Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Capt. Pork on February 14, 2004, 11:12:32 AM
-
I know there are quite a few amatuer historians out there. Probably even a couple professional ones. Either way, a bunch of guys that probably have an opinion on the following, purely theoretical, question:
What would the world be like if the US, in one fell swoop, pulled all of its forces back into its borders and reassumed a post-depression-era isolationist policy in regards to foreign conflicts. Note, this question concerns only the US ability to project military power, not monetary power. Non-military trade would not be affected directly, rather indirectly by the sudden lack of ubiquitously-present military muscle as potential leverage. In short, what would happen if our 'policing' ceased in the space of a single day? If Carrier groups no longer ventured outside US waters for reasons other than the direct defense of our shores? Moreoever, foreign powers, including unofficial groups such as terrorist organizations are not skeptical of this new policy--EI, they believe it. Finally, all sales of weapons is halted. Financial support to certain nations may continue, but not in the form of hardware.
That being said, I want people to know that I'm not trying to passively press for any specific answer. I myself am pretty moderate in my political stance, leaning towards the conservative end. I support our military completely, if not for the policies they advocate then simply for the men and women who serve. I believe in this country and am proud to be a citizen, but I am curious what a snapshot of the world would look like without our presence.
-
In short, what would happen if our 'policing' ceased in the space of a single day?
The world political situation would become unstable and it would all be America's fault.
-
I suppose certain Scandinavian posters would have to resort to criticizing only our domestic policy.
Sorry, but you know this is doomed from the start, right? ;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I suppose certain Scandinavian posters would have to resort to criticizing only our domestic policy.
Sorry, but you know this is doomed from the start, right? ;)
Yeah, I know... I was hoping certain people might be able to see beyond the opportunity to wield their wit. Oh well.
-
Originally posted by ra
The world political situation would become unstable and it would all be America's fault.
Is the world political situation stable now?
-
Straffo & I would take over the world.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Straffo & I would take over the world.
What about me? After all I'm from Germany and therefore I have the inherent desire to rule the world. :D
-
Well, ok, here's a few shots, but by no means all-inclusive.
Let's start with Israel, since several guys have posted about it. Without American support, it's only a matter of time before the Muslim countries around it close in for the kill. Israel has only one recourse in that scenario. Remember, they have nukes.
Taiwan goes back to the Chinese. The end.
South Korea becomes part of just "Korea".
World relief organizations such as UNICEF and the RED CROSS go bankrupt.
The UN, sans a large portion of the military and operating budget, declines even more sharply than now.
France becomes the ruling country of Europe by virtue of the "European Union". This is happening anyway, but the prospect of becoming the "Superpower" spurs France on with increased fervor.
That's a good start. You fill in some blanks.
-
The world would decend into violence and turmoil without the US.
Isn't that what this post is fishing for?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
The world would decend into violence and turmoil without the US.
Isn't that what this post is fishing for?
:rolleyes:
No. Not at all. Like I said before, I'm not trying to advocate anything. This isn't a loaded question... Furthermore, the world seems to be in turmoil anyway, with or without the US.
-
Okay Capt...my $0.02 is that it would be absolutely impossible for the US to return to an isonationalist stance world wide.
Who are you going to trade with? How will the US get rid of its trade deficit that is higher than it has ever been?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
What about me? After all I'm from Germany and therefore I have the inherent desire to rule the world. :D
Duedel would invade France and they would promptly surrender.
-
Israel has never had US military support; she is quite capable of defending herself like she has done on numerous occasions in the past.
Who are you kidding? What do you think that money we send them is about? Why do you think the rest of the Muslim world doesn't just declare Jihad? Israel would never be able to defend itself against all of the Muslim world conventionally any more than North Viet Nam could have against the US without aid from communist countries. Further, the implied involvement of the US if things get too out of hand make a lot of the Muslim world think twice.
France wins the EU no matter what, true; but without the US presence, the need to grab the power vacuum would be immediate. An isolationist America doesn't only mean no military, it also means no economic rivalry. It means high tariffs to protect American industries. It means American money stays in America, and we no longer look out for world hunger, or humanitarian need. That is, after all, the very definition of "isolationism".
-
Additionally- no way South Korea stays free. NK would cross that border 15 minutes after it was clear the US would not interfere. There wouldn't be any time whatsoever for developing nukes. China wouldn't stop it, China would be more than happy to see it happen.
Taiwan probably will go back to China- but with no US, it certainly WILL go back to Taiwan- unless Norway cares to step up to stare China down. ;) UN sure isn't gonna do anything about it, is it now?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Israel would never be able to defend itself against all of the Muslim world conventionally any more than North Viet Nam could have against the US without aid from communist countries.
Israel has already done so...twice.
-
American film industry would then move to Canada... err... wait..
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Israel would never be able to defend itself against all of the Muslim world conventionally any more than North Viet Nam could have against the US without aid from communist countries. Further, the implied involvement of the US if things get too out of hand make a lot of the Muslim world think twice.
Try reading up on the 1967 Arab Israel war. Then read up on the 1973 war.
Not only did Israel defent itself against a large group of Arab countries, they pretty much kicked the hell out of them.....conventionally of course.
The Arabs didn't "think twice" because of the US.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Israel has already done so...twice.
Are you suggesting the US didn't throw out warnings to the Arab world to back off? Are you suggesting the millions we throw to Israel every year don't buy weapons? Seriously, I can't understand your viewpoint. Israeli military is tough, no question; but they ARE small, and would not survive a conventional all-out war against the Arab world alone.
-
In the question of Israel, I think they deserve more credit. Sure, they benefit from our weapons exports, but they also produce a decent amount on their own. The Merkava MBT is good example of a product they can generate with minimal direct techinical support from the US.
It's also without question that pound for pound, they're many times as formidable as any Muslim nation. Their intel is far ahead, their organization is second to none and their resolve is without peer. Using only what they have at the moment, they should be able to neutralize any immediate threat preemptively. Whether or not they can do it 5 years after the aid stops is another question, but the Israelis aren't known for their complacency. My opinion is that they will make due without using the nuclear option.
-
I know about both wars. How's this sound to ya?
On Oct. 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. The attack caught Israel off guard. It was Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, and most of Israel was shut down for the holiday.
After suffering heavy losses — more than 2,500 Israelis would die and some 3,000 would be wounded in the 18 days of fighting that followed — Israel appealed for help from the United States.
At first, the U.S. was reluctant to aid Israel. It did not want to upset Arab states on which it had become increasingly dependent for oil. And it did not want to raise tensions with the Soviet Union, its Cold War adversary and patron of Syria and Egypt.
But after learning that the Soviets were airlifting huge amounts of weaponry to Egypt and Syria, President Nixon decided the U.S. had to act.
Six days into the fighting, the U.S. began a massive, $2.2 billion airlift of fighter planes, tanks, helicopters and munitions to Israel. It was worth it, Nixon said, "to maintain a balance of forces and achieve stability in the Middle East."
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Straffo & I would take over the world.
you bloody monster ... im going to save world and kick your butt :)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Okay Capt...my $0.02 is that it would be absolutely impossible for the US to return to an isonationalist stance world wide.
