World costliest aircraft just got costlier.

[Zhukov]

Agreed . This is technology which matters lot. Afganistan said with stones & sword they will demolish U.S.A, but they can't even come near to U.S.A after 2011.
While Iraq alone , officially stated 1.2 million deaths until 2007 while with loss of few hundreds American soldier.
If we do math, Overall millions+ died in these 18 years, with cost of few thousand U.S.A soldiers .
U.S.A is close to war with Iran, i am sure when U.S.A Navy leaves for war, they don't come back without destroying country, and without punishing million+ people, and without sending back to stone age.
U.S.A is a superpower for reason. Message is clear & loud, don't mess with uncle SAM

That is not as simple as that. Its not simply USA . Its whole of the Developed world on one side. I didn't saw the same mighty super power stepping countries over like this a few decades ago when soviets were around. Why People here quote examples of Iraq and Afghanistan?. Afghanistan and Taliban were a were a joke in first place. And Iraq was an Isolated Rotting Corpse.
Imagine if even a smaller country have full Tactical and Military support of another major power, lets say European Union or China. Will the USA produce the same results you think?
Its more of a victory of the system and diplomacy first and military second. Destroying an air force having outdated decades old obsolete weapon systems without any foreign support. And then Pounding the Army From all directions that have no Air support. Creating such circumstances for the enemy that it cuts its arms and legs before attacking it is impressive in first place no doubt.
USA is more like a smart shrewd businessman and not a mighty Giant to be precise. I wonder how long this order remains. Will Europeans remain subservient to US forever? Will China Remain Contained like this forever? Will Russia Remain a silent spectator in case of a significant rise of a second power against USA?
And i am not even counting any potential Influence circle that can rise within coming half century Like Far East Asian Block (Japan, S.Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia etc) or a South American Union led by Brazil etc.
Lets see if in some theoretical scenario the Smart Businessman fails in its tricks how well the Armed wing of the machine perform under those circumstances.

 

[Nan Yang]

Young pup, we hosed the Russian and Chinese hardware in Iraq to the point it embarrassed your China that you are using them.

Old kok, Chinese laundryman caused the longest US military retreat in it's modern history.

 

[gambit]

Imagine if even a smaller country have full Tactical and Military support of another major power, lets say European Union or China. Will the USA produce the same results you think?

This kind of 'Imagine' is more common than you think -- in war games. Not the field exercises kind that most people think like Top Gun or Red Flag or Reforger, but in military simulations that are generally confined to abstract modeling that do not involve any actual human or equipment movements.

However, major components of these simulations are real world assets that MUST be capable of doing the things that the simulations requires, in other words, if your navy do not have battleships like the WW II era navies, but your simulations do, then your simulations will be flawed, the data skewed, and there would be conclusions that would produce negatives towards national defense policies.

The problems -- plural -- that Desert Storm posed for superpowers like the Soviet Union or China is that neither of them can produce the logistics and firepower that the US and allies did. With DS, the US military was -- to date -- the only transhemispheric military in history, and since then, we did not lose any of the capability. Neither Russia nor China can amass a political and military alliance like we did, so neither of them can simulate what allies can and cannot do in support of a common military goal. Neither Russia nor China possess technological parity to the US so neither of them can simulate the timing and precision required to daze a military opponent. The list of 'neither' is long.

 

[Zhukov]

This kind of 'Imagine' is more common than you think -- in war games. Not the field exercises kind that most people think like Top Gun or Red Flag or Reforger, but in military simulations that are generally confined to abstract modeling that do not involve any actual human or equipment movements.

However, major components of these simulations are real world assets that MUST be capable of doing the things that the simulations requires, in other words, if your navy do not have battleships like the WW II era navies, but your simulations do, then your simulations will be flawed, the data skewed, and there would be conclusions that would produce negatives towards national defense policies.

The problems -- plural -- that Desert Storm posed for superpowers like the Soviet Union or China is that neither of them can produce the logistics and firepower that the US and allies did. With DS, the US military was -- to date -- the only transhemispheric military in history, and since then, we did not lose any of the capability. Neither Russia nor China can amass a political and military alliance like we did, so neither of them can simulate what allies can and cannot do in support of a common military goal. Neither Russia nor China possess technological parity to the US so neither of them can simulate the timing and precision required to daze a military opponent. The list of 'neither' is long.

