Just gearing up for 'another' war

[BraggSurvivor]

Reportedly the Israeli government likes the Bush doctrine of preemptive war so much that they are going to attack the nuclear facilities in Iran.

I predict that if this should happen we will be quickly drawn in as Iran retaliates first against the fleet in the gulf and then against your land forces stationed in Iraq.



Otherwise I'll see you all as we tote our rifles to a place called Megiddo.

[Chris]

I stand corrected. But America will not risk it's B-2 in fear of Russians SU-34s no more than America would risk it's carrier fleet with Iran in fear of the Sunburn missile. I wish it were different.



That works both ways.

This would also break America. We are as totally dependent on cheap goods as we are on foreign oil. Unemployment would quadruple and we would enter a new depression.

In return they would destroy our Pacific bases and invade Taiwan. An even trade as far as they are concerned. We are not the only ones they peddle their cheap junk to anymore.

Russia has plenty to go around.



In a WWIII scenario Russia will own half of Europe just like it did during WWII.

That's what Germany thought during WWII.That was during the late 60s.

Can't beat free labor. "To defeat an enemy use his resources against him" -The Art of War.
Like in Iraq?

Which is why nuclear nations don't want other counties having nukes. In the end nukes aren't about war they are about peace.

I see that there is no arguing with you, you dispute facts and seem bent on an america-is-weak attitude. A russian jet designed in the 1970s, of which apparently there are 2 in operation, is going to take out our stealths, which can't even be spotted by our guys in war games. Nonexistant chinese aircraft carriers are going to blow past the world's best navy, air force, and satellite surveillance and destroy our pacific bases. Then we end up with staggering unemployment because we need cheap goods imported from China? Cheap goods from china cost us jobs. Our economy is largely NOT an export economy, we don't rely on foreigners buying our goods to drive it (though, there are exceptions). Then Russia stomps through Europe because... well... no reason... despite Europe outspending Russia on defense by like 6:1.

Some people just don't get the staggering difference in military capabilities between nations, or, just how far Russia has fallen since the end of the cold war. Most countries have 0 aircraft carriers (china) or 1, (russia), and the ones they have are smaller. We have 11. Each aircraft carrier sails within an aircraft carrier group which includes cruisers, destroyers, subs etc. China has 0 cruisers as well. We have 22. We have twice as many destroyers as china, and 72 nuclear subs to their 10. You can also safely assume our stuff is more advanced, because it always is. US defense policy is to maintain technological superiority of at least 10 years against any other country.

[Chris]

Like in Iraq?

And oh, we destroyed Iraq's army in 3 weeks, the war part of Iraq we won in 3 weeks, and it would have been quicker had we not tried to avoid civilian damage.

Since then there has been a civilian insurrection and civil war between rival types of muslims which we have been policing. Peacekeeping is not war. In any hypothetical fight against Russia or China we would not be going in as peacekeepers.

Do not for one instant be so ignorant as to think that the fact that Sunnis and Shiites don't like each other that the US Military is weak. It is so unrelated you should be ashamed of even trying to make the comparison.

[Sam Reeves]

I see that there is no arguing with you, you dispute facts and seem bent on an america-is-weak attitude. A russian jet designed in the 1970s, of which apparently there are 2 in operation, is going to take out our stealths, which can't even be spotted by our guys in war games.

I'm afraid you may have yer wires crossed on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-34

Nonexistant chinese aircraft carriers are going to blow past the world's best navy, air force, and satellite surveillance and destroy our pacific bases. Then we end up with staggering unemployment because we need cheap goods imported from China? Cheap goods from china cost us jobs. Our economy is largely NOT an export economy, we don't rely on foreigners buying our goods to drive it (though, there are exceptions). Then Russia stomps through Europe because... well... no reason... despite Europe outspending Russia on defense by like 6:1.

Nobody needs a super carrier fleet to overcome our prize navy. All they need is a few boats armed with too many Sunburns, which China and Iran both have.