Who are you going to trade with? How will the US get rid of its trade deficit that is higher than it has ever been?
With no trade there would be no trade deficit....
-
Now Gscholz... just a few posts up you categorically state the US never gave military aid to Israel (which I knew was untrue)... a quick Google search proves that wrong. Don't go changing your tune.
Isolationism means looking out for #1 period. That means high tariffs, with would be economic suicide, but that's what it means. It means buying American products first. It means cutting off from the rest of the world as much as possible.
As for dealing with the British- that was largely Roosevelt's doing, but then, he wasn't an isolationist. He had to work long and hard to sell the idea to Americans. Most Americans of the time would have been content to let the rest of the world sort out its own trouble.
As for world relief, hey... we have plenty of poor here. Think of the good we could do for our OWN poor if we didn't concern ourselves with the WORLD'S poor. Think if we didn't pour billions into a worthless UN. Truthfully, a lot of good could come of it. You guys would have to find another country to hate, or you could continue to hate us, just without us paying you to do it.
-
anyway what will happen if US move their army back ?
i dunno. We will still import goods from Taiwan, China.
We coul hopefully start to make bigger bussines with ME region.
We will find out, that people all over the world are not as bad as they were supposed to be.
Holywood will have enough equipment to produce 2 war movies a year
Rats will come and eat us all.
What exactly is purpose of US army at Rammstein ?
Do you expect that Germany will invade france if you go home or what ?
You probably didnt notice, that you can drive trough Europe from Belgia to Italy w/o any passport control and use 1 money in all states of western, central europe ?
-
I've always felt that if a country hates us, we should stop sending aid. If nothing else, at least it would take a small bite out of what they recieve now.
"You hate us? Very well, we're going to cut all imports to your country and will not send any more money."
-
GScholz, please read the post to which I was responding. You seem to have a problem with that.
And trade would be effected... in those communities around foreign bases strippers and hookers would lose employment, the local economy would collapse, starting a domino effect that would cause widespread european and asian depression.
This would cause us to lose trade. No trade, no trade deficit.
-
Originally posted by texace
"You hate us? Very well, we're going to cut all imports to your country and will not send any more money."
LOL whitch country is in your opinion that dependent on US ? :D
-
There isn't one country that depends on the US, but we do send money and aid to several countries...
Read it again...I never said any country was dependant on US trade...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is an outright lie. I said "Israel have never received military support (apart from intelligence) from the US"
There is a BIG difference.
Care to give me your definition of "Military Support"? Here's an example of my definition:
Six days into the fighting, the U.S. began a massive, $2.2 billion airlift of fighter planes, tanks, helicopters and munitions to Israel. It was worth it, Nixon said, "to maintain a balance of forces and achieve stability in the Middle East."
I guess you're going to argue troops on the ground, eh? Gee whiz, I said Israel couldn't survive an all-out conventional war against the Arab world alone, and proved it. Don't argue semantics.
Once in a while it's okay to admit you are wrong.
-
Remember, trade doesn't HAVE to be affected, although in all variablity it will be. It's more a question of military intervention, active(as in sending troops) and passive (as in providing arms to those who we think need them). As far as oil and cars and plastic goods, let that stand on it own
-
I don't believe they are separable as you do. If we decide to turn our backs on the world militarily, we certainly do so with the knowledge we cannot protect our interests around the world. In that event we wouldn't have many companies that would care to risk billions of dollars of investment money overseas. We would be loathe to set up trade agreements. We would withdraw.
I'm not against the idea, per se, but realistically I don't think you can withdraw the military and maintain the economic aspects.
-
So Capt. Pork, you don't agree with the theory of vice being the global economic linchpin?
-
America's internatrional trading power depends upon it's military power. If America were to withdraw military, many trading agreements - not only with the US but also other countries - will be held hostage or null and void.
International affairs come down to the basic statement,' We will smack you if you misbehave'. The smack may be economic or military, but the threat has to be there - otherwise why would the other party agree?
-
Originally posted by texace
There isn't one country that depends on the US, but we do send money and aid to several countries...
could you name some ?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I don't believe they are separable as you do. If we decide to turn our backs on the world militarily, we certainly do so with the knowledge we cannot protect our interests around the world. In that event we wouldn't have many companies that would care to risk billions of dollars of investment money overseas. We would be loathe to set up trade agreements. We would withdraw.
I'm not against the idea, per se, but realistically I don't think you can withdraw the military and maintain the economic aspects.
I'm not saying they are inseparable. That notion is absurd. I'm only saying, that for the sake of this thread, the military question is addressed, while the trade question is allowed to rest on the results. Alter foriegn policy as far as the projection of power, and see how trade, and all else, is affected. Will there be effects on all fronts? Without a doubt.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So Capt. Pork, you don't agree with the theory of vice being the global economic linchpin?
Please qualify.
-
Originally posted by qts
America's internatrional trading power depends upon it's military power. If America were to withdraw military, many trading agreements - not only with the US but also other countries - will be held hostage or null and void.
International affairs come down to the basic statement,' We will smack you if you misbehave'. The smack may be economic or military, but the threat has to be there - otherwise why would the other party agree?
eeeh ??
who do you wanna threat with army, whitch is able to secure armyless country ?
US have no military nor economicaly power to have war with some non-third world country
-
For Maslo...
(http://www.globalissues.org/images/USAid20002001.gif)
-
Capt Porks Qualification Request.. Vice = Global Economic Linchpin
trade would be effected... in those communities around foreign bases strippers and hookers would lose employment, the local economy would collapse, starting a domino effect that would cause widespread european and asian depression.
This would cause us to lose trade. No trade, no trade deficit.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Are you suggesting the US didn't throw out warnings to the Arab world to back off?
If they did they didn't listen. Read the history as suggested by Dune.
Holden...without trade the deficit wouldn't grow further, but what would the US do about the existing deficit...renege?
I actually didn't catch the premise of the thead...my bad, but I think Kieran is right...very difficult to withdraw militarily and protect world-wide economic interests.
-
Dont know what would happend but I would like to find out LOL.
How bout using some of those American tax dollars on AMERICANS:aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Capt Porks Qualification Request..
trade would be effected... in those communities around foreign bases strippers and hookers would lose employment, the local economy would collapse, starting a domino effect that would cause widespread european and asian depression.
This would cause us to lose trade. No trade, no trade deficit.
Yeah, I'll go with that, totally. However, I think that the local economies dependant directly on the spendings of American service men/women would be secondary to the sudden changes created by the changes stemming from spheres-of-infuence. Yes, of course they cycle a lot of wealth into indiginous economies, but a larger factor would remain the sudden vacuums created by billions of annual dollars that are no longer there.
-
lol The world's economies are propped up by their strippers and hookers, tending to the perversions of US servicemen...now that is funny.
-
wow
thanks for information
according to that list is US good will in Europe pointless
So why do you trying to give us (europians) ultimatum with sutch arguments ?
anyway i hopethat oecd.org will be fixed asap there are lot of 404 errors
-
Originally posted by maslo
could you name some ?
