• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the US need Trump's proposed "Missile dome"? I believe a war with the Russia and China can be fought and won without Strategic Missile Defense

braindrain said:
Cool story.

You understand that I was responding to a poster who claimed we couldn’t invade and hold Afghanistan which we did for over twenty years. All with a fraction of our military
It being a good idea or what we should have done has no bearing on those facts.
Click to expand...
Our definition of “hold” is a little different. I am not in the least disparaging the military when I post. All the invaders had magnificent troops, there is a reason Afghanistan is called the “graveyard of empires.” There have been a few few that had more than one attempt at it.
 
Fishking said:
You can't take nukes off the table because this is the world we live it. However, if we were to set up a theoretical conflict where no one used nukes, we'd stomp China in < 1 year, imo. No country on Earth can stand up to our military in a conventional war for very long.
Click to expand...
.... except a country whose army is ten times the size of ours .... literally.
 
Fishking said:
We also weren't doing total war either.
Click to expand...
See what I mean?
It's always the same excuse. Why the hell would you involve yourself in a war that is only worth a limited amount of involvement? Do you really not get how stupid that sounds? The Afghans outlasted your determination, is that really what you're saying?
20 years, four Presidents, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars later and the Taliban is in charge in Kabul. You're just the latest on a list.
They don't make superpowers like they used to. In fact, there have only ever been self-declared superpowers.
 
Fishking said:
You can't take nukes off the table because this is the world we live it.
Click to expand...
Maybe. It won't be long before American volunteers get the Abrams. It's a US Russian conflict at this point. The volunteers fighting are no different than the Rough Riders or the flying tigers
 
MamboDervish said:
.... except a country whose army is ten times the size of ours .... literally.
Click to expand...
It would be like the Opium Wars. The British could take coastal Qing cities but don't have the manpower to push deep inland
 
Fishking said:
You can't take nukes off the table because this is the world we live it. However, if we were to set up a theoretical conflict where no one used nukes, we'd stomp China in < 1 year, imo. No country on Earth can stand up to our military in a conventional war for very long.
Click to expand...
When was your last military victory? Besides Iraq. Iraq was so incompetent they couldnt defeat Iran after Iran had basically purged their entire officer corps.
Oh, wait, I forgot. You don't commit. You hold back. And you think China doesn't know that about you. You think China will force you to commit because they're just no good at a game you're masters of.
Good luck with that.
 
Grand Mal said:
See what I mean?
It's always the same excuse. Why the hell would you involve yourself in a war that is only worth a limited amount of involvement? Do you really not get how stupid that sounds? The Afghans outlasted your determination, is that really what you're saying?
Click to expand...
No...this is just you being utterly ****ing ignorant of what the military is used for. We militarily handled Afghanistan just fine. No real issues at all. What the military didn't get done, and what it's not for, is nation building or changing the culture of an entire people. I mean, that CAN happen using the military but you have to go Genghis Khan on them.

Now, do you think the US should've gone Genghis Khan or not?
 
Fishking said:
No...this is just you being utterly ****ing ignorant of what the military is used for. We militarily handled Afghanistan just fine. No real issues at all. What the military didn't get done, and what it's not for, is nation building or changing the culture of an entire people. I mean, that CAN happen using the military but you have to go Genghis Khan on them.

Now, do you think the US should've gone Genghis Khan or not?
Click to expand...
The Soviets went brutal and didn't succeed.

The American soldier isn't trained to commit genocide. The risk is he goes crazy back here
 
Grand Mal said:
Nobody. I was just observing, not arguing.

Of course it is what makes a country a world power. The declaration, I mean. Speaking of military, I mean.
The US has been in military conflict for the past couple of generations, nearly non-stop. What has happened that made you think they are a world dominant power?
Click to expand...
Ok. Sounded like you were making the claim I said that. My mistake and apologies.

We are a world power due to both our world leading economy and military.
Pretty much the same things it has always been.

We have been in conflicts that required a very small percentage of our actual military. And they are the types of conflicts that are almost never won by an outside power.
It’s completely different then a conventional war with another nation state.

If we never said a word about being a world power we still would be. If Portugal claimed every single day that they were a world power it would never become any close to being true.
 
Grand Mal said:
Didn't fare any better than any other invaders since Alexander the Great.
But no doubt the excuses are new. Everyone has had new excuses.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not sure why you think I am claiming any different.

The only way real progress would happen in Afghanistan would require the type of effort and commitment we were never interested in making. And even then I have my doubts.
 