Some people just don't get the staggering difference in military capabilities between nations, or, just how far Russia has fallen since the end of the cold war.

Or how far we have fell since Iraq.

or 1, (russia), and the ones they have are smaller. We have 11. Each aircraft carrier sails within an aircraft carrier group which includes cruisers, destroyers, subs etc. China has 0 cruisers as well. We have 22. We have twice as many destroyers as china, and 72 nuclear subs to their 10. You can also safely assume our stuff is more advanced, because it always is. US defense policy is to maintain technological superiority of at least 10 years against any other country.

Would that why we used so many German designs after WWII or because we haven't one a war since?

[Sam Reeves]

And oh, we destroyed Iraq's army in 3 weeks, the war part of Iraq we won in 3 weeks, and it would have been quicker had we not tried to avoid civilian damage.

Since then there has been a civilian insurrection and civil war between rival types of muslims which we have been policing. Peacekeeping is not war. In any hypothetical fight against Russia or China we would not be going in as peacekeepers.

In a hypothetical war with China and Russia would we not be going in period. What was left of us would be headed to Canada or Mexico with out bug out bags.

Do not for one instant be so ignorant as to think that the fact that Sunnis and Shiites don't like each other that the US Military is weak. It is so unrelated you should be ashamed of even trying to make the comparison.

Okay out peace keeping force is weak if you prefer.

The insurgents from Iran will be much worse and numerous.

[Chris]

I'm afraid you may have yer wires crossed on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-34

Fine, 80's not 70's, its still old. Even your wonderful wikipedia page says it is comparable to the f15 or the f35, not the f22.

Maiden flight13 April 1990

March 2006, Russia's minister of defense Sergei Ivanov announced that the government had purchased only two Su-34s for delivery in 2006, and planned to have a complete air regiment of 24 Su-34s operational by the end of 2010

You seem to have such a hardon for that russian plane. Seriously dude, you need a reality check.

Would that why we used so many German designs after WWII or because we haven't one a war since?

We haven't had a war since. The US has not declared war since WWII, all other engagements have been police actions. People don't seem to get that there is a difference. That peacekeeping success or failure is not a measure of our bombing or naval capabilities. You're using the flawed logic that because we have had 4000 troops get killed in Iraq during peacekeeping operations by insurgents in 5 years that we'd have problems bombing the militiary industrial complex of other countries. Bombs aren't delivered by infantry driving humvees. It is completely and utterly different.

If we were truly in a war we would not try to do any peace keeping. We would use cruise missiles launched from naval vessels and stealth bombers to destroy an enemy's air defenses (cruise missiles, btw, are another huge advantage we have over everyone else). Then we'd send up our f22's to maintain air superiority while conventional bombers pound them into dust.

If the enemy had invaded an ally we might kick them out, in which case we'd trounce them on land just like we did the Iraqi army. Our attack choppers and tanks kick ***. There would be no necessary peacekeeping since we'd have liberated an ally, they wouldn't hate us. The women may give our soldiers an STD, but that is about it. Like what we did in Desert Storm.

You think if China attacked us we'd launch a ground war and try to make a democracy? We'd bomb them and continue bombing them until they gave up.

This whole thread was started because people were worried about defense because of Iraq. You don't need infantry and ground troops to defend your country when you have only 2 neighbors that border you, and both are friendly, and you dominate your hemisphere anyways.

You need a navy and you need an airforce, and since it is hard to patrol Baghdad with a Frigate and since a B2 or F22 is overkill to take out a band of 3 insurgents, both our airforce and our navy are really not stretched or in disrepair or anything else.

Now sure, if China was Canada and on our north border we'd be talking about something different, but it isn't, it is on the other side of the world, if they attacked us we'd not be protected by an overwrought army, but by our navy and airforce, and they're not only fine, they're far superior by an exponential amount to anything anyone else has.

I'm closing this thread now, because I worry about the stupidity from it leaking out and affecting the rest of the forum.