Why sure!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1076786183.jpg)
Buffalo News, March 16, 2003 (http://www.cfr.org/pub5711/scott_lasensky/how_foreign_aid_serves_the_national_interest.php)
...In fact, the largest recipient of American foreign aid today is Israel, a wealthy democracy that receives more than $2.5 billion each year...
....Our second-largest recipient is Egypt - a corrupt autocracy that gets about $2 billion annually....
...Starting in the mid-1990s, the United States funneled about $1 billion to Pyongyang, making it the largest recipient of U.S. aid in East Asia...
There's some. If you'd like more you can google up the rest I think.
-
Originally posted by Curval
If they did they didn't listen. Read the history as suggested by Dune.
Holden...without trade the deficit wouldn't grow further, but what would the US do about the existing deficit...renege?
I actually didn't catch the premise of the thead...my bad, but I think Kieran is right...very difficult to withdraw militarily and protect world-wide economic interests.
Did you bother to read my quote? I think it spells out what I was saying pretty succinctly. Read the link here. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/mideast/wars/)
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol The world's economies are propped up by their strippers and hookers, tending to the perversions of US servicemen...now that is funny.
Perversions?
Why if these strumpets did not tempt these fine honorable young men with the lax morals of corrupt countries where we are trying to bring some modicum of virtue,....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
My definition of military support is direct military intervention. That is what we're discussing here; what if the US withdrew its forces around the world. What the US did for Israel is nothing more than what the US did for the UK prior to December 7 1941 when the US was isolationistic.
That was lend lease, in other words loans. We are talking about direct assistance if Israel had to pay us back with interest they would cease to exist and have to become the 52 nd state.
-
Gsholz-
Read this again.
Note, this question concerns only the US ability to project military power, not monetary power. Non-military trade would not be affected directly, rather indirectly by the sudden lack of ubiquitously-present military muscle as potential leverage.
Giving Israel billions in aid that is converted to weaponry most certainly is directly contributing to military aid. I'd also consider it quite the leverage in Palestinian/Israeli "negotiations".
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Israeli military is tough, no question; but they ARE small, and would not survive a conventional all-out war against the Arab world alone.
Once in a while it's okay to admit you are wrong.
And in this point you are quite wrong. You make it sound like Israel lost the Yom Kippur war.
Thrown onto the defensive during the first two days of fighting, Israel mobilized its reserves and eventually repulsed the invaders and carried the war deep into Syria and Egypt. The Arab states were swiftly resupplied by sea and air from the Soviet Union, which rejected U.S. efforts to work toward an immediate cease_fire. As a result, the United States belatedly began its own airlift to Israel. Two weeks later, Egypt was saved from a disastrous defeat by the UN Security Council, which had failed to act while the tide was in the Arabs' favor.
YOU made it sound like the U.S. bailed them out, as opposed to the U.N. stepped in and SAVED Egypt! Political postureing between superpowers in a regional conflict? Sure. But from "who was winning that fight" perspective, hands down Israel was winning. After the first couple of days of scrambling (80% of their military hast to be called up from it's population), the IDF kicked the snot out of a MUCH larger Arab force. Like they have time and time again vs. the Arabs who always had numerical superiority.
In the 6 day war, Israel crushed the Arab countries in several stunning victories.
Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria. The war ended on June 10.
It's the HOW they captured all this territory that is so awesome.
On the morning of June 5, Israel launched a devastating attack on Arab air power, destroying about 300 Egyptian, 50 Syrian, and 20 Jordanian aircraft, mostly on the ground. This action, which virtually eliminated the Arab air forces, was immediately followed by ground invasions into Sinai and the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and finally Syria. Arab ground forces, lacking air support, were routed on all three fronts; by the time the UN-imposed cease-fire took effect in the evening of June 11, the IDF had seized the entire Sinai Peninsula to the east bank of the Suez Canal; the West Bank of Jordan, including East Jerusalem; and the Golan Heights of Syria.
The IDF had proven itself superior to the far larger forces of the combined Arab armies.
Bottom line, Israel is one tough little country. They have proven it again and again in the past. I would worry more about how much of the Arab lands Israel would capture if they felt like it, because the Arabs couldn't stop them.
+Lute
III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
-
I am saying nothing of the sort. Israel has a very tough army, no question; I stated the relationship of the US to Israel, and how important that relationship is to the existance of Israel. I stick to that point.
If the US had not gotten involved, ultimately Israel would have been ground under by Soviet-backed Egypt and Syria- or do you think otherwise?
-
It would take time, but I believe the Israelis would be able to hold their own with a predominantly indiginous weapons industry. The example of what they did with imported Bradleys points to the fact that they are niether afraid nor incapable of making changes to suit their needs. If it came to a question of survival, they would very likely sacrifice a great deal of civilian comfort to field a fine, home-grown military machine.
-
BTW, Flyingaround-
Aside from a list of resolutions, what else did the UN do during the Yom Kippur War? ;)
-
Heh...Toad you beat me to it. :D
-
according to this link im wondering, who does US support in Ukraine
http://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,2340,en_2649_37453_15789006_1_1_1_37453,00.html
anyway im trying to find similary graphs for China, Russia, Germany, UK, Iran
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I am saying nothing of the sort.
You didn't come right out and "say" anything...what you said was this, in relation to the Arab Israeli war: "Are you suggesting the US didn't throw out warnings to the Arab world to back off? "
To which I replied,"If they did, they didn't listen".
I read your quote..firstly the Seattle Times wouldn't be my first choice on an Arab/Israeli fact finding exercise...and secondly it didn't back up what you were hinting at...that US "warnings" somehow helped Israel.
6 days after the war began the US started to airlift supplies. This was to help in "the future"...the war was pretty much won during those 6 days...by Israel, not the US.
-
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):
As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.(6)
An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:
Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation
After 6 days these jokers were begging for peace. And people wonder why Israel wants to keep the buffer zones won from the Arabs AFTER the Arabs attacked them with the announced goal of wipeing Israel off the map.
And of course, look at what the UN did to protect Israel......they abandoned them. WTG UN
-
The United States tried to prevent the war through negotiations, but it was not able to persuade Nasser or the other Arab states to cease their belligerent statements and actions. Still, right before the war, Johnson warned: "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone." Then, when the war began, the State Department announced: "Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed."
Moreover, while the Arabs were falsely accusing the United States of airlifting supplies to Israel, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on the region (France, Israel's other main arms supplier also embargoed arms to Israel).
By contrast, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. Simultaneously, the armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.
Hardly looks like Israel had much help. [edit] this was the 1967 war [edit]
-
World Powers have come and gone. They will continue to do so.
None of us are as indispensable as we would like to think, people or powers.
-
In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent. On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957. On May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat. Syria increased border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.
Actually, due to these and other threatening actions of Nassar's Egypt, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967.
-
France becomes the ruling country of Europe by virtue of the "European Union". This is happening anyway, but the prospect of becoming the "Superpower" spurs France on with increased fervor.
Still trying to work out where you got this idea from. Despite all it's faults the EU cannot be dominated by one member country (for example the EU Constitution that France supported was derailed just recently). Now if you are talking about France, Germany and the UK together (which happens once in a blue moon) then that might be more like it, but even then you have the individual vetos of each country.
