It wouldn't make any difference if they had M16. That's not the point. The point is that it's not enough to give a soldier a gun an some ammo. Training and equipment also matter.
It wouldn't make any difference if they had M16. That's not the point. The point is that it's not enough to give a soldier a gun an some ammo. Training and equipment also matter.
Very nice read... and i think the reason is cleared: DO NOT CARPET BOMB THE POPULATION. When you do that, you're just inciting hate towards you, so that not only are the enemy soldiers a combatant, but so are the civilian men, women, and even children.
There is nothing to gain by attacking Russia. Who the hell wants to fight over permafrost? The Russian military has come to the realization that a great deal of their equipment is obsolete, but they can't afford to upgrade anything.
Sucks to be zee Russians...
Sucks to be zee Russians...
Air superiority almost guarantees winning a war nowadays.
[Wearing my old US Air Force uniform....] AIR POWER!!!! Aaaaahhhrooo!
I think Russia was already concerned about the American military after its success in Afghanistan, a stark contrast to Russia's own humiliating experience there.
I was wondering the same thing?!!? What would anyone have to gain by invading/conquering Russia? You'd get a few oilfields, but along with that, you'd get the vast wasteland that is Siberia. Permafrost. Perma-nuke contamination from Chernobyl. Yuck. Leave that place alone.
I'd rather we check out a place like Iceland, some of the Caribbean islands... Now that's where the getting is good.
There is a big difference between fighting in the mid 80's and fighting now days. Even in 91, the US's weaponary is no where near what is it capable of now.
Factor in the difference in terms of the objective of the two countries, you have a much different type of resistence.
If America's objective was to conquer/invade and inhibit Afghanistan, then you will see alot more resistance from it's people.
This is also very similar to IRAQ where the population is very disenchanged with Saddam, okay, they hate him and thus are not going to help fight the American.
Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
I was wondering the same thing?!!? What would anyone have to gain by invading/conquering Russia? You'd get a few oilfields, but along with that, you'd get the vast wasteland that is Siberia. Permafrost. Perma-nuke contamination from Chernobyl. Yuck. Leave that place alone.
I'd rather we check out a place like Iceland, some of the Caribbean islands... Now that's where the getting is good.
Well, if you are China, you have nowhere to grow and 1.2 Billion people, essentialy empty Siberia might look very appealing. It's not that great of place to live, but not much different from Manchuria for example.
There are incredible natural riches there, anything from oil, gas, gas, uranium, diamonds, metals, coal. Most of them untapped.
Chernobyl contamination is in Belarus and Ukraine, not Russia, and certainly not in Siberia. We are talking about a country that spans 10 time zones here. you are about as close to Chernobyl in the US as the Easternmost point of Russia is.
There is plenty of ecological problems in Russia though.
That is true of course. But even with that fundamental difference much of the world was predicting disaster in Afghanistan ("The Graveyard of Empires", remember?) and it never happened.
Then for some reason Russian generals made the exact same mistake by expecting a quagmire in Iraq as well. I dunno, sounds to me like Russia's biggest problem is not its obsolete technology but rather its complete inability to accurately assess the outcome of military operations. They keep significantly underestimating some military forces (as in Chechnya) while overestimating others such as the Taliban.
-Most Russians would actually fight back
-Russia has an Air Force and Navy[/quote]
Not that we'd ever try and invade Russia, but hypothetically speaking, yes, we could beat them if you kept the war conventional. It'd take a lot more than any 3 weeks, but we'd beat them.
Russian winters wouldn't be a problem like it was in the past, we could deal with it, our equipment is superior, and it ain't 1943, or earlier.
Russia's navy is a joke. Most of it is sitting in a state of disrepair and unused. They do have some decent subs, but again, ours are far superior.
Russia's air force has some decent equipment, but not as good as ours, and more importantly, their training isn't as good.
I don't forsee us ever mobilizing on the scale that it'd take to beat a country as big a Russia, but since we're talking "what if's", then yes, we'd win, but it would take a long time and lots of casualties.
We would own the seas and the skies, and if you own both of those, it's only a matter of time before you own the ground.
Not that we'd ever try and invade Russia, but hypothetically speaking, yes, we could beat them if you kept the war conventional. It'd take a lot more than any 3 weeks, but we'd beat them.
Russian winters wouldn't be a problem like it was in the past, we could deal with it, our equipment is superior, and it ain't 1943, or earlier.
Russia's navy is a joke. Most of it is sitting in a state of disrepair and unused. They do have some decent subs, but again, ours are far superior.
Russia's air force has some decent equipment, but not as good as ours, and more importantly, their training isn't as good.
