Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SunTracker on January 20, 2005, 03:30:48 AM
-
Ok, heres the hypothetical situation. The U.S., after being mistreated by Europe and Asia, decides to destroy its enemies (the entire world). Before laughing too hard, lets look at the facts
(1) The U.S. has 3 methods of nuclear weapons delivery: Subs, land based missles, and air dropped bombs
(2)The U.S. has the best tanks and aircraft. The best Europe and Asia could hope to do would be to match the technology the U.S. has.
(3) The U.S. is isolated from the rest of the world. To the North and South are friendly, non-military countries. East and West are 2000 miles of ocean.
(4) Nuclear missle shield.
The only country that could launch nuclear missles against the United States would be Russia. The efficency of these weapons would be greatly reduced due to the missle shield and the fact that Russia is in bad economic shape.
Realistically, if 'collateral damage' wasnt an issue, the U.S. could roll through Europe with ease. Asia might be a bit more difficult due to terrain issues. But with the largest airforce in the world, troops, tanks, and nuclear weapons could be anywhere needed within a matter of hours.
As for the troops, if the U.S. annexed Mexico, it would have more than enough soldiers.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
...the U.S. could roll through Europe with ease.
like in Iraq? *g*
-
Well ST, for someone who's never been a passenger on a jet airliner, you sure seem to have a colourful view of the rest of the world.
-
The mighty army of Luxembourg would crush you with ease. No question there!
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The only country that could launch nuclear missles against the United States would be Russia.
Incorrect.
-
heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe hehehehehehehe
LOL! :D
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
The mighty army of Luxembourg would crush you with ease. No question there!
Yep - same thing for Viet Nam - look what happened last time.
-
France can retaliate with enough nukes to cause at least 50 million casualties.
to any country on the planet.
Same with Britain.
Israel has no intercontinental nukes , but could turn most capitals within a few thousands kms into glassy parking lots.
Russia has still enough fangs to cause massive damage anywhere.
India and Pakistan have probably some limited nuke capacity too
You forgot CHINA : major nuclear power (300+ nukes 20 years ago, who knows how many now !!), and I would not expect them to be subtle about it if push ever comes to shove!
-
LMAO
Is there a point to this post?
...-Gixer
-
You are forgetting something: we talk nukes, we talk armageddon. Period.
BTW: North and South of the US of A are non-military countries (which probably would stay neutral), and also the largest and most poorly defended borders in the world (my guess). Wanna bet how many operatives can go through with portable nukes in the event of a full-scale confrontation?
Now let me see if I can get this hook off my mouth.
Daniel
-
If this thread were a person, it would be Mike Tyson.
(http://www.aftonbladet.se/sport/0402/11/SPORT-11s81-tyson-97.jpg)
-
The U.S. will turn any country with nuclear capability into glass. Also, how are other countries going to smuggle nuclear weapons into the U.S.? The U.S. has the biggest Navy in the world.
In my situation, U.S. has the first strike. How can a country launch missles when launch facilities and its government are dead?
-
As far as the missile shield, it has:
a. No proven capability
b. No operational capability
c. I'm too tired to write up another university thesis on this - but teaching physics dealing with nuclear weapons, war and arms control - trust me - it doesn't work.
Sleep time
-
SunTracker how bout you jump on that jet airliner for the first time and go see some of the world, you need the education badly...
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
In my situation, U.S. has the first strike. How can a country launch missles when launch facilities and its government are dead?
Because launch can be detected and retaliation can be started before impact.
They will certainly blow but not before retaliatory launch.
-
The U.S. could easily pull B-36s and B-29s out of museums and equip them for atomic weapons so they could drop on Europe and Asia.
-
Originally posted by SOB
If this thread were a person, it would be Mike Tyson.
Yeah - stupid! Hehe, it looks like one of NUKE's threads from a couple of years ago...
...speaking of "threads", ST - did you ever see that movie?
-
(http://www.smiley.cy.net/basspro/23102002-69pcs.jpg)
Daddy, look how many fish I caught!
What movie beetle?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yep - same thing for Viet Nam - look what happened last time.
Nam wasn`t a problem to walk through in short fashion. Very short fashion.
No where close to full potential was used.
It was the fat cats in politics that kept progress to a crawl.
Everyone was wanting to either fatten their wallet or further their careers while the military was being tethered and held back.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Daddy, look how many fish I caught!
Nice try.
-
The sad part of it was that many people thought someone would post something like this seriously.
Houston, we have a problem.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
What movie beetle?
