forces in North Africa in 1942-1943 in a theater the Axis considered a distant second to the Eastern Front, then fought second-rate and third-rate Italians in Sicily and Italy in 1943, then fought a handful of depleted German divisions in Italy from 1943 to the end of the war [the Germans dragged out the defensive campaign for 2 years], and then fought depleted second rate German divisions, Ostlegion, Static Divisions, and a few SS and serious Heer divisions in the West from 1944-1945.
The Americans went through WW1 and WW2 entering late and fighting depleted worn down powers who were definitely not in their prime.
The Americans should have handily won the Korean War but barely managed to achieve a stalemate. Think about it, with largely the same military from 1945, a lot of fresh and recent combat experience, institutional experience, a war industry that was still intact, no damage to the homeland; the USA should have been able to crush North Korea and the Chinese interlopers like insects. China wasn't even a near peer let alone a peer, it was a depleted worn out quasi feudal agrarian nation which had just come out of a civil war and before that it had been at war with Japan for almost 15 years. Mao's China should have been thoroughly trounced in Korea.
Beating Japan in the Second World War wasn't a huge accomplishment because frankly Japan sucked. Their economy was 1/15th the size of the USA and their basic soldiers were not particularly capable. Japan was delusional to think that attacking the USA would have positive successful results.
Could the USA have defeated the European Axis in their prime without the Soviet Union being involved? Highly unlikely. Only if the Western Allies maintained a continental blockade and starved the European Axis of crucial resources and food, similar to what the British blockade in WW1 was aimed at, although it would have been more difficult in the 1940s with Germany occupying most of Western Europe and the Soviet Union trading with Germany.
The USA does not have a particularly impressive track record for winning wars against strong competent powers. A lot of Americans insist that the USA could win a war against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, at the same time, while it isn't clear to me that the USA could defeat any one of those nations alone, let alone a combination of them or all of them simultaneously. Unfortunately the USA is probably going to have to lose a war and have a Versailles style peace inflicted upon it, before Americans realize, acknowledge, and admit just how weak the USA is and how far the USA has fallen.
Our unrealistic national self-image makes it far more likely we will blunder our way into a major global war, convinced of our own invincibility, setting ourselves up for ultimately being humbled, humiliated, and possibly forcibly disarmed of our navy and strategic assets or even occupied, in the aftermath of the defeat.
The United States is one of the least capable major powers when it comes to achieving successful military operations and prosecuting major wars against major powers, yet we view ourselves as being the most capable and even invincible. Our image of our nation doesn't match up with the fairly unimpressive military history of the United States. This disconnect with reality is likely to lead us to make major policy plunders in regards to our actions on the world stage.
Imagine a local tough guy who is convinced he is tough because he has made a name for himself beating up old men who aren't train and cannot effectively fight back. When he finally encounters somebody who is an actual fighter, he is going to get it.
The US has accumulated 20-25 years of experience fighting what amounts to armed civilians operating as insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The USA has no recent experience with ship-to-ship combat, air-to-air combat, or ground combat against conventional combined arms forces. I believe the last time the USAF had aerial combat experience was in Vietnam. The last time the USA engaged in ship combat was in the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War [very limited], somewhat in Vietnam [very limited], mainly in WW2 [quite a long time ago]. The last time the USA fought against any semblance of combined arms forces on the ground would perhaps be Desert Storm, prior to that, some aspects of Vietnam, really you have to go back to Korea or WW2 to find real serious examples.
Since the 1950s the US Navy has enjoyed almost complete supremacy anywhere they have operated. The US Air Force has enjoyed aerial superiority and usually total aerial supremacy, in almost every theater or war. I believe the last time Americans were on the receiving end of shelling by anything larger than a mortar, it would be howitzers in Vietnam. American volunteers in Ukraine were not doing well being on the receiving end of overwhelming Russian air and artillery assets.
Fighting is a lot easier when you have complete control of the air, you have an AC-130 on stand-by, you can call in an A-10, the enemy has no night vision, and the enemy is a collection of armed civilian farmers and goat herders who have nothing larger than 82mm or the occasional 120mm mortar, but more likely RPG-7s and PKMs. When you're suddenly faced with a Russian Guards Tank Army of 60,000 men in a combined arms formation where they have overwhelming artillery, air power available, and the average soldier has at least 6-18 months experience in Syria and many had experience in Georgia or the Second Chechen War, and many had experience in Donbas from 2014 forward, it is a different situation.
For what the United States taxpayers spend on the military, the realized return is not impressive. It is a pretty bad investment in financial/economic terms.
