If Russia Attacks (enemy, Afghanistan, Marines, weapon)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All China and/or Russia have to do is sit back and watch US dig ourselves into our own crap hole. We cannot afford the military machine we have built and are too foolish to gear it back. Instead we are going to try to stomp on the gas harder. I think America -- at least on the top end -- gets dumber by the day.
Russia is making enormous bank on US being energy consumptive idiots. They export the stuff, yunno. And we just sink deeper and deeper in debt buying it and asking for more. Why would they want to stop that?
As far as the Navy and China -- short of nuking China -- we are not much of a threat to them anymore. They can easily sink an Aircraft Carrier as easily as the Japanese sunk US battleships at the start of WW2. Their anti-ship missiles have longer ranges, speeds, and capacities than we do to defend against them. If we sail surface ships in range to do anything, it is game-over for US.
The Red Dawn scenarios are (quite a bit) daffy. Old WW2 tanks have a name -- targets. A single troop with some RPGs can toast a whole company of them. Much of the world has moved beyond our still cold war nuttiness.
If someone really wanted to shut the US down (and not totally waste US) for occupation, a few high altitude air bursts would destroy our power and commo infrastructure and we would be sitting in the dark for a few years.
1. The Russians are simply posturing. Like a has been bulley trying to relive the glory days when every weak guy walked the long way to avoid them.
2. Russia in fact was never all that their NUkes aside. With the exception of their airforce the USSR's military was questionable at best. The quality and reliability just was not up to par.
3. Our military is the most advanced highly trained fighting force on the planet. What we have in reserve. By this I mean active duty here at home could repell anything any other nation through at us long enough to bring the troops home to finish up.
Remember no other country on earth has the resources for Rapid deployment like the USA. I do mean none...
4. The Russians would give us a black eye no doubt about it. In the end the bear would be crushed and there can be no doubt about that either.
5. To get at the USA they have several options
a. By air. Norad would detect such an attempt.
b. By sea. Our Navy is the finest by far. The attempt would fail.
c. By land. Either through mexico or via alaska.
Mexico would allow it for the correct bribe, however we would detect the massive troop movements and mexico would become the 51st state.
Alaska the best chance but also doomed to fail. To far to travel, supply lines would be at the mercy of american airpower.
While I really don't feel like there is any imminent danger or anything on the 5 year horizon, I'd like to pose a hypothetical situation.
With Russia gaining ground and strength as a country and militarily, they are no longer the weakened, small shell they were after they fell in the 1980's.
With American military fully stretched in the middle east, what does America have here to protect should someone such as Russia attack? All of our leaders have agreed it would take at least 1-2 years to remove the majority of our troops and equipment from the middle east, maybe longer.
So lets just say 5 years from now, whoever our president is REALLY pisses Russia off about something major. If Russia were to launch a full scale attack on America (think Red Dawn) what would happen? Obviously the military is not around to do anything, even though we have small amounts left here, it wouldn't be much and it wouldn't hold up long against a large scale attack.
This is why I agree with Ron Paul that we should have a strong military HERE to defend our country, rather than playing world police (Republicans used to complain about Clinton playing world police). The way I see things now, we've pissed off enough people who have a decent military that if they brought an attack to our soil while we are still waist deep in Iraq sand, we would be largely defenseless, and it is irresponsible to leave the vast majority of our military committed away from home for such a long period of time fighting an unspecified enemy, with no clear defintion of what victory or defeat would look like.
Just some food for thought. Like I said, I don't think we are on the verge of this by any means, but things change fast in this world, and if we are still "all in" over in the middle east 5 years from now, we might find ourselves royally screwed.
historically its germany and japan that were the real threat. russia is really good at defense. which is a good thing otherwise you and i would be speaking german huh?
However, if I recall my WW2 history, part 2, General Patton wanted to keep moving until he reached the USSR (then Russia). So, although Germany and Japan were the threat, someone or several someones imagined that Russia, too, was or would be a threat.
And, I also recall General Patton often had precognitive dreams.
All China and/or Russia have to do is sit back and watch US dig ourselves into our own crap hole. We cannot afford the military machine we have built and are too foolish to gear it back. Instead we are going to try to stomp on the gas harder. I think America -- at least on the top end -- gets dumber by the day.
Russia is making enormous bank on US being energy consumptive idiots. They export the stuff, yunno. And we just sink deeper and deeper in debt buying it and asking for more. Why would they want to stop that?