I don't forsee us ever mobilizing on the scale that it'd take to beat a country as big a Russia, but since we're talking "what if's", then yes, we'd win, but it would take a long time and lots of casualties.
We would own the seas and the skies, and if you own both of those, it's only a matter of time before you own the ground.[/quote]
You are naive, with a touch of typical US arrogance. I am not going to go into logistics of supply lines that run across 10 time zones through Siberian taiga, but keep in mind that the Soviets took 20 Million casualties in WW2 and didn't surrender.. Now lets say the Russians would take 10 Million in this war. Even if the kill ratio is 10 to one, that's 1 Million US casualties. US chickened out of Vietnam after 65K.
Well to be totally fair, the Soviet Union wasn't just fighting poor Afghanistan. The Afghanis were being supported by the USA. We were providing them with intelligence, training and Stinger missiles.
It's the same as the US's hard time in Vietnam. We weren't just fighting poor North Vietnam, we were fighting the North Vietnamese with the backing of the Soviet Union and China. They were willing to fight and had an almost endless supply of weapons flowing into their borders.
When we attacked Afghanistan just recently, it was only Afghanistan fighting this time. They had no backing from a large superpower.
I've seen pictures of Russia's modern military, and it's quite a shame actually. The Soviet Union developed some quality equipment during the cold war, and some pretty impressive machinery. But with Russia's current economic situation, most of that equipment is rusting away in the water or deteriorating in storage. They showed some of their long range bombers, and many are being cannibalized in order to keep the few flyable ones still flying. Much of their equipment was also sold off. Not surprisingly the USA bought most of their stockpile of weapons grade uranium and plutonium, to keep it off the black market.
I'm talking about consistent, ongoing support, the kind of *major* backing that a small county receives from a superpower to help beat an enemy.
The level of support that Iraq received from Russia was minimal during this war. It's nothing like the scale that the Soviet Union offered to North Vietnam or the USA offered to Afghanistan during the 80's.
The silkworm missiles were purchased a long time ago. China was not supplying Iraq with weapons *during* this war. What made Vietnam and Afghanistan (during the 80's) different was that the level of outside backing from outside countries was the major factor. In those wars, new weapons were being brought into the country from outside sources faster than they could be destroyed... there was a seemingly endless stream coming in.
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
It's always amusing to hear pundits discuss the US military. Let's review recent history (paraphrasing):
"The US is going to be lost in the quagmire of Afghanistan that defeated both Britain and the Soviet Union at the height of their power."
"The invasion of Iraq is going to be bloody and long. The US is facing another Vietnam. The seige of Baghdad could last months and involve deadly urban combat that will eliminate all advantages of the US military."
The Russian military sucks, in nearly all aspects, because they do not have the money to fund it. What money they do have goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials and generals. The conscripts are routinely raped by the more experienced soldiers (literally, not figuratively), and desertion is extremely common. The move to a professional army in Russia is absolutely doomed to failure because they do not have the money to fund it. People critisize the US government for spending too much money on defense and then marvel at how effective it is. The same people couldn't find their asses with both hands.
Read a history of the Chechen conflict. The Russians have no other military strategy or capability than massive artillery strikes. Their conscripts are untrained, and their tactics are non-existent. The Chechens, untrained and ill-equipped, inflicted massive casualties on the Russian military, and the only way the Russians actually "won" was by using air power (inaccurate but unchallenged) and massed artillery, against which the Chechens had almost no means to respond. They did nothing more than flatten Grozny, essentially killing a majority of the people still living there, and yet they have the audacity to critisize US action in Iraq with regard to civilian deaths? Laughable.
The biggest mistake you can make is underestimating your enemy. Everyone consistently underestimates the power of the United States military. See the connection?
BTW, all things considered, the US could probably defeat Russia in a conventional conflict. That being said, the will to fight would be the issue to turn the conflict. Assuming Hitler were running Russia and had designs on the rest of Europe, we could do it. Barring that, there's no reason to even consider the conflict because it won't happen. The best thing that could happen between the US and Russia is for them to realize that we have more things in common than they do with China. I would be thrilled to see all vestiges of the Cold War thrown on the ash heap of history.
"The US is going to be lost in the quagmire of Afghanistan that defeated both Britain and the Soviet Union at the height of their power."
"The invasion of Iraq is going to be bloody and long. The US is facing another Vietnam. The seige of Baghdad could last months and involve deadly urban combat that will eliminate all advantages of the US military."
The Russian military sucks, in nearly all aspects, because they do not have the money to fund it. What money they do have goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials and generals. The conscripts are routinely raped by the more experienced soldiers (literally, not figuratively), and desertion is extremely common. The move to a professional army in Russia is absolutely doomed to failure because they do not have the money to fund it. People critisize the US government for spending too much money on defense and then marvel at how effective it is. The same people couldn't find their asses with both hands.