Threads. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxzZz0xfHR0PW9ufHBuPTB8cT10aHJlYWRzfG14PTIwfGxtPTIwMHxodG1sPTE_;fc=1;ft=25;fm=1
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
like in Iraq? *g*
LOL i wanted to post exactly same thing :D
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
In my situation, U.S. has the first strike. How can a country launch missles when launch facilities and its government are dead?
imao .... coz when you throw rock, it take some time before it fall on the ground baby.
-
Nice haul there, ST.
Be sure not to waste any when you flay them.
-
Fine picture ST...
hey are you the left or the right one??:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The only country that could launch nuclear missles against the United States would be Russia. The efficency of these weapons would be greatly reduced due to the missle shield and the fact that Russia is in bad economic shape.
Missile shield, when completely deployed, is capable of intercepting 55 enemy warheads in theory. Practically I'll say something like 10-15 warheads. One modern MIRV.
The fact that Russia is in "bad economic shape" doesn't stop missiles from flying.
Originally posted by SunTracker
Realistically, if 'collateral damage' wasnt an issue, the U.S. could roll through Europe with ease. Asia might be a bit more difficult due to terrain issues. But with the largest airforce in the world, troops, tanks, and nuclear weapons could be anywhere needed within a matter of hours.
Planning a nuclear war in pure insanity. In conventional warfare US doesn't stand a single chance against modern army prepared for defence. In case US attacks Russia - our country will mobilize in a matter of days. It will be an obvious suicide to attack Russia with conventional force. Current American forces are unable to cotroll occupied Iraq, and with Russian spaces and population US soldiers will be spread freezing and starving after reaching Russian-Belorussian border in forests around Smolensk. In the East they will disappear in taiga around the railway line between Vladivostok and Ussuriysk.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Missile shield, when completely deployed, is capable of intercepting 55 enemy warheads in theory. Practically I'll say something like 10-15 warheads. One modern MIRV.
The fact that Russia is in "bad economic shape" doesn't stop missiles from flying.
Planning a nuclear war in pure insanity. In conventional warfare US doesn't stand a single chance against modern army prepared for defence. In case US attacks Russia - our country will mobilize in a matter of days. It will be an obvious suicide to attack Russia with conventional force. Current American forces are unable to cotroll occupied Iraq, and with Russian spaces and population US soldiers will be spread freezing and starving after reaching Russian-Belorussian border in forests around Smolensk. In the East they will disappear in taiga around the railway line between Vladivostok and Ussuriysk.
Alright, ST, you boated the big one.
You've caught your limit. Time to sail for home.
-
my daddy can beat up your daddy
-
And my daddy can beat both your daddys....
With one hand tied.
neener neener :P
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Alright, ST, you boated the big one.
You've caught your limit. Time to sail for home.
Finally I have some place to flame... Was provoking for several days now, but noone payed attention :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It will be an obvious suicide to attack Russia with conventional force. Current American forces are unable to cotroll occupied Iraq, and with Russian spaces and population US soldiers will be spread freezing and starving after reaching Russian-Belorussian border in forests around Smolensk. In the East they will disappear in taiga around the railway line between Vladivostok and Ussuriysk.
Yes - the last time Russia was attacked like this, the attempt was thwarted by only two men: Monsieur Janvier, and Monsieur Fevrier. These gentlemen should not be underestimated! :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes - the last time Russia was attacked like this, the attempt was thwarted by only two men: Monsieur Janvier, and Monsieur Fevrier. These gentlemen should not be underestimated! :aok
It's another fact that contradicts things that "everyone knows", but winter of 1941 was nothing special, no really strong frost, it didn't go below -25C.
Both Napoleon and Hitler started their invasions in summer, but it didn't help them.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Ok, heres the hypothetical situation. The U.S., after being mistreated by Europe and Asia, decides to destroy its enemies (the entire world). Before laughing too hard, lets look at the facts
(1) The U.S. has 3 methods of nuclear weapons delivery: Subs, land based missles, and air dropped bombs
(2)The U.S. has the best tanks and aircraft. The best Europe and Asia could hope to do would be to match the technology the U.S. has.
(3) The U.S. is isolated from the rest of the world. To the North and South are friendly, non-military countries. East and West are 2000 miles of ocean.
(4) Nuclear missle shield.
The only country that could launch nuclear missles against the United States would be Russia. The efficency of these weapons would be greatly reduced due to the missle shield and the fact that Russia is in bad economic shape.