Fortunately for the USA, almost all wars [except those like the Six Day War that are over too quick for war economy/industry to be relevant] are generally decided by antecedent economic, demographic, and logistical factors. The USA tends to "win" wars through economics, demographics, and logistics, which is a large part of how Republican Rome won most of its major wars.
As long as you're okay with taking a lot of casualties and spending a lot of money, there is nothing "wrong" with the American approach to "winning" a war. Hannibal crushed Rome in 4 separate battles, with the fourth being the Battle of Cannae whereby his forces killed about 50,000 Romans and captured at least 15,000 which effectively destroyed Rome's field army. Rather than surrender the Romans simply raised more legions and fielded another army. Most people cannot fathom 50,000 young men being killed in one day, in one battle, those sort of losses in that short of a time-span are mind-boggling to almost everybody who tries to contemplate it.
Battle of Cannae - Wikipedia
Keep in mind Rome had lost about 20% of its adult male population as the result of 20 months of combat [4 major battles] against Hannibal. But Rome resolved to raise another army and fight on. Would the USA be okay with losing 20% of its adult male population? I don't know. Should the USA ever be okay with such a proposition? Probably not, not unless the situation were utterly dire, critical, and the survival of the very nation was at stake, then it might be worth considering acceptance of such losses.
He had newer MiG-25PDs with solid state electronics, Mirage F1EQs custom-built for him by Dassault (France), and MiG-29As, along with hundred of MiG-23s, MiG-21s, Su-25s, and more importantly, pilots and tankers who had 8 years of continual combat experience with Iran. This included the use of chemical weapons and all-out conventional warfare, SCUDs being tossed to and fro, and mass loss of human life. The Iraqi Air Force actually had more tactical combat aircraft than the US-led coalition that staged out of Saudi Arabia.
Saddam’s Air Force and Army was demonstrably more-competent than the Russians, since Russian MiG pilots tried to go school the Egyptians against the Israelis in 1967, and had a higher loss ratio than the Egyptian Air Force in the same MiGs. The Egyptians were laughing at them because the Soviets had come in with a superiority complex to the Arabs.
USAF, USN, and USMC fighter pilots in Desert Storm had no combat experience, but were better aviators and combat tacticians because of training, intelligence, logistics, maintenance, and superior aircraft/weapons.
The US Air war was so lopsided against Iraq in 1991, that the Iraqi Air Force just stopped flying and started finding ways to hide and preserve their precious fighters. We shot down their interceptors and fighters, helicopters, and anything that flew, while strikers penetrated deep and put precision weapons on the hardened shelters and taxiways to the runways, which were hit with anti-runway munitions repeatedly.
Our armored units accidentally wandered over reverse-slope defenses into Iraqi Regimental and Division registered training range areas for tank gunnery where they were set-up, and blew turrets off their armor as if it were a sport instead. Imagine someone sauntering into your favorite rifle range right over the berm behind your targets after you’ve been shooting all-day, not knowing your were there, then mopping you up like they owned the place.
The Highway of Death was just a side-show, effectively air-to-ground gunnery practice for USMC, USN, and USAF from the fight inside of Iraq.
There isn’t a US-equivalent peer nation when it comes to geography, population, economy, military capability, industrial capacity, training culture, maintenance, intelligence collection, and logistics.
Chinese Generals in their strategic ballistic missile forces sell off the fuel so locals can buy it for "hot pot" in their woks. Their culture does not tolerate introspection, internal critique of performance, or accurate reporting up the chain of command. They are still a very primitive-minded ancient people who see rockets as sources of fire to make money off of on the side, not tools to export violence or deter conflict.
Russians are inept, corrupt, and incompetent with a continually-diminishing required term of service for conscripts when you look back to the Tsarist times. Even Putin continued the trend in reducing military service terms, not that they were remotely-competent during the Yeltsin years.
Another big failure I see among people in the US is the total unawareness or perspective on geography. There is this assumption that because someone has a flag and borders, that they are a potential peer of the US. The reality is so unfairly-disproportionate in this respect that it should deter anyone from suggesting otherwise, but geography, history, and demographics aren’t taught to most PolySci students in universities for whatever reasons, mainly because the professors don’t know these basic subjects much of the time, and focus more on political theory.
Talk me through what nation is going to establish and support a logistics chain over the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans to the US. China couldn’t even bully Vietnam in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979-1980. The Vietnamese curb-stomped the PLA.
Russia can’t even invade a neighboring country and hold ground where they already started from annexed territory and had other nations support them by allowing strategic staging bases to surround Ukraine.