Rexedgar said:
Our definition of “hold” is a little different. I am not in the least disparaging the military when I post. All the invaders had magnificent troops, there is a reason Afghanistan is called the “graveyard of empires.” There have been a few few that had more than one attempt at it.
Click to expand...
Maybe and I didn’t think you were.

The Afghans are definitely a hard headed people. And honestly our efforts at the higher level was rather poor.
If it would have made a difference. Who knows.
 
Andyh2299 said:
Does the US need Trump's proposed "dome"? I believe a war with Russia and China can be fought and won without Missile Defense.

Reagan had put much money on ballistic missile defenses. Even today the technology is iffy in the era of endostmoshetic hypersonic weapons. 100 percent intercption is impossible. In war cities will get hit, in nuclear war cities will get hit.

Humans and leaders I think are ultimately rational. War is ultimately a ritualistic masculine endeavour. Therefore I believe a conventional war with the Russian federation and The Peoples Republic of China can be won without Strategic Missile Defense.
Click to expand...
Stay off the Chinese land space where they have us outnumbered. Our navy is better and so is our air force. The Russians have already shown they aren't all that when it comes to a fight, thank you Ukraine.
 
Fishking said:
Doesn't matter so much with modern technology.
Click to expand...
NO. It very much does matter. In the final analysis, "winning" will require occupation and control of territory, and the US will never be able to commit the forces necessary to occupy and control China. Never!
 
Rexedgar said:
“We” didn’t pay attention to the history of the region.
Click to expand...

No, as usual the State Department jumped in and decided they would "re-write" their culture and history with one that the region had never had.

Afghanistan and Iraq were State Department failures, not military ones.
 
Grand Mal said:
The US has been in military conflict for the past couple of generations, nearly non-stop.
Click to expand...

And the majority of those had nothing to do with the US itself, but as part of UN peacekeeping missions.

The UN has had such in place for over 70 years, and as a major part of the UN I can't see the US not taking part in those. Because by that definition, the UK and France have been in military conflict for generations also.
 
Oozlefinch said:
No, as usual the State Department jumped in and decided they would "re-write" their culture and history with one that the region had never had.

Afghanistan and Iraq were State Department failures, not military ones.
Click to expand...

The military failed to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan despite decades of trying.
 
Andyh2299 said:
Does the US need Trump's proposed "dome"? I believe a war with Russia and China can be fought and won without Missile Defense.

Reagan had put much money on ballistic missile defenses. Even today the technology is iffy in the era of endostmoshetic hypersonic weapons. 100 percent intercption is impossible. In war cities will get hit, in nuclear war cities will get hit.

Humans and leaders I think are ultimately rational. War is ultimately a ritualistic masculine endeavour. Therefore I believe a conventional war with the Russian federation and The Peoples Republic of China can be won without Strategic Missile Defense.
Click to expand...

Explain what winning means in a nuclear exchange?

Thanks
 
Fishking said:
However, if we were to set up a theoretical conflict where no one used nukes, we'd stomp China in < 1 year, imo. No country on Earth can stand up to our military in a conventional war for very long.
Click to expand...

I would agree, with qualifiers.

This is where many fail, because there are many types of conflicts, with many types of outcomes.

Now if we were to say do like China itself did in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, we very easily could do that. I do agree that the US could go in, tear crap up and largely destroy their warfighting capability.

But what then?

And for those that do not know, that is largely what happened in 1979. Vietnam was feeling cocky over "defeating" the US, and was trying to push China around. And they grew tired of that and stormed across the border. Largely destroying with ease anything Vietnam threw at them and finally coming to sit right outside of Hanoi. Then after a month of largely destroying Vietnam's military, they simply turned around and went home. Showing that Vietnam never defeated the US militarily, they were not that good at all and their win was entirely political.

The US is actually very good at "winning wars". Both Afghanistan and Iraq (twice) shows that. But where it fails is the aftermath, and that is entirely and 100% political and not military.

China's military is largely a "paper tiger". Almost entirely based on land, with no real capability of extending to anywhere that does not touch one of their borders. Yes, we could largely destroy their military, but that in itself means little to nothing.
 
MamboDervish said:
except a country whose army is ten times the size of ours .... literally.
Click to expand...

Which means little anymore.

Remember, the last time China was in any kind of "real war" was over 70 years ago. Their last skirmish of any size was over 40 years ago.

And China has large logistical issues. The size of the military means nothing, if you can't field it where it is needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom