Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff
10 million? They have less than 800,000.
My mistake. I was thinking about reserve forces, but 10 million is all of Europe, including Russia. They only have 1.5 million active and 1.5 million reserve.
And you do realize that Hussein's military was trained from Soviet handbooks, right? This is why they fell so easily. What came later was a war of attrition for which we have won. Russians aren't that much more advanced in their tactical thinking. They are hardly "hardcore trained."
No, didnt know that, but they werent trained by soviet officers in soviet either.. I didnt mean hardcore trained, only hardcore. Used to a different life than Europeans and Americans.
But then again, in conventional warfare as I said the US and Russia is about equal, Russia have to mention 30.000 tanks, while the US only have 8000. Then again the only have 1 aircraft carrier, but have the capabilities to build them. VS your 12. In the rest of the ships you are about equal, except subs, where you have double numbers of modern nuclear powered. Then you have about equal air force. The point here is that you could never win against Russia in conventional war, you would need European help.. Not saying Russia could win against you, but that it would be equal. Looking at general European armed forces, they are also about equal to the US and Russia, a bit more men and stuff, but some duplicate abilities, so they equal Russia and the US roughly.
They don't even train to combined arms. They have a crime and corruption problem within the ranks as well, which means a break down in chain of command and respect to orders. The US is indeed superior to Russia's military. I'm curious as to why you would say otherwise. You would have been better off trying to make an argument that China is superior.
All this is true, but what is also true is that Russian moral would increase beyond recognition if there was war, they have high wartime moral, while the US moral looks weaker and more vulnerable when thing do not go their way.
The standard of living and comfort for the US people and soldiers are much higher than the Russian standards, in any scenario with a prolonged conventional war against Russia, US standards especially for soldiers, but also the people would reach parity with Russia within months.
That would hit US moral hardest.
Any conventional war between the US and Russia would be a stalemate. In any scenario you would need European assistance to get victory.
My point was that America wouldn't hesitate to launch if they did. We have a record for being very harsh towards our enemies. Japan sufferred greatly and then we picked them up.
I am sure in a nuclear war scenario none of the others would hesitate either. In all scenarios of US and Russian involvement end with complete annihilation of each other. The question is, would Europe, China and Africa be annihilated?
People criticize our efforts after 9/11, but no matter how people define "victory" these days, we destroyed two twisted regimes and wrecked two countries over it. And again, we stand to pick them up..
You sure wrecked two countries, but there arent victory yet, and one seems unlikely. What is more unlikely is that you can afford to fix them again, with all the problems you have at home and the financial crisis.
The rest of the Middle East was left wondering our next move and losing sleep over it.
I am not sure about that, with your forces being so thinly stretched and all.. You have to remember that Iran for example is a military regime, and that Iraq was a bankrupt dictatorship with a faltering military. Dont know about Syrian capabilities, they are probably like Iraq...?
America doesn't have a lot to worry about when it comes to Russia and China. They know our record and what we are capable of. In the end, the only thing "un-American" is losing and the only thing that stops us is us.
The US really have to worry about Russia. Russia have warned that its ready to go to war against the US if it keeps mis-stepping like it did in Iraq, and has not ruled out nuclear warfare to keep that promise.
It's not equal at all. For one, it would be yet again on your home turf. Your resources and manufacturing plants would be threatened throughout. Continental Europe's hope was always from outside powers like Britian and America. Even during WWII, Russia was afforded time and space when it came to training and forming units for the attack
.
Thats just not true, the only ones that had plenty of time was the US. Russia was attacked by Germany. They had to rally their forces immediately, and they did with great success.
You have to remember that the most powerful base of Europe is shielded by Poland, Ukraine and the combined forces of Scandinavia. Any attack against any of those would trigger global war. UK, Germany and France alone have the capabilities of holding off Russia, especially considering they are behind those capable forces. Ukraine has the largest reserve of Europe, and a huge army with equal technology as Russia, with the most tanks of any European country except Turkey. Then you have the superior trained Scandinavian forces with slightly better equipment than Russia. And behind all this are the heavyweights, France, UK and Germany.
And then you have all the other states in Europe... Italy, Spain and Greece all have decent military capabilities. European combined capabilities against Russia is about equal, and the industrial and logistical base is behind Scandinavia, Poland and Ukraine. And I am pretty sure Russia wouldnt go via Turkey..