-
I think a case can be made that the Yom Kippur war changed the US/Israel relationship significantly. It was after that war that US aid to Israel truly skyrocketed. The United States quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel, and replaced France as Israel's largest arms supplier.
As to the US airlift in THAT war, US aid and the promise of further aid was probably THE key factor in Israeli survival.
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/9589/edition_id/183/format/html/displaystory.html
Facing the worst battlefield losses in Israeli history, Prime Minister Golda Meir offered to leave her command post to fly to Washington to personally plead with President Nixon to resupply Israel.
That's when the promise came from the White House that helped Israel change the course of the war and began a process that forever altered relations between Jerusalem and Washington.
"The president has agreed -- and let me repeat this formally -- that all your aircraft and tank losses will be replaced," Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Israelis on Oct. 9, 1973.
The U.S. decision allayed some of Meir's fears and allowed Israel to send hundreds of additional tanks and planes into battle that were being saved in case of future losses.
Operation Nickel Grass (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/krisinger.html)
Overall, it appears that the American airlift had both substantive and psychological effects. The Israelis, who had begun to worry about how many shells they had left, were able to resume an extremely high rate of fire with the delivery of plentiful stocks of 105-, 155-, and 175-millimeter ammunition. With the influx of many of the consumables of war to replenish depleted stockpiles, they also were emboldened to throw all available reserves into the battle and succeeded in breaking through the Egyptian lines to the west side of the Suez Canal, threatening the bridgehead established by the Egyptians on the east side, and encircling the Egyptian Third Army.34 Psychologically, the Egyptians were shaken by this reversal of their military successes.
Another example of the impact of the airlift on the war was the effectiveness of the TOW and Maverick missiles. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, these weapons were responsible for the majority of Israeli tank kills (Arab losses were estimated at 1,900 tanks during the war). Since the TOW and Maverick were not present in the Israeli inventory in any significant numbers before the war began, it is apparent that the missiles delivered by airlift the difference.35
-
The Arabs are a piece of work. After the US supported Israel , they began the oil embargo.
Funny thing is ( reports recently by British intelligence) the US had plans to take over Saudi Arabia and Kuwaiit and secure the oil.
-
What exactly is purpose of US army at Rammstein ?
It's the Air force, but maybe you should ask the Burgermiester of Ramstein.
You probably didnt notice, that you can drive trough Europe from Belgia to Italy w/o any passport control and use 1 money in all states of western, central europe ?
Man, I didn't know that, cool.
-
Id like to post a serious answer to this post Capt Pork, but im afraid it would be bashed by someone regardless what i said.
I will dare to say this tho...
A world where the US would not butt in whatever the cause would be a world in deep sheit... The US is an important actor on the world stage.
A perfect world would be if the US and EVERY other nation in the UN would work TOGETHER to solve problems without resorting to lame retorics would be the best. (ie no i hate france whatever they say or i hate the US whatever they say or do)
This world is now as likley as free booze/dope for all :p
Id like to say to 95% of the world leaders to..GROW THE **** UP !!
-
China will take back Taiwan whether the US has a isolationist policy tand point or not. Militarily US dosn't have an over whelming force they can threaten China with if they invaded Taiwan.
Sending carriers would be dangerous as the Chinese have been developing the capability and forces sufficent for destroying a Carrier Battle Group for some time.
Militarily it's been one of their conventional strategic goals. They have Russian and their own developed missiles which travel at about mach 2 air launched it's about mach 3.0 and 1 hit is sufficent to take out a destroyer sized ship.
...-Gixer
-
Actually, you'd have to take this back to ww2. US doesn't get involved in Europe.
Russia takes over ***ALL OF EUROPE*** when they take over germany.
Those who would have speaking german under the third reich are now speaking russian.
Where it could have gone from there is all up for debate.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, you'd have to take this back to ww2. US doesn't get involved in Europe.
Russia takes over ***ALL OF EUROPE*** when they take over germany.
Those who would have speaking german under the third reich are now speaking russian.
Where it could have gone from there is all up for debate.
US had nukes
-
Actually, even Stalin said before,and after the war that norway would not EVER be touched because of our long and good history with russia...
When you think about it, its wierd that we joined NATO and didnt jon the russians after WW2
perhaps its our good relations with both the USSR and NATO that prevented alot of trouble between the USSR and NATO.
-
There'd be alot more indians.
-
Googlicious post there Toad. ;)
Allow me to retort with one of my own:
Yom Kippur (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/history/yom_kippur_war/YomKippurWar.html)
On October 6, 1973, Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), the holiest day on the Jewish religious calendar, Egypt and Syria took advantage of optimal circumstances to launch attacks that took Israel by surprise. So complete was the element of surprise that when war erupted, Israel was only beginning to mobilize the reserve forces which form the bulk of the IDF. The thin forces stationed along the two fronts had to contain the invading armies until the IDF was prepared to meet them in force. The IAF was hampered by the dense anti-aircraft missile system which the enemy had deployed close to the front. Egyptian forces succeeded in crossing the Canal and establishing beachheads on the Israeli-held east bank. On the Golan Heights, the Syrians pushed past the cease-fire lines and occupied a large area. They also seized the key Israeli intelligence- gathering position high on Mt. Hermon.
Within two days, the IDF, now fully deployed, blocked the Egyptian and Syrian advances and took the offensive. Because of the huge quantitative superiority of the Syrian forces, a situation compounded by the proximity of Jewish settlements on the Syrians' path of advance, it was decided to give priority to the northern front. By October 10, the Syrians had been pushed back and the entire Golan was again in Israeli hands, except for the Hermon position, which was only recaptured toward the end of the war. Between October 11 and October 14, the IDF pushed the Syrian forces across the cease-fire lines and penetrated Syrian territory. An Iraqi expeditionary force dispatched to reinforce the Syrians was also successfully blocked.
On the southern front, an early Israeli counter-offensive failed. But Israeli units managed to overcome an attack by Egyptian tank forces, destroying 200 enemy tanks in the process. Shortly afterward, on 15 October, the IDF renewed the counter-offensive. The main thrust of the fighting now was to push across the Canal and strike at Egyptian forces on the other side.
-------------------------------
I'm not saying the airlift didn't help...not at all. But "key factor in Israeli survival" is going a bit far. Notice this link states that within 2 days the Israelis had blocked the Egypitians and Syrians and were on the offensive.
-
Here are a couple of bones to gnaw on...
First, would the Arab nations have launched the Yom Kippur War if they had NOT been receiving massive amounts of military hardware and training from the Soviet Union?
Second, if the United States had not sent aid to the Israelis, and the Arabs had emerged triumphant in that struggle, what do you think would have happened to the Israelis?
Third, if the United States pulled back its forces and went isolationist democratic governments around the world would find themselves much more vulnerable to subversion. Genocide would become more prevalent.
Lastly, for those of you who still believe that the absence weapons of mass destruction negates our presence in Iraq, go to google and look for information about the mass graves of Iraq. There is one site with photographic evidence that is being gathered by an international human rights group. If you can still say that Saddam was none of our business then it is safe to assume that you have learned nothing from the history of the twentiety century.