Realistically, if 'collateral damage' wasnt an issue, the U.S. could roll through Europe with ease. Asia might be a bit more difficult due to terrain issues. But with the largest airforce in the world, troops, tanks, and nuclear weapons could be anywhere needed within a matter of hours.
As for the troops, if the U.S. annexed Mexico, it would have more than enough soldiers.
1) you forgot nuclear tipped cruise missiles
2) you forgot nuclear artillery shells
2) fallout from such a conflict would probably kill us all anyway
3) The rest of the world might decide to team up against us.
4) missile shield doesnt help against conventional nukes
5) matter of hours you mean days right?
-
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39350000/jpg/_39350125_bush_ap.jpg)
Bring em on!
-
OK, time to put the Wolf down. This is a 500 page study that I worked on with the chair of the project on Boost Phase BMD - which is a planned tier of the NMD system. If you thought the Midcourse system was a pain in the ass, try this out for size.
(http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/images/nmdcover.jpg)
http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmd03.cfm
For the full PDF:
Here (http://www.aps.org/media/pressreleases/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=57862)
or for the FTP challenged: http://ftp://ftp.aps.org/nmd/
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Missile shield, when completely deployed, is capable of intercepting 55 enemy warheads in theory. Practically I'll say something like 10-15 warheads. One modern MIRV.
The fact that Russia is in "bad economic shape" doesn't stop missiles from flying.
Planning a nuclear war in pure insanity. In conventional warfare US doesn't stand a single chance against modern army prepared for defence. In case US attacks Russia - our country will mobilize in a matter of days. It will be an obvious suicide to attack Russia with conventional force. Current American forces are unable to cotroll occupied Iraq, and with Russian spaces and population US soldiers will be spread freezing and starving after reaching Russian-Belorussian border in forests around Smolensk. In the East they will disappear in taiga around the railway line between Vladivostok and Ussuriysk.
You seem to have a generally poor understanding of Strategy and Grand Strategy.
1) Conventional forces historically have had major problems fighting insurgencies. Look at the Turk-Arab conflict for example. The difference is that now technology and tactics are changing so that smaller numbers of troops have a larger sphere of influence. It looks to be the only way to effectively battle an insurgency.
2) If Hitler, and the general that led the attack on Moscow weren't morons, WW2 would've gone differently. They were overly confident because of their success, abandoned the indirect approach strategy, and wasted too much manpower trying to capture a "symbol" instead of resources.
3) Modern defense works to an extent (excluding the fact a company of M1A1s wiped out a dug-in battalion of T-72s from the Medina Division in the first gulf war after literally stumbling into them), but it still overmatched by highly mobile forces using an indirect approach. Static defenses are immensely effective at blunting direct attacks... but that's it. I believe Guderian proved that point very well.
4) The "historic success" of Russian swarm tactics are overblown. The Germans were still winning battles outnumbered 8 to 1, with inferior tanks. Had Hitler not enforced a static line defense to hold captured terrority, a flexible-line strategy would've checked Russian offenses and kept gains to a minimum.
There's only a small handful of Russian generals that I know of who effectively used the indirect approach. The soviet equipped & trained armies of modern day don't grasp the principles of it. If they did, Israel would've been conquered & the Israeli-Iran war wouldn't have been a war of attrition.
okay, flame away.
-
And for an analysis on the midcourse system (Thats Suntracker's premise)
"Countermeasures" Writtin in April 2000. 174 pages, but easier on the eyes.
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=132
-
I've been wondering for a while if all of the people in the world were rounded up & had to brrawl with all of the elephants in the world, who would win?
-
Originally posted by bunch
I've been wondering for a while if all of the people in the world were rounded up & had to brrawl with all of the elephants in the world, who would win?
Whales.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Whales.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. My money's with Boroda
-
Originally posted by indy007
You seem to have a generally poor understanding of Strategy and Grand Strategy.
Agreed, I have no military education ;)
Originally posted by indy007
1) Conventional forces historically have had major problems fighting insurgencies. Look at the Turk-Arab conflict for example. The difference is that now technology and tactics are changing so that smaller numbers of troops have a larger sphere of influence. It looks to be the only way to effectively battle an insurgency.
The only tactics to effectively fight insurgency is medieval - take hostages, slaughter entire settlements to terrorise others.
Originally posted by indy007
2) If Hitler, and the general that led the attack on Moscow weren't morons, WW2 would've gone differently. They were overly confident because of their success, abandoned the indirect approach strategy, and wasted too much manpower trying to capture a "symbol" instead of resources.