Iran can barely keep the lid on their dissidents. They’re run by imbecile Shi’ites who shoot down their own airliners.
Are these types of messages spread far and wide in the US? No. We do the opposite by screaming "the sky is falling", someone is going to beat us, so we better develop and buy more weapons, train harder, and keep telling ourselves we’re going to lose the next war. US military large force exercises are the opposite of how foreign nations bolster their glorified parades for their leaders. We send Blue Forces to LFEs to be humiliated repeatedly until they figure out how to counter OPFOR, or not, and conduct dispassionate AARs pointing out every way we sucked, with officers and enlisted all present to witness the mistakes recognized, owned, and re-thought. This would be unimaginable in France, let alone Russia or China.
I am concerned about demographics though, which is what the thread is ultimately about, and where we agree. If we don’t raise children in time-honored traditions of families with intact parents, we will lose our Country culturally and morph more into some dystopian nightmare.
One of the smartest things we did in WWII was not commit heavy ground forces to the ETO until the very end, while supplying billions worth of Lend-Lease war material to the Allies.
The US is the only large population industrialized society that participated substantially in WWII that didn’t lose a large fraction of its prime age males in the war, whereas everyone else had the opposite experience, including the Brits.
It’s one of the reasons why we enjoy better demographic numbers today, whereas Europe and Russia are in demographic decline or entering demographic winter (Italy, Germany, Russia are facing terminally-low birth rates. Japan has been there for about 20 years now.)
I do think we need to reform our divorce laws though, making it extremely hard to get divorced, and not reward unfaithful wives with primary custody and financial incentives to undermine the fabric of our society. That has been more detrimental than any war the US has been involved in over the last Century, along with abortion.
The US is the only large population industrialized society that participated substantially in WWII that didn’t lose a large fraction of its prime age males in the war, whereas everyone else had the opposite experience, including the Brits.
It’s one of the reasons why we enjoy better demographic numbers today, whereas Europe and Russia are in demographic decline or entering demographic winter (Italy, Germany, Russia are facing terminally-low birth rates. Japan has been there for about 20 years now.)
I do think we need to reform our divorce laws though, making it extremely hard to get divorced, and not reward unfaithful wives with primary custody and financial incentives to undermine the fabric of our society. That has been more detrimental than any war the US has been involved in over the last Century, along with abortion.
This page is chock-full of commentary on finding a wife.
Wrong thread.US prosecuted the air war in Desert Storm, one of the most overlooked and conveniently left-out campaigns of the 20th Century when making similar lists (I argue probably the most important), and erased the world’s 4th-6th largest Army/Air Force in a matter of about 2 weeks. Saddam had better IADS because it included both European and Soviet systems, some of which were manned by East German advisors and technicians (who were some of, if not the best of all the Soviet era/Warsaw Pact nations).
He had newer MiG-25PDs with solid state electronics, Mirage F1EQs custom-built for him by Dassault (France), and MiG-29As, along with hundred of MiG-23s, MiG-21s, Su-25s, and more importantly, pilots and tankers who had 8 years of continual combat experience with Iran. This included the use of chemical weapons and all-out conventional warfare, SCUDs being tossed to and fro, and mass loss of human life. The Iraqi Air Force actually had more tactical combat aircraft than the US-led coalition that staged out of Saudi Arabia.
Saddam’s Air Force and Army was demonstrably more-competent than the Russians, since Russian MiG pilots tried to go school the Egyptians against the Israelis in 1967, and had a higher loss ratio than the Egyptian Air Force in the same MiGs. The Egyptians were laughing at them because the Soviets had come in with a superiority complex to the Arabs.
USAF, USN, and USMC fighter pilots in Desert Storm had no combat experience, but were better aviators and combat tacticians because of training, intelligence, logistics, maintenance, and superior aircraft/weapons.
The US Air war was so lopsided against Iraq in 1991, that the Iraqi Air Force just stopped flying and started finding ways to hide and preserve their precious fighters. We shot down their interceptors and fighters, helicopters, and anything that flew, while strikers penetrated deep and put precision weapons on the hardened shelters and taxiways to the runways, which were hit with anti-runway munitions repeatedly.
Our armored units accidentally wandered over reverse-slope defenses into Iraqi Regimental and Division registered training range areas for tank gunnery where they were set-up, and blew turrets off their armor as if it were a sport instead. Imagine someone sauntering into your favorite rifle range right over the berm behind your targets after you’ve been shooting all-day, not knowing your were there, then mopping you up like they owned the place.
The Highway of Death was just a side-show, effectively air-to-ground gunnery practice for USMC, USN, and USAF from the fight inside of Iraq.