You are still stuck in USA and Western Allies vs China and Russia?. Did you even read my post sir?
Russian might is a thing of the past. Just another European country with a bit larger land mass. And China is the modern free market capitalist mammoth not the peasant army communist Utopia Boasting to be a super power due to nukes.
The Gentle man i replied to and the context of my post was that USA Military might is not what some members here portray it to be. The core of the US might is with its strong diplomacy and its hold on world economy. Can we simply assume that If somehow the diplomatic frontier fails in a conflict and USA is without its usual Whole western world backing. And the hostile country is Fully Backed Economically and militarily by a powerhouse like China or EU. Will the results be the same?
Point being made is. Everyone just take out the military part out of the current engagements and totally ignores the diplomacy behind it.
For Reference ,In my humble opinion the Iraq war was already won when Whole of Europe, GCC Arab states, Iran, Syria, and NATO were on one page and Puny Iraq on the other with no support. That isolation was the killer stroke that took almost two decades. Not the Military Campaign itself.

 

[Surya 1]

Agreed . This is technology which matters lot. Afganistan said with stones & sword they will demolish U.S.A, but they can't even come near to U.S.A after 2011.
While Iraq alone , officially stated 1.2 million deaths until 2007 while with loss of few hundreds American soldier.
If we do math, Overall millions+ died in these 18 years, with cost of few thousand U.S.A soldiers .
U.S.A is close to war with Iran, i am sure when U.S.A Navy leaves for war, they don't come back without destroying country, and without punishing million+ people, and without sending back to stone age.
U.S.A is a superpower for reason. Message is clear & loud, don't mess with uncle SAM

Yes , but many people have many misconceptions and so they enter into war without evaluating the pros and cons and get kicked very badly. I think they do not mind the humiliation or the paid their people suffer.

US -Iraq war could have been easily been avoided but Sadam was given wrong advise I believe. Sadam could have tactfully avoided US-Iraq war and would have remained Head of Iraq.

 

[gambit]

You are still stuck in USA and Western Allies vs China and Russia?.

Stuck? Have been that way and still is today.

Did you even read my post sir?

Yes.

Can we simply assume that If somehow the diplomatic frontier fails in a conflict and USA is without its usual Whole western world backing. And the hostile country is Fully Backed Economically and militarily by a powerhouse like China or EU. Will the results be the same?

And my point -- that you missed -- is that if neither the Russians nor the Chinese cannot speculate, whatever you expect of others in this forum is essentially invalid.

What is that hostile country and where is it geographically located? The questions are important because it sets the conditions in which others may or may not be able to help.

Is it North Korea? If yes, then the US will not fight alone because if the US take on NKR, then SKR will also have an interest, and if SKR is in the fight, what is the likelihood that JPN will also be involved? China will support NKR but in what ways? So now, we are looking at 3 - 2 odds. In this war, the only combatant that have any real combat experience is the US. MODERN warfare experience. So what make you think China can help NKR?

Do you see where am heading? You can 'imagine' all you want but if real world conditions do not support your speculation, it is pointless.

 

[Zhukov]

Stuck? Have been that way and still is today.


Yes.


And my point -- that you missed -- is that if neither the Russians nor the Chinese cannot speculate, whatever you expect of others in this forum is essentially invalid.

What is that hostile country and where is it geographically located? The questions are important because it sets the conditions in which others may or may not be able to help.

Is it North Korea? If yes, then the US will not fight alone because if the US take on NKR, then SKR will also have an interest, and if SKR is in the fight, what is the likelihood that JPN will also be involved? China will support NKR but in what ways? So now, we are looking at 3 - 2 odds. In this war, the only combatant that have any real combat experience is the US. MODERN warfare experience. So what make you think China can help NKR?

Do you see where am heading? You can 'imagine' all you want but if real world conditions do not support your speculation, it is pointless.

Any Battle with NK will be a battle already won just like Iraq. US will only attempt such adventure when it is sure China will not help NK and Non-conventional threat is neutralized before the ground invasion via some means.
What will be left of NK then? USA, SK, Japan against a Rotting Corpse again with Obsolete Weapons.

IF somehow(Highly unlikely) China arms NK to teeth with latest weapons available to them, And unlimited financial Logistic and Technical support to NK (Meaning Not official Declaration of War between US-China) And Japan and SK decides to remain neutral due to nuclear threat from NK (Again A Silly Assumption but for the sake of arguments) Now what are the Odds? US alone Vs a meager small country Having unlimited Financial and Weapons supply for a formidable Power. Can USA stomp them over? i think not. No Allies, Diplomacy clout, Pre-war sabotage etc matters most much much more then military might (Dont go to the point that USA will declare war on china and that Pacific Allies cannot be left behind i know it all, keep them out for assumptions). I hope i have conveyed my point

 

[gambit]

US will only attempt such adventure when it is sure China will not help NK...