Hm. Let me disagree. Biggest part of Soviet industry was under Germans by Oct. 1941. Moscow is a HUGE industrial and transportation center, it's importance can't be overestimated.
Originally posted by indy007
3) Modern defense works to an extent (excluding the fact a company of M1A1s wiped out a dug-in battalion of T-72s from the Medina Division in the first gulf war after literally stumbling into them), but it still overmatched by highly mobile forces using an indirect approach. Static defenses are immensely effective at blunting direct attacks... but that's it. I believe Guderian proved that point very well.
Soviet plans were based on flank attacks and usage of motorised and tank units to cut off enemy lines and counterattack. But this tactics failed :( Static defence is usefull only in unimportant directions. It's a basic thing, please correct me if I am wrong.
Static defence was impossible for USSR, it's obvious, the density of defense was too thin, we simply didn't have enough troops for reliable defense.
Originally posted by indy007
4) The "historic success" of Russian swarm tactics are overblown. The Germans were still winning battles outnumbered 8 to 1, with inferior tanks. Had Hitler not enforced a static line defense to hold captured terrority, a flexible-line strategy would've checked Russian offenses and kept gains to a minimum.
"Russian swarm tactics"? What's that?
USSR lost maybe 30% more troops then Germany, mostly because of 1941 catastrophe.
"Germans winning battles outnumbered 8 to 1" is another myth.
Originally posted by indy007
There's only a small handful of Russian generals that I know of who effectively used the indirect approach. The soviet equipped & trained armies of modern day don't grasp the principles of it. If they did, Israel would've been conquered & the Israeli-Iran war wouldn't have been a war of attrition.
Hmm. This opinion has a right to exist :D
The main problem with Arabs is that they are not warriors. Worse then Romanian army. No training can turn cowards into soldiers.
Just imagine one Soviet motoinfantry division in Kuwait-City in 1991. They could turn a city into a small-scale Stalingrad instead of running away.
Originally posted by indy007
okay, flame away.
:( You disappoint me :(
What I meant in my forst post in this thread is that US is unable to wage a full-scale war relying on "smart weapons" and other fancy stuff. You see, they ran out of cruise missiles in Yugoslavia and then in Iraq. In Russia they'll probably get as low as bayonet attacks (exaggerating). Fighting a country with full scale echeloned air-defence, rocket artillery and thousands of tanks, sattelite recon, ECM corps, submarine fleet and every male knowing how to assemble his Kalashnikov is quite different from beating third-world countries exausted by decades of sanctions.
-
I was going to post equivalent dribble comparable to everyone else who passes through here and leaves waste but I have honestly forgotten what this thread is about!
I digress......
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I was going to post equivalent dribble comparable to everyone else who passes through here and leaves waste but I have honestly forgotten what this thread is about!
I digress......
Yeager, we need you here! ;)
-
Alright, ST, you boated the big one.
(http://courses.csusm.edu/fmst300bc/jawschum.jpg)
I think were gonna need a bigger boat...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The only tactics to effectively fight insurgency is medieval - take hostages, slaughter entire settlements to terrorise others.
Not quite. Look at the Chechens. The effective way to fight an insurgency requires a few steps. You have to secure the moral victory, bringing more locals to your side than the insurgents. "Hearts & Minds" has its place. Since all wars are based on economic endurance, it is a step to undercutting their support and funding. Next, you have to have in place a specific number of garrisoned troops per square mile of occupied terrain. This formula is not an easy one, and based on economy of force. Then, you have to ensure you have operational targets (example: Fallujah) to let your forces go on the offensive. That not only has the potential to take a chunk out of an insurgency, but also builds the morale of your soldiers who are much happier with an objective in front them, than wondering what's going to blow up today.
Hm. Let me disagree. Biggest part of Soviet industry was under Germans by Oct. 1941. Moscow is a HUGE industrial and transportation center, it's importance can't be overestimated.
I'll concede that point. However the southern front had a greater strategic importance due to the oil fields. Factories & rail lines are all well in good, but they have to be fueled. Hitler authorized the attacks on it by forces that were really needed elsewhere, and by a general who was an inferior strategist. Then, later, by bogging down at Stalingrad, fighting over a name, and simply not leaving behind reserve forces using an elastic defense to check counter-offensives, he cost himself the Eastern Front.
Soviet plans were based on flank attacks and usage of motorised and tank units to cut off enemy lines and counterattack. But this tactics failed :( Static defence is usefull only in unimportant directions. It's a basic thing, please correct me if I am wrong.
Static defence was impossible for USSR, it's obvious, the density of defense was too thin, we simply didn't have enough troops for reliable defense.