There isn’t a US-equivalent peer nation when it comes to geography, population, economy, military capability, industrial capacity, training culture, maintenance, intelligence collection, and logistics.
Chinese Generals in their strategic ballistic missile forces sell off the fuel so locals can buy it for "hot pot" in their woks. Their culture does not tolerate introspection, internal critique of performance, or accurate reporting up the chain of command. They are still a very primitive-minded ancient people who see rockets as sources of fire to make money off of on the side, not tools to export violence or deter conflict.
Russians are inept, corrupt, and incompetent with a continually-diminishing required term of service for conscripts when you look back to the Tsarist times. Even Putin continued the trend in reducing military service terms, not that they were remotely-competent during the Yeltsin years.
Another big failure I see among people in the US is the total unawareness or perspective on geography. There is this assumption that because someone has a flag and borders, that they are a potential peer of the US. The reality is so unfairly-disproportionate in this respect that it should deter anyone from suggesting otherwise, but geography, history, and demographics aren’t taught to most PolySci students in universities for whatever reasons, mainly because the professors don’t know these basic subjects much of the time, and focus more on political theory.
Talk me through what nation is going to establish and support a logistics chain over the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans to the US. China couldn’t even bully Vietnam in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979-1980. The Vietnamese curb-stomped the PLA.
Russia can’t even invade a neighboring country and hold ground where they already started from annexed territory and had other nations support them by allowing strategic staging bases to surround Ukraine.
Iran can barely keep the lid on their dissidents. They’re run by imbecile Shi’ites who shoot down their own airliners.
Are these types of messages spread far and wide in the US? No. We do the opposite by screaming "the sky is falling", someone is going to beat us, so we better develop and buy more weapons, train harder, and keep telling ourselves we’re going to lose the next war. US military large force exercises are the opposite of how foreign nations bolster their glorified parades for their leaders. We send Blue Forces to LFEs to be humiliated repeatedly until they figure out how to counter OPFOR, or not, and conduct dispassionate AARs pointing out every way we sucked, with officers and enlisted all present to witness the mistakes recognized, owned, and re-thought. This would be unimaginable in France, let alone Russia or China.
I am concerned about demographics though, which is what the thread is ultimately about, and where we agree. If we don’t raise children in time-honored traditions of families with intact parents, we will lose our Country culturally and morph more into some dystopian nightmare.
Russia is almost always initially unprepared and does poorly at the start of any major conflict, although they ultimately get shaken up, get their act together, and they win the war in the end, with the only exceptions being if they collapse internally or if they lose the willingness to continue fighting. Russia's loss in WW1 was shocking but predictable given the weakness of the ruling royal family and the ruling institutions and their loss in the Russo-Japanese War was as much due to their unwillingness to continue fighting as it was the weakness of their ruling royal family at the time, although they technically had the resources to continue fighting on land. Their perseverance in the Napoleonic Wars and WW2 was simply startling and defies belief, although it happened and they won.
Another big failure I see among people in the US is the total unawareness or perspective on geography. There is this assumption that because someone has a flag and borders, that they are a potential peer of the US. The reality is so unfairly-disproportionate in this respect that it should deter anyone from suggesting otherwise, but geography, history, and demographics aren’t taught to most PolySci students in universities for whatever reasons, mainly because the professors don’t know these basic subjects much of the time, and focus more on political theory.
Talk me through what nation is going to establish and support a logistics chain over the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans to the US. China couldn’t even bully Vietnam in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979-1980. The Vietnamese curb-stomped the PLA.
Russia can’t even invade a neighboring country and hold ground where they already started from annexed territory and had other nations support them by allowing strategic staging bases to surround Ukraine.
Iran can barely keep the lid on their dissidents. They’re run by imbecile Shi’ites who shoot down their own airliners.
Are these types of messages spread far and wide in the US? No. We do the opposite by screaming "the sky is falling", someone is going to beat us, so we better develop and buy more weapons, train harder, and keep telling ourselves we’re going to lose the next war. US military large force exercises are the opposite of how foreign nations bolster their glorified parades for their leaders. We send Blue Forces to LFEs to be humiliated repeatedly until they figure out how to counter OPFOR, or not, and conduct dispassionate AARs pointing out every way we sucked, with officers and enlisted all present to witness the mistakes recognized, owned, and re-thought. This would be unimaginable in France, let alone Russia or China.
I am concerned about demographics though, which is what the thread is ultimately about, and where we agree. If we don’t raise children in time-honored traditions of families with intact parents, we will lose our Country culturally and morph more into some dystopian nightmare.