That is where you are wrong. Do not take our current stance on NKR as a sign of weakness. Hesitancy is not weakness. Restraint is not weakness. Due to our past history on the Korean peninsula, SKR is more than just an economic interest but a vital national security concern. No doubt China have the same attitude for NKR. But the PLA knows that on the military front, full support for NKR does not mean NKR will escape the war intact.

There is no PLA simulation where NKR come out ahead. All the US and allies have to do is destroy the NKR-ean military, and we do not have to destroy all, and let internal rot collapse the country. We do not need to invade to see that collapse. NKR-ean refugees will flood the Chinese border and the world will see Chinese guns mowing down NKR-ean civilians.

The gist of your posts so far have been to attempt to minimize US military capabilities as nothing more than against small countries who have no support. It is a shallow argument considering the fact that these countries must have a sponsor some time past. Why did neither the Soviet Union nor China came to Iraq's assistance? For months, the US build up while the Soviets and the Chinese did nothing. Why not? There was nothing to prevent either country from helping Iraq. At the time of Desert Storm, the Iraqi military was the world's 5th or 4th strongest military, or at least perceived to be that way. What happened?

Your 'if' and 'imagine' have the benefit of hindsight that for the gullible, sounds very plausible when that hindsight pointed out all the institutional deficiencies and operational errors the losing side made.

 

[randomradio]

Why did neither the Soviet Union nor China came to Iraq's assistance?

Although I agree with pretty much everything you said here, I wanna nitpick.

SU had started disintegrating by the end 80s. The retreat from Afghanistan in 1988 had signalled that. And China was still a poor third world country with a per capita income that was 33 times smaller than Iraq's at the time.

China has now started slowly challenging the US in the Pacific. A decade can be a lot of time in human eyes. But when it comes to countries, a few decades is not a lot of time. In 1990, the US economy was 80 times bigger than China's. 30 years later the US is only 7 times bigger. 15 years from now, it could only be 2 times bigger, which is merely 2035. So China being able to challenge the US on equal footing is only a matter of time, very short time.

 

[Pandora]

Losing battles are even more expensive.

No offense but when was the last time you actually won? You got your arses handed to you by a bunch of rag tag Talibani Mullahs. Only battles you Americans have won are against unarmed women and children.

 

[LeGenD]

No offense but when was the last time you actually won? You got your arses handed to you by a bunch of rag tag Talibani Mullahs. Only battles you Americans have won are against unarmed women and children.

ISIS in Syria and Iraq = Routed = Victory

Libya = Regime Change = Victory

Iraq = Regime Change + Political Reforms = Victory

Afghanistan is proving much difficult to reform but US-led forces have routed Al-Qaeda Network in this region.

Victory is determined on the grounds of fulfillment of objectives set for military operation(s) in a particular theater/region. However, modern-era conflicts tend to get very messy at times due to existing models of insurgency.

 

[nahtanbob]

Chinese do not speak Japanese. But Japanese already write in Kanji which is Hanzi.

If USA was not warlike in WW 2 Chinese will be speaking Japanese

 

[Nan Yang]

If USA was not warlike in WW 2 Chinese will be speaking Japanese

In history, there is no "if".
Japan launched a full scale attack on China in 1937. US only join the war in 1941. For 4 years, China fought Japan on it's own with practically no Air Force or Navy. Chinese also fought occupying Japanese forces in the jungle of Malaysia. There were NEVER any doubt we would eventually beat the Japanese.

 

[nahtanbob]

In history, there is no "if".
Japan launched a full scale attack on China in 1937. US only join the war in 1941. For 4 years, China fought Japan on it's own with practically no Air Force or Navy. Chinese also fought occupying Japanese forces in the jungle of Malaysia. There were NEVER any doubt we would eventually beat the Japanese.

China fought Japan and lost most of coastal regions to 2nd tier Japanese forces. Elite Japanese troops were busy conquering SE Asia

 

[Nan Yang]

China fought Japan and lost most of coastal regions to 2nd tier Japanese forces. Elite Japanese troops were busy conquering SE Asia

China was in the midst of a civil war and war against warlords. Japan was literally "looting a burning house".