Read a history of the Chechen conflict. The Russians have no other military strategy or capability than massive artillery strikes. Their conscripts are untrained, and their tactics are non-existent. The Chechens, untrained and ill-equipped, inflicted massive casualties on the Russian military, and the only way the Russians actually "won" was by using air power (inaccurate but unchallenged) and massed artillery, against which the Chechens had almost no means to respond. They did nothing more than flatten Grozny, essentially killing a majority of the people still living there, and yet they have the audacity to critisize US action in Iraq with regard to civilian deaths? Laughable.
The biggest mistake you can make is underestimating your enemy. Everyone consistently underestimates the power of the United States military. See the connection?
BTW, all things considered, the US could probably defeat Russia in a conventional conflict. That being said, the will to fight would be the issue to turn the conflict. Assuming Hitler were running Russia and had designs on the rest of Europe, we could do it. Barring that, there's no reason to even consider the conflict because it won't happen. The best thing that could happen between the US and Russia is for them to realize that we have more things in common than they do with China. I would be thrilled to see all vestiges of the Cold War thrown on the ash heap of history.
Russia has been fighting in Chechnya for more than 200 years now. They kinda quieted down a little bit after Stalin deported them to Kazahstan and a large chunk of Chechens died. Then Khruschev moved them back.
Then they were quiet till fall of USSR. USSR for all its flaws had a good way of keeping all the ethnic groups peaceful. Knowing that KGB could be down there in one day to kill you and your whole village has a calming effect on the population.
Basically, Chechens would rather die then live under Russia, and Russia is obliging. Chechens made the mistake of aligning themselves with Al-Qaeda terrorists and bringing them into Chechnya to fight, which cost them international support.
I have nothing against the Chechens, but I question if it is worth it. Even without the Russians there, they would turn into an Islamic republic with warlords and the whole lot, like the Taliban was. Is it really worth putting your people's survival for this sort of "independence."
They would still depend on Russia for most of their necessities, since they are a landlocked province with no industry of their own to speak of aside from some oil. Nobody would invest in their country, since it's lawless and kidnapping and murder are their biggest industries.
The whole thing is foolish.
Then they were quiet till fall of USSR. USSR for all its flaws had a good way of keeping all the ethnic groups peaceful. Knowing that KGB could be down there in one day to kill you and your whole village has a calming effect on the population.
Basically, Chechens would rather die then live under Russia, and Russia is obliging. Chechens made the mistake of aligning themselves with Al-Qaeda terrorists and bringing them into Chechnya to fight, which cost them international support.
I have nothing against the Chechens, but I question if it is worth it. Even without the Russians there, they would turn into an Islamic republic with warlords and the whole lot, like the Taliban was. Is it really worth putting your people's survival for this sort of "independence."
They would still depend on Russia for most of their necessities, since they are a landlocked province with no industry of their own to speak of aside from some oil. Nobody would invest in their country, since it's lawless and kidnapping and murder are their biggest industries.
The whole thing is foolish.
Banana
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2001
- 3,132
- 23
- 81
A clever nation would let the USA spend money on arms to police/protect the world. That nation would then spend money on non-war needs and prosper. Invite the USA to occupy a base or two when neighbours threaten.
Just think--if Saddam had been smart enough to spend Iraq's wealth on infrastructure, the country could have become a true regional INFLUENCE. That's how you have lasting power--through culture and ideology, not brute force.
1YP
You mean Japan?
Of course, they still feel threatened by North Korea and currently are powerless to do anything about North Korean aggression. The notion of relying on someone else for defense works in theory, but you cannot dictate how your ally will act. Your ally's aims might vary from your own, which constrains your actions. A government's fundamental purpose is to protect its citizenry, and a country which relies on a foreign power for defense is negligent in doing so.
Banana
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2001
- 3,132
- 23
- 81
But there is a predictable benefactor: The USA. I'll bet my month's salary that if NK begins any aggression today, the USA would respond. We are the only powerful good guys left who is willing to step in (as long as there is at least a little bit of self-benefit involved). In the case of Japan, the USA has lots at stake. (I doubt that President Bush would intervene in, say, Zimbabwe, where President Mugabe is committing atrocitities left and right.)
So I'll add the following to my opinion "Only if said nation/region has something that benefits the USA."
1YP
So I'll add the following to my opinion "Only if said nation/region has something that benefits the USA."
1YP
I will add that that currently, no nation is stepping up to help Zimbabwe. You seem to think that only the USA acts in its own self interest.
It seems the russians, not unlike the Iraqis, are better at waging a propaganda battle than waging conventional warfare...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter