The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow, and they do not look good for the American side.
A series of classified exercises over the summer has raised concerns inside the Defense Department that its forces are not prepared for a sustained military campaign against Russia, two defense officials told The Daily Beast.
Many within the military believe that 15 years of counter-terrorism warfare has left the ground troops ill prepared to maintain logistics or troop levels should Russia make an advance on NATO allies, the officials said.
Among the challenges the exercises revealed were that the number of precision-guided munitions available across the force were short of the war plans and it would be difficult to sustain a large troop presence.
“Could we probably beat the Russians today [in a sustained battle]? Sure, but it would take everything we had,” one defense official said. “What we are saying is that we are not as ready as we want to be.”
Update: Pentagon Unsure If It Could Beat Russia In A Conventional Conflict -- Foxtrot Alpha
WNU Editor: Both sides are not ready for a fight .... and if such a war should break out, nuclear weapons will be used. Putting it bluntly .... this is a pathway that no one should follow.
10 comments:
We would win eventually. The real question that should be asked is if we should aid the Europeans considering they don't like to pay for there own defense.
And for those who like to boast about military power.....try posting links and not opinions.
I think the main concern for the US is that the United States Military has become used to unchallenged air support. The proliferation of SAMs in Eastern Europe makes that much more of a challenge-see current Ukrainian conflict. MANPADs might not take down a fighter equipped with proper counter-measures, but advanced SAMs quite possibly would, especially if the US became predictable (Serbia and the F117).
I hope for everyone's sake this is only talked about-it would be the most destructive conflict the world has seen since World War 2.
welcome back hope was good for you. will not happen
A war of attrition. Loosely quoted from Game of Thrones. 'Some leaders would burn the world if it meant they could be king of the ashes'.
Phil,
"We would win eventually." This would seem to be far from certain. The article lays out much of the problems. Also, the US government, its spokespeople, and the politicians in military uniforms tend to present rosier pictures of things than reality is. This pattern goes back well before the Iraq war. As such, it would seem a safe conclusion that the ones who say we may not win are much closer to being accurate than those who say we definitely would.
The only way to "know" for certain would be to actively fight a hot war with Russia. As WNU correctly points out, this is something we should be trying to avoid.
Given Russia's superior nuclear arsenal, its cyber warfare capabilities, and how its military has performed in recent conflicts would seem to indicate Russia is the more powerful military force. For example, in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, retired Col. Ralph Peters admitted Russia was able to move its troops and equipment to the battlefront faster than the United States could have. Furthermore General Odierno pointed out that only 33% of our forces are capable of operating at the level that Russia is operating at in Ukraine and at least 60% of our forces would need to be able to operate at that level for us to have a chance. I actually think the politician in uniform is being overly optimistic on this one.
I do agree with you that anyone who wants to "boast" about military power needs to be prepared to prove the assertion definitively. The same applies for those who wish to level accusations as well.
The best approach to Russia I think is to recognize Russia's superior position and act accordingly. A great place to start would be by extricating ourselves from Ukraine, supporting Russia's position there and on Crimea, announcing strongly and forcefully to Western Europeans and the world that we oppose sanctions against Russia and will do everything we can to undermine them and ultimately to see them eliminated, and announce that Ukraine will NEVER be a member of NATO as long as America is. Such policy positions have no downside with huge upside potential. As such, it would seem a no brainer.
With that said there may be a time and a place where we would need to confront Russia. In doing so, we would need to understand that we are probably not going to be able to defeat a behemoth like Russia everywhere. We would need to probe for weaknesses and act accordingly. Also, make our positions well enough defended that they would consider military confrontation to costly to contemplate. Additionally we might look at ways we can add value to them making military action against us seem even less palatable.
Phil,
You ask if we should be assisting Europe. I would say emphatically no. It's hard to keep track of the sheer number of enemies America has. Lets see, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, "Palestine", Venezuela, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and I could go on. In the category of perhaps not enemies but definitely not friends we have the nations of the European Union, Saudi Arabia (who may actually be an enemy), pretty much all the nations of the Middle East, Afghanistan, (who may actually be an enemy), Pakistan (who may actually be an enemy), and I could go on from here but I think the idea is clear.
With this many enemies and a military that is worn down from continuing operations over the last 14+ years the United States has enough trouble defending itself and lacks the resources to defend others even if it were prudent. Furthermore in the event we are invaded none of these European nations are going to be coming to our aid. This aid and commitment should be ended as soon as prudently possible.
I'd suggest a frank dialogue with these "allies." In this dialogue we would spell out a date certain by which time we will redeploy and withdraw all financial aid. Optimally this would give them the time and space to develop their own defenses. Unfortunately given our current situation the optimal situation may not be feasible.
B.poster
You can't prove Russia's cyber capabilities are better than America's and we could do the same as them like destroy there power grid.
Russia chose to get involved and make war against Georgia and like Ukraine borders Russia, so of course they could get troops there faster......so your point it mute.
As for the Europeans they should put they're money where there mouth is.
B.poster
Why did you think I was talking about you?
B.poster
Why did you think I was talking about you?
Phil,
I didn't think you were necessarily talking about me. I was agreeing with you in certain respects. As to Russian cyber warfare capabilities, the only way to "prove" this definitively would be to actually have the war. There are reports of Russia penetrating America's power grid. Perhaps we've done the same thing and it just has not been as extensively reported. Also, perhaps our cyber espionage actions against Russia have not been as extensively reported as theirs have against us. Again, this type of war would be wise to avoid.
The point of the article about the Georgia-Russia war was that Russia was able to move men and equipment from its borders to the distance necessary faster than America could have over the same distance from its borders. Unfortunately being a politician in a military uniform, while I respect the Col., he reached the wrong conclusion. As such, very respectfully I do not think the point is moot.
I think we are in agreement that the Europeans need to put their money where their mouth is. If we had frank discussions with them on the date certain for our redeployment, I think this would light a fire under them so to speak. Also, having large numbers of troops on the soil of these countries is probably not helpful for our relations with them.
I think there's a good chance a redeployment away from these countries would greatly help our relations with them and it would get them making the necessary investments in their national defenses to be better able to defend themselves. In such a situation, in a time of need we might actually have real stalwart allies we can count on to assist us!!
Post a Comment