You're correct in that. However many Soviet commanders failed to carry it out correctly. They probably read too much Clausewitz and believed that it took a "great battle" to determine the course of a war. That assumption has been proven to be false. Stalin, commissars, and political pressure didn't help them either.
Also, the density wasn't the issue. It works both ways. The failing was in defensive strategy. The Germans would begin their encirclement and close the trap before the Russain forces could get a rear guard into position and begin a general retreat. At the same time, all the way until the end of the war, German commanders were on all but a few notable occasions, able to keep their retreat corridor open and prevent encirclement. This allowed them to pull back, regroup, and grind down offensives with checks and counter-attacks while preserving most of their strength.
Also, static defense really only works against direct assaults. So while it can be effective, you always hear about a some greater leader (Alexander, Gudurian, Rommel, Patton, Chesty Puller) who obtained suprise by going through "impossible" terrain. That's them using the indirect approach to obtain suprise and a moral victory. More often than not, their battles were won before the first casualty.
"Russian swarm tactics"? What's that?
This isn't the perfect example of it, but one I know off the top of my head (I'm at work, no books handy). Look up and read about the "Tank Riders" in Stalingrad. They'd get a long column of T-34s up, and have hundreds of infantry climb on. The infantry were armed almost exclusively with ppsh submachineguns. They drove headlong into German positions and tried to overrun them with brute force. Their life expectancy was non-existant.
The main problem with Arabs is that they are not warriors. Worse then Romanian army. No training can turn cowards into soldiers.
Their insurgency kicked the crap out of the Turks.
Just imagine one Soviet motoinfantry division in Kuwait-City in 1991. They could turn a city into a small-scale Stalingrad instead of running away.
To an extent. Taking a city is the most brutal type of fighting imaginable, except for maybe a medieval siege (they'd catapult diseased animal corpses). However, there are steps you can take to demoralize and break the force. You leave reserves in place to check and movement out of the city, bomb out communications and infrastructure, and starve them out. They'll be more than happy to surrender eventually.
:( You disappoint me :(
Sorry, didn't know if you were trollin' or what :)
What I meant in my forst post in this thread is that US is unable to wage a full-scale war relying on "smart weapons" and other fancy stuff. You see, they ran out of cruise missiles in Yugoslavia and then in Iraq. In Russia they'll probably get as low as bayonet attacks (exaggerating). Fighting a country with full scale echeloned air-defence, rocket artillery and thousands of tanks, sattelite recon, ECM corps, submarine fleet and every male knowing how to assemble his Kalashnikov is quite different from beating third-world countries exausted by decades of sanctions.
The Iraqi army was supposed to be one of the biggest/best in the world prior to the first Gulf War, and they were demolished fairly quickly once the ground war started. BTW, there actually was a bayonet charge in Desert Storm, company level, done by Highlanders iirc. (No, I don't think they were shouting "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!" before the rest of y'all jump in).
I think in a head to head conflict, the US would probably beat Russia. Superior training, weapons, aircraft, electronics, the best ASW in the world, and NVG capabilities several generations ahead of everybody else. Plus NATO treaties.
However, I don't think the US army would ever be able to invade Russia though. There's simply too much terrain suitable to armed resistance and insurgency, and of course massive stockpiles of real Kalashnikovs (not the chinese crap).
-
Whale vs. elephants is a tough one to call. Probably whichever side is more patient & makes the emeny fight out of his element. Once the action got to less than 5 feet of water the pachederms would walk all over 'em.
-
Rest of the world simply would refuse to trade with the USA, which would throw the entire country into a chaos.
Try to fight rest of the world, when dissent is through the roof.
If americans would like to continue living like americans, instead of living like in kosovo, they couldn't afford a war.
It would also need much bigger armies than US has ever fielded up to date.
If they have problems with insurgents in Iraq, think about rest of the world, if they somehow would manage to fight off multiple countries.
Tho, I would rather ask what would happen if rest of the world would piss off at the USA, than the other way around.
-
Originally posted by SOB
If this thread were a person, it would be Mike Tyson.
(http://www.aftonbladet.se/sport/0402/11/SPORT-11s81-tyson-97.jpg)
Ahh but if MIke Tyson was a retarded circle-jerk BBS thread would he be this one?
-
Aren't we all just a big ****ing bunch of experts?
Makes me proud to rub elbows with suck esteemed individuals.
-
I don't like it when people resort to personal attacks for no reason.
-
Even worse is when they do have a very good reason