The greatest crisis facing the USA is the collapsing demographics and the morphing of the country into what is likely to be some Latin style banana republic, complete with an "El Presidente" who "wins" overtly stolen elections.
The USA is likely going to wind up similar to South Africa, Brazil, or Venezuela; that is South Africa if we are unlucky, Venezuela if we are extremely unlucky, and Brazil if we are luckier. You'll see routine police patrols and traffic stops conducted with 3-4 police per full-sized pickup or SUV, with at least two of the police having M4s out for the traffic stop. Many areas of major cities will be permanently controlled by gangs and cartels and will effectively be off-limits to anybody who lacks cartel permission to be there.
In the realm of military power projection and defense of the nation, the USA is very difficult to conquer, subdue, and occupy, mainly due to geography, distance from the likely rivals that would seek to invade, and the realities of the absurd difficulty of logistics to sustain an invading and occupying force. Any power seeking to seriously invade and subdue the USA would need to stage multiple dozens of divisions in Canada or Mexico, probably both, and even then it would be a monumental task.
What is far more likely is the USA continues to decline and is ultimately pushed out of various regions by a global coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, who are all quite capable regional players in their own respective regions, easily capable of coordinating and driving the USA out of those respective regions.
The USA is largely "safe" or almost "immune" from a military invasion, but never say never, although at present nobody has anything approaching a blue water navy sufficient for challenging the USA on the high seas.
The United States Navy is the most important component of the United States Armed Forces and the ones whose assets are the most difficult to replace. It may sound crass, but if the US Army lost an entire infantry division in a week, it would be a fairly straightforward matter to gather up 15,000 more young men and train them, equipping them would be fairly easy. If the US Navy lost an entire aircraft carrier battle group in one week, it wouldn't be replaced during whatever conflict was going on because it is unlikely any war would last long enough for the launch of a new carrier. It would take 6-8 years to replace an aircraft carrier battle group, compared with 6 months to replace an infantry division.
Unless the US does something phenomenally stupid such as deploying multiple aircraft carrier groups into the littoral zones or coastal regions of major enemies who are regional powers, and giving them opportunities to overwhelm and destroy the carriers with fast attack boats, submarines, and anti-ship missiles from land-based batteries, the carriers are unlikely to be lost. The US Navy is mostly vulnerable if it has poor leadership that deploys it into areas that benefit opponents while providing only detriment to the carriers. Sinking a carrier battle group on the high seas is probably outside the capabilities of Iran, whereas sinking a carrier battle group in the Strait of Hormuz is well within the capabilities of Iran.
Ben Shapiro? You are definitely new around here. I have a definite tone about politics. Here is a hint.
I am familiar with Mr. Shields, he is a cool dude, he and I have had some minor/minimal interaction with each others content. He has replied and liked a few of my comments. He understands the political situation.
I'm a guy using a cartoon character as my avatar and a cartoon character for my name, oh wait...
But they all had submissive wives, so maybe try Japan? I hear there’s a shortage of eligible females, or is that China?
P
Japanese women are not generally looking for western men
...who loves to derail threads. As in this one and the Israel gets attacked thread. I finally put him on Ignore, only the second one I have added. The first was the moron posting questionable aged porn in the MPT.Who fucking cares ?
He's a bloviating ass.
China engineered a situation whereby they have 200 million spare men. Their one-child policy was aimed at creating an army of disposable men. When a man's reproductive prospects are compromised, he tends to look outwardly to conquer foreign lands and obtain women by conquest, or he directs his energy into burning his own society down.
If a nation has too many young men who are stymied in their ability to start families, those young men will either set off to become Vikings and take what they want elsewhere, or they will rise up and burn the society to the ground because they have nothing to lose.
Almost everything in life goes back to mate selection, reproduction, frankly sex and procreation.
About 63% of all young men in the USA are single.
About 35% of men under 30 have never had sex. There is simply no historical precedent for this sort of situation in the male-female dynamic. Historically the removal of 35% of men from the genepool would only come about in the aftermath of a horrific war such as the Thirty Years War where in some areas of the German States 60-80% of all military age men were dead.
Demographics and male-female relations go hand-in-hand and are the single most important issue facing the West, the issue that virtually nobody is talking about.
Are you assuming I would want to carry on a conversation with you ?
My aren't we full of ourselves to make such a stretch in that direction.
Who's actually the stupid one now, son ?
Why yes you are, you little sweetheart you......aren't you just some kind of special ?
Dude.
Spend a few bucks and buy a sense of humor.
Or social awareness.
I think they’re the same price.
P
