Jump to content

Recommended Posts

you have got to be kidding

 

 

There is military activity going on right now in over a dozen countries

 

N.Korea=not worried about

China=not worried about

Iran=worried about but not because I fear the outcome

North Korea is one of the few nations that can engage in a total war with the United States. The US war planners recognize this fact. For example, on March 7, 2000, Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, the US commander in Korea at the time, testified at a US congressional hearing that "North Korea is the country most likely to involve the United States in a large-scale war."

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have done much research on the subject and I think N.Korea would suffer from mass desertion in the event of a full scale war for many reasons. I actually have a paper around here somewhere. Dont get me wrong, they will kill a lot of people but a large standing military has nothing to do with their ability to fight a war.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done much research on the subject and I think N.Korea would suffer from mass desertion in the event of a full scale war for many reasons. I actually have a paper around here somewhere. Dont get me wrong, they will kill a lot of people but a large standing military has nothing to do with their ability to fight a war.

The Soviet Union had proved your theory about a large standing army wrong. They had a massive, poorly trained and poorly equipped military and they suffered massive losses in the battle for Stalingrad but still remained victorious against the much better equipped, well trained German Nazi's.

 

Having a large standing army has shown time and time again to give an edge in combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt say it proved anything because Russia didnt fight that war on its own.

 

If Russia wasnt getting resupplied by countries like the US and if the Russian winter didnt set in they would have fallen. If Germany wasnt forced to fight a war on multiple fronts, they would have fallen. Again, it proves nothing because there was to much outside influence.

Edited by one2gamble
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because no one would be supplying China or North Korea with supplies :rolleyes:

 

Over 1,000,000 Soviet infantry died in that battle and it doesn't count, because they got their :filtered: bullets from the US and Canada? The Soviets would have won that battle without our supplies, Stalingrad was never going to fall to the Nazi's.

 

It was a Soviet victory and the victory that turned the tide of the whole war, any time a country sacrifices 1,000,000 soldiers for 1 city they mean business. China has a well equipped standing army and a very large army at that, I would not expect the United States to win a war with China if they waged one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't want to argue about it but I believe it is a very real threat.

 

If somebody uses unconventional weapons against the US, weapons of mass destruction, or weapons of mass casualty, it is the policy of the United States to respond in kind...with nukes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think there are too many countries that would risk using nukes against the US. That being said I do think there are a number of groups that would have no convictions abouts using nuclear weapons against the US, but not countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a modern conventional war the impact of sheer numbers of troops has evolves somewhat. It is no longer as important as it once was.

 

Technology is playing a larger role all the time.

 

As far as China is concerned, they can potentially deploy a huge number. But I am not convinced that has the impact it once did.

 

The example of Russia against the Nazis is interestin, but there were many dynamics involved that make the analysis much more complex than just citing their sheer numbers.

 

 

One needs to consider air power and sea power as well. What is the air power and sea power of China today?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because no one would be supplying China or North Korea with supplies  :rolleyes: 

 

Over 1,000,000 Soviet infantry died in that battle and it doesn't count, because they got their :filtered: bullets from the US and Canada?  The Soviets would have won that battle without our supplies, Stalingrad was never going to fall to the Nazi's.

 

It was a Soviet victory and the victory that turned the tide of the whole war, any time a country sacrifices 1,000,000 soldiers for 1 city they mean business.

China has a well equipped standing army and a very large army at that, I would not expect the United States to win a war with China if they waged one.

I was speaking of the North Koreans but no I do not think the North Koreans or China would get a significant amount of supplies from any country to use against the US. Who would supply them? The russians? There are very few major arms suppliers in the world, I dont think China would have a problem but North Korea would and in fact already does.

 

As far as Chinas military is concerned they are in the process of modernization because after the US demonstration on Iraq they readily admitted that their military was not up to par with the US. So yes they have a lot of bodies and a lot of guns but that does not make them equal.

 

And yes the Soviets would have likely lost without supplies from the other allies. You cant fight a war by just throwing boddies at it, eventually the bodies will stop wishing to be thrown. There is a maximization effect with war, eventually the will of the troops will break if they no longer think they can win. The weather and the continued support of the allies allowed Russia to stay in the war, at that point if either broke it would have been very likely Russia would have at least lost more land. If they were to go toe to toe with the entire German army at the time on equal footing they would have gotten crushed and in fact were getting crushed.