I agree that Europe and America are attached at the hip. But this doesn't mean at all that America falls because Europe does. Our enemies have to tackle the first task of getting across our oceans only to then have to deal with the most armed nation on earth.
Thats true. If Europe was theoretically not in alliance with the US and overtaken by Russia, then the US would be completely crippled. Their economy would collapse, and their military capabilities reduced greatly as a result. Even if the military remained strong you would have already had lost, you society would be ruined, and its not unlikely civil war would have been the result. Any attempt by Russia or the US to invade the other would be useless. Any attempt by Russia to invade Europe would be pretty much useless even without America in the picture. But we all know both Europe and America rely on each other and sure would feel more comfortable together then alone.
Why exactly would Europe have to come to the aid of America? Mexico a threat? Canada pissed off? If China or Russia launch, very few in the world will be safe so that's not a threat. Terrorists? Minor inconveniences when considering damage versus whole and our retribution is swift. I don't think terrorism like 9/11 is in our near future. The entire Middle East has been working with us to ensure that their nations don't get on the list, which means they are doing their jobs locally.
The greatest threat against America is not conventional warfare, threat of invasion or terrorism, its civil war. Political extremism and social and political polarization in the US is blossoming. Especially now with the financial crisis and an uncertain future it seems more likely than ever before. In such a scenario you would have to rely on Europe to "fill in" lost military power, even if most military capabilities remained, you would have to rely on Europe to step in and stop your civil war and you would have to rely on Europe to keep control over Russia at the same time. I am sure Canada would also help :lol:
The US looked vulnerable before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Vulnerability isn't exactly a worry for us anymore. The whole world has seen us act and largely alone. They have seen our influence span the globe through American embassies. They know that American ships control the oceans. They know our gun laws. We are hardly vulnerable to an enemy and no enemy is confused of this. Even Bin Laden expected great retaliation. He didn't underestimate us. He underestimated his own Muslim people.
In that time the US didnt look vulnerable, the military capabilities dictated that the US was safe because of the oceans and distances. But the US overrated this security. Today that safety is no longer valid.
Span the globe through embassies? :rofl
American navy capabilities are over rated, as is military capability. As I said before, none of the armed forces in todays world can measure up to those that existed during the second world war, except for technology wise of course. Remember, Germany alone had 18 million men in service during the second world war. Soviet had like 20 million men, the US 15 million. Todays capabilities technology doesnt make up for that, nor the fact that all the parts were armed to the teeth with air force, navy and huge amounts of tanks. Todays military capabilities are those of peacetime, laughable in comparison to any of those during second world war.
Actually I don't know that. If Afghanistan is what we can measure European assistance to, the bare minimum accompanied with complaints of "why it's our problem" is what to expect. After WWII, Bosnia, and Kosovo,... Afghanistan was the first time Europe could have proven that it was there for America. It did not reciprocate our efforts over the last 58 years. Some of this was because it had spent the Cold War doing as little as possible and taking advantage of America's power to recover. After the Cold War, Europe continued to show a slow pace when it came to Bosnia. And Afghanistan showed that Europe still was and still is expecting America to be the mule.
Europe ONLY went into Afghanistan as support for the US, NO OTHER REASON. We are still there, and have a sizeable amount of forces there. But hey, not whole heartedly like we would have if we had to actually defend America against for example Russia if they tried anything, or China, or just in a civil war scenario. Then Europe would definetely help whole heartedly, or else we would be screwed as well and collapse if the US collapsed.
I don't think Europe is willing to do more than they want to for America. And I'm not the only one that has learned this lesson over the last two decades.
We went to Afghanistan, we had no strategic goals there for ourself, many Europeans even went to Iraq, that was definetely not our strategy.
Yeah right. In 1998, Clinton proposed an assault into Iraq in front of an American audience at Ohio State University's St. John Arena to get rid of the dictator once and for all and Americans booed and chanted "1, 2, 3, 4! We don't want your racist war." You see, it doesn't matter. People automatically resort to "racism" or "oil" as the end all be all reason for everything America does. This is based largely on the fact that people look for excuses not to do the right thing so that they can do the easier thing.
Post continues below...