Shuckins
-
Curval, you have not refuted my quote WRT the aid the US sent at such a critical time. The fact you either left it off of your quote or it isn't included does not negate it did happen, nor would the military action of the IDF have proceeded at the same pace (as illustrated by Toad) if the aid had not been forthcoming. The fact the US did send the aid was a clear shot over the bow for the world that we were taking a vested interest in democracy in Israel. That cannot be denied.
Actually, the whole thing is so common sense I don't know how you guys can be arguing against it.
-
Whatever you fellas fight about, the only thing that actually works is cooperation and a mutual agreement on whats acceptable and whats not. France, US, Germany and norway for that matter are all in basic agreement on what can, and can't be done.
Everyday that goes by with the nations not agreeing with one another is one more day that the terrorists are winning.
-
Curval, they were just about out of ammo.
Google this, buddy. (BTW, just because one googles, it doesn't mean one would not otherwise know or have previously known the material. It's just a lot simpler to let somebody else do the write up and clip it.)
The first C-5 (Tail No. 00461) to land at Lod touched down at 22:01 Zulu. It carried 97 tons of 105 mm howitzer shells, and it arrived at a time when Israeli forces were down to their last supplies of ammunition.
Another 829 tons would be delivered in the next 24 hours. Even as Israeli workers unloaded those first cargo airplanes, huge formations of Israeli and Egyptian armor, maneuvering just 100 miles to the southwest, were locked in a desperate tank battle that would prove to be the largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk.
Now tie the "largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk." in with the previously posted assessment "Another example of the impact of the airlift on the war was the effectiveness of the TOW and Maverick missiles. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, these weapons were responsible for the majority of Israeli tank kills (Arab losses were estimated at 1,900 tanks during the war). Since the TOW and Maverick were not present in the Israeli inventory in any significant numbers before the war began, it is apparent that the missiles delivered by airlift the difference."
C-5' unloading TOW and Mavericks 100 miles from the "largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk". These missiles were "not present in the Israeli inventory in any significant numbers before the war began".
Oh, one other thing:
The arriving MAC airplanes were greeted ecstatically by the Israelis. The crews received red-carpet treatment. Israel put in place a system to expedite cargo handling; materiel unloaded from the transports usually were at the front in Syria in about three hours and in the Sinai in less than 10 hours.
Key factor? You bet your rump roast. Obviously the Israelis thought so. They sure hustled that cargo up to where it was NEEDED.
Read all the history. The Israelis came with in a hair of losing it all before they got their reservists to the front. They turned the tide with the reservists and got back on the offensive. (Did you know some of the Reserve units were equipped with pretty much "stock" WW2 Shermans? Think about that.) BUT THEY WERE RUNNING OUT OF AMMO, not to mention tanks and aircraft. That "offensive" couldn't have lasted very long without ammo, could it?
-
I wonder how much posting would be done If the copy and past function was never invented:rofl
-
How in the hell a "future oriented" thread has been transformed in the usual "We saved world's bellybutton x years ago" clichè???
Sometime....
Ah.. nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
There'd be alot more indians.
and Buffalo too!!
-
also no Ronald McDonald!!
-
No more freedome fries for you.
-
I don't think I ever said we saved the world. It's typical of the BBS logic.
I said Israel would be forced to go nuke in the Middle East. People said Israel doesn't and never did need US support, and suggested I needed to read more about it. I showed exactly where Israel very much DID need US support in the past. People got all huffy and said I was giving the US all credit for the Israeli victory in Yom Kippur. I never said that at all, but that didn't stop some people.
In other words, though I am right, some just make a minor adjustment to the argument and slog on. I did find funny the suggestion by one poster the UN helped Israel, but aside for some resolutions, I can't see a single thing in the two wars I was told to look at where the UN did anything. Funny how history repeats itself, eh?
-
Originally posted by type_char
No more freedome fries for you.
The Frech Government "courriel electroniqued" the US in protest :lol
-
viva la paris! viva la paris!
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Additionally- no way South Korea stays free. NK would cross that border 15 minutes after it was clear the US would not interfere. There wouldn't be any time whatsoever for developing nukes. China wouldn't stop it, China would be more than happy to see it happen.
You may want to check how much more money South is using for arming than North, also check out how much bigger army is South capable to pull up from its ranks than North.
Answer to those is 2 - 2,5 times more; in money and in man power.
South wouldn't have any problems to defend itself from North if given few years time to build up its army.
-
If the North attacked south Korea and the US wasn't there, I wonder what other nation would defend SK? The UN could maybe draft a resolution ( and China could veto it), but that's about it.
Without the evil US presence in SK, NK could make a just peace with the south I'll bet.
-
Viva la China! Viva la China!
-
Originally posted by Staga
You may want to check how much more money South is using for arming than North, also check out how much bigger army is South capable to pull up from its ranks than North.
Answer to those is 2 - 2,5 times more; in money and in man power.
South wouldn't have any problems to defend itself from North if given few years time to build up its army.
Ah, but the question is what would happen if the US left now. That's kind of my point; the South wouldn't have years to arm, it'd be more like days.
-
I said Israel would be forced to go nuke in the Middle East.
I don't think Israel would use nukes. They wouldn't need to.
Without US military aid, Israel is much weaker conventionaly, but the Arab states are far weaker now than when they were Soviet clients.
Egypt is the strongest state near Israel, but only because they get US military aid to keep them friendly with Israel.
Israel's problem if the US stopped sending aid is keeping their civilian economy afloat, and the cost of keeping substantial occupation forces in Palestinian areas.
Nuking their neighbours would make both problems worse, and bring economic sanctions from Europe. Israel currently does most of it's trade with Europe. Israel has had tariff free access to the EU for many years. If that goes, and US aid stops, living in Israel looks a far less attractive proposition than moving to Europe or America for most Jews, which makes the problems even worse, and accelerates the emigration.
Israel's real problems are demographics and the economy, neither of which are helped by war.
-
Toad,
In your first post the airlift allowed "Israel to send hundreds of additional tanks and planes into battle that were being saved in case of future losses."
Notice where these supplies went: "materiel unloaded from the transports usually were at the front in Syria in about three hours and in the Sinai in less than 10 hours."
These were being used in offensive actions outside Israel from my read.
Israel went on to use those weapons to knock the crap out of Syria and Egypt so that FUTURE offensive action would be impossible from them. But they did so in those countries...the Israelis had already hustled them right on out of their own country.
-
so shlots is pretty much saying that nothing would change because we are not very agressive now and that everything we do is pretty much in the form of aid given to countries that need it to stop tyranny and that...
given the parameters of the question.. only a few little countries like kuwait would be slaughtered if we continued financial but not overt mikitary intervention...
he's probly wrong in any case cause if the world knew we would do nothing militarily things would play out differently... WWII couldn't have been won by U.S. dollars and no U.S. blood.. Communism could not have been all but destryed with no U.S. blood..
but... I agree with Gshloz... the U.S. is a pretty even handed and fair country that helps countries help themselves and doesn't push it's weight around much.
surprised he gets it considering his hatred of all things American.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Staga
You may want to check how much more money South is using for arming than North, also check out how much bigger army is South capable to pull up from its ranks than North.