Edited by one2gamble
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are speaking of a war of attrition. Wars have been and still sometimes are fought that way in fact. Just throw bodies at the enemy.

 

 

We should not discount the ability of such a large nation (China) to supply themselves via their own resources if necessary. But that would take a lot more time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are speaking of a war of attrition. Wars have been and still sometimes are fought that way in fact. Just throw bodies at the enemy.

 

 

 

this is true but I am of the belief that it is a very limiting way to fight a war and that it will eventually lead to everything but victory. In modern times, not discounting terrorism I feel its a sure path to defeat.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if both sides are fighting that way.....one of them has to win...

 

 

But to fight that way unilaterally is I think a virtual guarantee of defeat these days, as you say.

 

Nobody really wants to fight that kind of war.

 

 

But it seems that the Cold war is still on. It warmed up a little for a while but now there are new batters coming to the plate, the race is on.

 

 

 

Scary.

 

Why would any country want to measure itself against the US in military strength? Really, why?

 

We had decades of that nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are right of course, nobody should be fearful of military power but it seems as though its the in thing.

 

The EU, Russia, China and others all seem to be trying to "catch up" militarily when they should really be concerned with economics.

 

I suppose they think its the way to bring a super power down, spend it into bankruptcy. What they fail to realize is that the US military budget is not a large % of its GDP. While these countries play who can build the bigger bomb I would much rather play who can have the better economy. Its about time the US starts thinking about herself in an economic sense rather than a world open market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the US should re-start a policy that has failed to work for every other country in the world throughout history? Internalisation will always fail because no one country has all the resources it needs to survive. Good plan.

 

Getting back on track though, I've just watched the second programme on the history of the Auschwitz and Birkenau camps and how they came into being. Irrespective of it's peaceful origins, I now recall vividly what the swastika means, and all it now stands for. It's enough to make you weep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the US should re-start a policy that has failed to work for every other country in the world throughout history? Internalisation will always fail because no one country has all the resources it needs to survive. Good plan.

 

i dont know that anyone is trying to argue isolationism or a complete protectionist society. More like fair play ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

China has a well equipped standing army and a very large army at that, I would not expect the United States to win a war with China if they waged one.

Where do you think this hypothetical war would take place? On whose soil? If the US and China ever decide to cross swords it will be on a small scale, in a different country, and it will more than likely just be an equipment benchmark. To even speak of the US and China engageing in "all out" conventional war, is pure fantasy. It would be a logistical nightmare for both side, no matter where it was fought.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you think this hypothetical war would take place? On whose soil? If the US and China ever decide to cross swords it will be on a small scale, in a different country, and it will more than likely just be an equipment benchmark. To even speak of the US and China engageing in "all out" conventional war, is pure fantasy. It would be a logistical nightmare for both side, no matter where it was fought.

I agree.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if both sides are fighting that way.....one of them has to win...

 

 

But to fight that way unilaterally is I think a virtual guarantee of defeat these days, as you say.

 

Nobody really wants to fight that kind of war.

 

 

But it seems that the Cold war is still on. It warmed up a little for a while but now there are new batters coming to the plate, the race is on.

 

 

 

Scary.

 

Why would any country want to measure itself against the US in military strength? Really, why?

 

We had decades of that nonsense.

Why would you want to match up against the US you ask? Because who doesn't want a shot at the top dog. If China or N.Korea think they have something to prove, then they just might. Maybe they are getting tired of watching US troops marching into other countries and essentially "gaining power" in theory...of course Iraq doesn't appear to be that easy. Maybe they are scared that the US is getting too strong, or they could be weary of Mr. Bush.

 

Too many reasons for them to engage in conflict with the US to discount it's credentials. Of course I hope it doesn't happen, but you can never be sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

neg, there is zero upside to a direct conflict with the US when China is concerned

The US see's N.Korea as a threat where most countries probally do not. Perhaps China feels that the US is unstable...and perhaps by disabling the US they are disabling a threat. As the US did to Afgahnistan.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...