As far as the Navy and China -- short of nuking China -- we are not much of a threat to them anymore. They can easily sink an Aircraft Carrier as easily as the Japanese sunk US battleships at the start of WW2. Their anti-ship missiles have longer ranges, speeds, and capacities than we do to defend against them. If we sail surface ships in range to do anything, it is game-over for US.
The Red Dawn scenarios are (quite a bit) daffy. Old WW2 tanks have a name -- targets. A single troop with some RPGs can toast a whole company of them. Much of the world has moved beyond our still cold war nuttiness.
If someone really wanted to shut the US down (and not totally waste US) for occupation, a few high altitude air bursts would destroy our power and commo infrastructure and we would be sitting in the dark for a few years.
But it is easier to just wait for our bankruptcy.
Very good analysis. I agree with much of what you are saying. A substantial portion of the US military budget is techno-bloat and fifty-year-old tactical arms, pure and simple. Unless I'm very much mistaken, much of the rest is consumed by marketing, bureaucracy, retirement benefits, and personnel creature comforts.
Anyone who is aware of the ossified strategic and staffing practices which have nearly strangled GM and Ford can see the same forces at work in today's US military.
Simply put, it is costing us a fortune to put a fighting force in the field that is in many ways inferior to our potential enemies'.
However, if I recall my WW2 history, part 2, General Patton wanted to keep moving until he reached the USSR (then Russia). So, although Germany and Japan were the threat, someone or several someones imagined that Russia, too, was or would be a threat.
And, I also recall General Patton often had precognitive dreams.
Keep in mind Russia started out in the War as a silent partner in bed with Germany. They turned a blind eye to hitlers misdeeds and failed to live up to agreements with her neighbors thus giving Germany an open road. Stalin hid behind a nonaggression pact that was nothing less than a smoke screen. Russia shipped quite a few Jews to germany for extermination. When the deal broke Russia then shipped train loads of Jews to Siberia and dumped them in the middle of no where. No food or shelter. I wonder is there another country in the world with Russia's track record for dishonoring agreements? They received weapons from us by the boat loads. And yet they still broke agreements. As when they stole a B-29 forced to land in their terretory.
Hmmm Maybe Israel. They are excellent at circumventing laws and agreements.
Actually I didn't think the compact between Stalin and Hilter was silent. But as the wheel turns, Stalin decided to make a turn-around or at least nominally inasmuch as he would have been wiped out because of Hilter's determination to clean up the East.
I don't think that Patton was so wrong then, but in hindsight, and in hindsight, we probably didn't need to extend the war beyond '45, or at least that is what his (Patton's superiors) declared, including Ike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
Keep in mind Russia started out in the War as a silent partner in bed with Germany. They turned a blind eye to hitlers misdeeds and failed to live up to agreements with her neighbors thus giving Germany an open road. Stalin hid behind a nonaggression pact that was nothing less than a smoke screen. Russia shipped quite a few Jews to germany for extermination. When the deal broke Russia then shipped train loads of Jews to Siberia and dumped them in the middle of no where. No food or shelter. I wonder is there another country in the world with Russia's track record for dishonoring agreements? They received weapons from us by the boat loads. And yet they still broke agreements. As when they stole a B-29 forced to land in their terretory.
Hmmm Maybe Israel. They are excellent at circumventing laws and agreements.
Wow, lots of really great discussion and points being made. I think one of the things that stuck out though is that China really has us by the balls, both by economic means and military means.
Also, I do agree that any country who tried to invade us on our soil would be in for one hell of a fight from the armed citizens, enough to make things miserable for them as we tried to remobilize our forces back to our country.
But I also think we are stretched too thin to support 2 large conflicts simultaneously, and one person posted that the whole deal in Iraq would be dropped if a major 2nd conflict broke out. What does that say about the seriousness of what we are doing in Iraq? Some of the current Republican candidates act as if everything is all on the line with winning in Iraq. But I could hardly doubt that they would see it as such an important deal if another major conflict that threatened us at home were to explode. And if that was in fact the case, it brings me back to the question of just how serious should we be about keeping a huge military presence in Iraq, and threatening to start another war with Iran, given that we would be digging ourselves in really deep for a long period of time in which other conflicts with more importance could arise quickly leaving us with only a weakened ability to respond.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