Answer to those is 2 - 2,5 times more; in money and in man power.
South wouldn't have any problems to defend itself from North if given few years time to build up its army.
The US presence is more psychological than physical in the ROK these days. Yes, we have quite a few troops there but compared to the NK forces we are piddly. Our biggest support would be in the air, not on the ground.
As for the ROK army, don't count on the North Koreans taking the peninsula. I was in Korea from 99-00 and got a chance to see their military, they are very professional, pretty well equiped (their K1 is very similar to our M1) and they don't have any desire to give up the relative wealth they have built up to the bunch in Pyongyang. Add to this the fact that about 60 percent of their male population is either in the army or has been in the Army within the last 20 years.
I think the NK Army would take Seoul and maybe a few miles south but they have no logistical support. Their country is starving and they are barely able to keep their army fed in garrison. ON the move would be very hard to keep up with. Granted they could forrage off of land taken in the South but that would be limited, especially if they use persistant agents in any kind of chemical attack.
Where the danger lies with a US withdrawal from the entire area lies in the Japanese/Korean/Chinese relationship. I don't doubt for a moment that if the US pulled out of the region that Japan would become a nuclear power within 6 months. This would be in direct response to NK nuclear ambitions. I would bet South Korea would be nuclear within a year as well. This of course would chill relationships between these countries and China even more. I would expect a SK/Japan pact (if they can get beyond past anamosities) against NK aggression. In response you might see other alliances with China/NK, maybe Vietnam (although I doubt it). I can see a big rush for people to take sides in the power vacuum. I could easily see an asian version of the NATO vs Warsaw Pact setup of the 60's.
The sticking point would be Taiwan. Maybe China would take the island back but if they didn't then Taiwan would of course try to join the Japan/SK alliance. If they were allowed to join an asian NATO then this could be a sparking point for a full blown conflict in Asia.
Might make a good novel.
-
Curval,
The initial part of the airlift was primarily ammunition; TANK ammunition too. The promise to make good all loses did allow the release of the reserves; in short, they committed and were "all in". No forces held back.
Now while the unloading of TOW's and Mavericks from C-5's and C-141's was going on "Israeli and Egyptian armor, maneuvering just 100 miles to the southwest, were locked in a desperate tank battle that would prove to be the largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk".
The use of these TOW's and Mavericks "According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, these weapons were responsible for the majority of Israeli tank kills (Arab losses were estimated at 1,900 tanks during the war). Since the TOW and Maverick were not present in the Israeli inventory in any significant numbers before the war began, it is apparent that the missiles delivered by airlift made the difference."
OK, let's "what if".
The Israelis were extremely low on ammo. That's a "given".
The Iraeli/Egyptian tank battle was in progress. With or without the US airlift, that battle was going to be fought to the bloody end.
Israeli reserves, particularly tank reserves, were at best, not front-line units.
There were considerable differences between the Reserve units. Colonel Gideon Gordon’s 70th Mechanized Brigade was a unit that time had forgotten. Indeed, there was activity afoot to disband the unit. It was equipped with virtually unmodified World War II-vintage Sherman tanks and equally ancient M3 halftracks. The troops even still wore old football-type helmets rather than the modern plastic headgear that had been issued almost universally throughout the IDF armored and mechanized units. All things considered, the brigade was a perfect snapshot of a 1963-vintage IDF formation. It was felt that 70th Brigade could be called upon to defend prepared positions or guard lines of communications, but no one thought the unit could be effectively or even safely employed in the attack.
So, assume Nixon had not given the promise of replacing units and not authorized the airlift of ammunition and modern anti-tank weapons like TOW and Maverick.
Who do you think would have won the "largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk"?
Had the Egyptians won, who would have been on the offensive in the Sinai?
The idea that it was "all over" before the resupply started is not supported by the historical record.
Here's a nice google-read for you and bait to get you to read it. ;)
October 1973 War & Lessons for the Arabs (http://www.defencejournal.com/nov98/warlessonsarabs.htm)
As has come out in the Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs have only a limited potential for war fighting (i.e., in terms of time.) Their defence industries and weapon transfer arrangements during the time of war cannot sustain them for a long time. I wrote this some time back in this context. ...
Of course, a major factor of the blunting of the Egyptian assault, as pointed out by Anwer El Sadat in his revealing book In Search of Identity was the supply of armour replacements i.e., some 400 tanks from the USA to Israel in the heat of the battle which not only sustained them but also provided them with the means of carrying the war into the Egyptian and Syrian soils. The Arabs lack this capability.
Now, are you calling Sadat misinformed? ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Who defended SK during the Korean War? Ah ... that's right; the UN did.
The US was primarilary the one doing the fighting and provided the majority of the forces. Without the USA, who would field the forces next time?
China is in the UN. Maybe China could get the UN to side with the North, then China would help out there again I'm sure.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Who defended SK during the Korean War? Ah ... that's right; the UN did.
GScholz...........are you really a member of this planet? The UN provides some blue bubble heads until there told to get out of the way. That was not the UN that landed at Inchon. The term UN is used for the US to prosecute a war without declareing one. The UN has become irrelevant...we now use the term Coalition. That could be the US and Sri Lanka it really doesn't matter.
-
Yep, it was a UN action. Made possible because the Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council and thus wasn't there to veto the involvment. Which they absolutely, most surely, without doubt would have done. In short, had the Soviets not boycotted, the UN wouldn't have been involved at all. It would be yet another case of UN failure to act.
But, hey, the UN did go. Peak U.S. troop strenght in Korea,July 1953 was 325,270.
However, by the end of 1952, the South Korean army constituted about three-fourth of the front-line troops. Folks forget they lost 137,875 soldiers killed (77 percent of the total "allied" dead), 450,742 wounded and 19,392 missing.
But other nations did participate, sending about half the forces that the US sent.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1076872511.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1076872528.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1076872551.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1076872571.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Straffo & I would take over the world.
Somethink make me think that you won't have internal uber-security minister...
Stop dizclozing our zecret dizcutions !
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So, Weaselsan ... are you really a member of this planet?
I'm on the month-to-month plan myself.
-
I think I'd roll right out of my chair if Gscholz ever admitted he was wrong about something.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why would I admit to being wrong when I am right? The defence of SK was a UN operation.
In the context you are correct GScholz. However, you have to admit that there probably would have been no UN action unless the US was involved with all our troops.
That is the question I posed here regarding SK and who would defend it in a future without US military involvment, except to directly defend our borders.
-
*ahem*- Yom Kippur?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I think I'd roll right out of my chair if Gscholz ever admitted he was wrong about something.
Originally posted by GScholz
Why would I admit to being wrong when I am right? The defence of SK was a UN operation.
This reminds me a little of that game where you can get the penguin stuck in orbit. For in illustration, just make it to level four and use the gray planet.
Ellipse (http://www.bigideafun.com/penguins/arcade/spaced_penguin/default.htm)
-
The only thing I see the UN is useful for doing is wasting paper and killing forests, but that's about it. When the resolutions come, it usually falls to the US to provide the lion's share of forces or money to support whatever conflict du jour. If you go back to the original post, that's one way to look at it- who'd take up the slack if the US was gone?
The other way to look at the question is "Would the world like us again?" Probably not. If we aren't handing out money or support we don't have too many friends: UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and a few other Commonwealth countries excepted.
-
I think that the ROK military forces would defend SK if we pulled troops out. Prob. along with a several thousand Americans that don't appreciate having their relatives killed.
-
ROK:
The army consists of the Army Headquarters, the three army commands, the Aviation Command, and the Special Warfare Command. The army possesses component units including 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades, some 560,000 troops, some 2,360 tanks, 5,180 pieces of field artillery, and 2,400 armored vehicles.
DPRK:
North Korea continues to position forces into the area just north of the DMZ— in a position to threaten Combined Forces Command and all of Seoul with little warning. Seventy percent of their active force, including approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. This percentage continues to rise despite the June 2000 summit. Most of this force in the forward area is protected in over 4,000 underground facilities, out of over 11,000 nationwide. From their current locations, these forces can attack with minimal preparations or warning. The protracted southward deployment follows a tactic of “creeping normalcy”—a significant movement over a period of many years that would attract too much international attention if accomplished over weeks or months.
And DPRK has about another 300,000 army troops besides these.
So, 560,000 versus 1,000,000 and the million will have suprise on their side most likely.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And DPRK has about another 300,000 army troops besides these.
So, 560,000 versus 1,000,000 and the million will have suprise on their side most likely.
Not to worry, we got a couple battalions of UN troops...that outta scare the crap out of em.....
-
Every SK male serves in the military. Plus most of those million are half starved and barely trained, using obsolete weapon systems
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah ... I see. 1.000.000 NK troops vs. 560.000 SK troops. So I guess the 37.000 US troops will save SK. Ok ... that makes sense.
It's not the 37,000 that are there, it's the one's that will follow should anything happen to them that keeps NK at bay, not the fear of the UN.
-
Gotta ask, Gscholz, why it is YOU think the US is in SK? Why is it when the US talks of pulling out, the people there ask us to stay? I'm curious how you'll rationalize that one.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Gotta ask, Gscholz, why it is YOU think the US is in SK? Why is it when the US talks of pulling out, the people there ask us to stay? I'm curious how you'll rationalize that one.
Better yet, why isn't the UN there insead, since it was a "UN" action?
-
The UN IS there. The US presently LEADS the UN Command - Republic of Korea.
Of course, we're about the only ones with any significant number of troops there, but it's still a "blue flag" operation technically.
-
C'mon Scholz; you're better than that.
The NK's would have to roll over 30,000 US troops to get at Seoul.
Everybody knows what would happen then and it wouldn't be pretty.
You REALLY think we'd just let them die and then walk away?
Nope. SK might end up being an island instead of on a peninsula though.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The UN IS there. The US presently LEADS the UN Command - Republic of Korea.
Of course, we're about the only ones with any significant number of troops there, but it's still a "blue flag" operation technically.
A UN operation in name only and everyone but Gscholz knows that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep, it was a UN action. Made possible because the Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council and thus wasn't there to veto the involvment. Which they absolutely, most surely, without doubt would have done. In short, had the Soviets not boycotted, the UN wouldn't have been involved at all. It would be yet another case of UN failure to act.
Heh I got big grin on my face everytime some american whines against Vetoes made in SC; After all it's mostly you who has used them :lol :aok
-
You guys are underestimating the abilities of the ROK Army, as I said. This isn't the same army of 1950, not only are these guys properly equiped but they have a real motive to defend South Korea.
Yes, the North Korean Army is large. A 1.8 to one advantage is very helpful but unless SK intelligence (and US for that matter) are profoundly stupid the gear up for conflict should be pretty easy to see. Every bridge in the North is targeted, you can be sure of that. Slowing down the NK army even a little bit will probably cause them to peter out about halfway down the peninsula. Worst is probaby a Pusan like perimeter. If the US becomes heavily involved (which they will, nothing like killing 20 thousand US troops in an unprovoked attack) then look to see another reversal like in 51. However this time don't expect China to come to the aid of the North.
The North knows this. The best time for NK to attack was in the mid 70's, when US morale was relatively low, the US was still in shock from the ending of Vietnam, and the ties between NK and the Soviet Union and China were still relatively strong. Now they don't have the food stocks to maintain an army in the field, nor I bet spare parts or replacement equipment. They are strong, but not as much so as an offensive force. Offensives, especially against well dug in enemies like the South (remember, these guys have had 50 years to get ready for them-I have seen the prep work) use up a lot of men and materiel.
-
The question isn't, "How many troops will NK commit to fighting?"
It's, "Will China fight for NK again?"
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The question isn't, "How many troops will NK commit to fighting?"
It's, "Will China fight for NK again?"
Probably depends if the US General in charge keeps going off about taking the War to China and kicking the commies out of Peking.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Probably depends if the US General in charge keeps going off about taking the War to China and kicking the commies out of Peking.
...and the liberal use of atomic bombs to accomplish that aim...
Tronsky
-
I personally doubt that China would become involved. NK has become something of an embarrasment to the government in Beijing. The philosophies of the current rulers and the ones in Pyongyang are very different than the ones in 1950.
Add to this the change in economies for China. Currently China's biggest trade partner is the United States. Going to war with your biggest trading partner over a rogue nation like North Korea probably wouldn't sit too well with many buisiness leaders in China.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just doubt that China would rush in like they did in 1951. The country of North Korea isn't thought of a a kindred spirit anymore. Likewise China doesn't need to get support from Stalin.
-
Are you saying the US wouldn't exist as in an alternate history where it remained part of the British Empire? I think it would have achieved independance eventually, but would have been part of the commonwealth. I think WW1 wouldn't have happened, because no-one in their right minds would have taken on the Empire with that kind of power (assuming the US had expanded under British control like it did in isolation), and if they had it would have been over very quickly. No WW1, would mean no WW2 and possibly no Russian communism. No Russian communism or WW2 means no Chinese communism in all likelihood. No Soviet Bloc, means no Cold War and the countless trillions of dollars and huge wads of resources spent on defence. The world would probably be richer and a little more crowded.
So all in all, 1776 was a bad year for humanity and the course the world would take. ;) :D
-
Toad,
Now why would I think that Sadat might be less than generous with the truth?
Your posts are excellent, educational and reveal my knowledge of what occured to be different and possibly lacking. It has sparked an interest in the topic for me, and I will read up on this battle to educate myself better.
Nevertheless, despite the volume of weapons that were sent by the US and the timing of the receipt of those weapons Israeli soldiers continued to man them. To my knowledge the US did not have a military presence fighting on any of the fronts in that battle.
While the US contributions were welcome and effective it seems to me that the credit for winning that battle rests squarely on the shoulders of the IDF.
I mean, are you suggesting, for example, that the United States won the Battle of Britain? In that battle there were some US flyers who flew for the Brits (I saw Pear Harbour ;) ) but I cannot imagine that British efforts could be cheapened by US claims that they were responsible for the British victory despite the huge amount of aid sent by the US.
I suppose the French "won" the US War of Indepence if this is indeed the case.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
snip
So all in all, 1776 was a bad year for humanity and the course the world would take. ;) :D
Stinky bait :)
culero (swims away)
-
While Dowding expressed his thoughts in jest, it is duly noted there are some that appear to believe the world would be far better off without the US in it, and that the US has had virtually no positive impact in history, recent or otherwise. I mean, look at some of these posts! Incredible.
-
Darn, I should not put the smilies on and watched a few posters explode in apoplectic rage. But there is always next time... :)
-
lol Dowding
-
Originally posted by Pei
Probably depends if the US General in charge keeps going off about taking the War to China and kicking the commies out of Peking.
That US General was correct IMO, since China flooded into NK and was openly attacking us, we needed to be able to go straight after China and attack them at the points where they were coming from . We should have declared war on China IMO, then applied whatever force needed until they got out of NK.
We were fighting China anyway...we just couldn't attack the Chinese past the Yalu river because of the ROE.
1.34 million Chinese troops crossed the Yalu River from Ji'an. We already were fighting China with almost all China could muster, yet we let them have a free pass until they got into Korea. That's just idiodic.
-
dowding... is a world under imperialist britan any better than one with strongholds of freedom and some communism and the occassional world war? I think not... 1776 was a great year for human rights.
lazs
-
As they say... "I got one!"
-
I think we both "got one".... pretty easy tho considering that we both believe the statements we made.
lazs
-
Yup, I believe every word I wrote.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yup, I believe every word I wrote.
Hey, you forgot the smiley
:p
-
...or did I?
:p
-
face it dowding... you believe that imperialist little island of yours would be good for the world.... even tho it would mean everyone drove on the wrong side of the road.
lazs
-
I actually beileve that Britain was and is a huge positive influence on the world.
That little island is remarkable with a facsinating history and a will of steel when they are pushed to their limits.
-
yep... some of the best people in the world left there for here. Some of the best rules of laws were made and trampled over from there....
not much you can do about driving on the wrong side of the road tho... Oh well.... at least they admitted that whitworth and bsf were not good ideas for fasteners...
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Israel have never received military support (apart from intelligence) from the US. They have received monetary donations from the US and been allowed to buy US hardware. I don't see how this will be affected by a US withdrawal of forces (which never were in Israel anyway).
Germany is the leading economic powerhouse of Europe, not France.
I didn't realize you could be an economic powerhouse when your economy is in the crapper. You must be grading on a curve.
-
Here's the part of the Gscholz logic (well, just one part) that doesn't quite compute...
If we give billions of dollars in aid, and presumably Israel buys weapons with that money - and you can certainly argue that's the case - how does it compute we haven't given military aid?
-
Originally posted by Toad
The UN IS there. The US presently LEADS the UN Command - Republic of Korea.
Of course, we're about the only ones with any significant number of troops there, but it's still a "blue flag" operation technically.
The last of the "police Actions" by the UN, er' US...it is now referred to as "coalition building"...a coalition is when Sri Lanka says "OK were on your side. Actually the Gross domestic product of SK is about 50 times greater than NK. Did you Know for example that the US spends several Billion Dollars more per Year than the Gross domestic product of NK on personal water craft.
I think it may be about time for SK to defend themselves.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Heh I got big grin on my face everytime some american whines against Vetoes made in SC; After all it's mostly you who has used them :lol :aok
We don't whine about security counsel vetos...we ignore them.:rofl :eek: :rolleyes:
-
When the Whiney SC refuses to act on their own resolutions.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That US General was correct IMO, since China flooded into NK and was openly attacking us, we needed to be able to go straight after China and attack them at the points where they were coming from . We should have declared war on China IMO, then applied whatever force needed until they got out of NK.
We were fighting China anyway...we just couldn't attack the Chinese past the Yalu river because of the ROE.
1.34 million Chinese troops crossed the Yalu River from Ji'an. We already were fighting China with almost all China could muster, yet we let them have a free pass until they got into Korea. That's just idiodic.
China didn't flood into NK until the UN forces were racing north and McArthur started suggesting they go all the way to Peking. Perhaps China felt the need to pre-emptively strike at the danger?
-
Originally posted by Pei
China didn't flood into NK until the UN forces were racing north and McArthur started suggesting they go all the way to Peking. Perhaps China felt the need to pre-emptively strike at the danger?
McCarther wanted to go to Peking???????........SOURCE
-
My Tummy hurts.... I blame the US and, indirectly, the UN, for not censuring the pain in time.
-
Korean girls make the best Porn starlets.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Korean girls make the best Porn starlets.
SOURCE????
-
Years of research, my good man.
I'd post some corraborative links, but we all know what the Skuzzinator would say about that.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
McCarther wanted to go to Peking???????........SOURCE
RECALL OF GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR (1951)
Following World War II, the Korean peninsula was divided, supposedly temporarily, along the 38th parallel, with a Russian-allied communist government in the north and a pro-Western government in the south. On June 24, 1950, armies of North Korea flooded across the dividing line, and the Truman administration quickly committed troops to a United Nations effort aimed at pushing the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel.
General Douglas MacArthur, then in charge of the Allied occupation of Japan, assumed command of the United Nations troops, which were soon pushed back to a small perimeter around the southern port city of Pusan. Then, in a brilliant maneuver, MacArthur simultaneously broke out of the Pusan perimeter and launched an amphibious landing at Inchon. Soon UN forces had not only reached the 38th parallel but were crossing it and heading north toward the Yalu River, the boundary between China and North Korea.
MacArthur conceived of the Korean war as a holy war; he kept talking about "unleashing Chiang Kai-shek," then holed up in his island fortress on Formosa, and launching atomic strikes, all of which made Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other UN countries involved very nervous. For Harry Truman and the Joint Chiefs, Korea was an exercise in containment, but that made it a very frustrating war for many Americans. It meant that in this war the United States was not aiming for total victory, but for more limited, and more ambiguous, results.
There is a tradition in American government that the military is subordinate to the civilian leaders. Generals do not make statements about policy without first clearing them with their superiors. But MacArthur, used to ruling in Japan, ignored the chain of command, and began writing letters about what the United States should do in Korea. He sent a letter to the Veterans of Foreign Wars saying that Formosa would be a fine place to launch an aggressive campaign against China. After the Chinese entered the war -- something MacArthur had assured Truman would never happen -- MacArthur wrote to Speaker of the House Joe Martin saying the United States could only win by an all-out war, and this meant bombing the Manchurian bases. So Harry Truman fired him, and evoked a firestorm of criticism from conservatives who believed Truman to be soft on communism.
-
North Korea hosted the biggest pro wrestling event(a la WWF) in history, with over 100,000 spectators.
It must be true. I just heard it as a factoid on Monster Garage.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
face it dowding... you believe that imperialist little island of yours would be good for the world.... even tho it would mean everyone drove on the wrong side of the road.
lazs
Hehe would you like a bagel with your Extra frothy Lazsuccino, Dowding?
-
I love the smell of Lazs in the morning.
It smells like...
Dowding...
-
Heh. :D I'm not going to get into another 'What the UK did for us' slanging match. It's a bit boring now.
Thanks for the Laughs Lazs. "Impreialist pig-dog..." lol