US army soldiers patrol as they conduct an ambush drill as part of the Filipino-US joint military exercises inside a Philippine army camp in Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija, north of Manila (Reuters/Romeo Ranoco) / Reuters
Kris Osborn, National Interest: The U.S. Army's Biggest Fear: Getting Crushed in a Devastating Land War to Russia or China
After more than a decade of counterinsurgency warfare, the Army is now emphasizing major force-on-force mechanized warfare against Russia or Chinese weapons around the world.
The global proliferation of Russian and Chinese weapons massively increases the likelihood that US Army forces will confront tanks, drones, electronic warfare systems, precision munitions, armored vehicles and artillery made by near-peer competitors.
Although the prospect of major-power mechanized ground war between the US and Russia or China may not seem likely, the US Army is tasked with the need to be ready for any ground-combat scenario. What this means, Army leaders expained, is that the current and future combat environment the globe is both increasingly urban and armed with Russian and Chinese-made tanks and weapons.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I am sure the U.S. Army is ready to wage conventional warfare .... even against potential adversaries like Russia or China. But the casualty numbers will be beyond astronomic .... even if no nuclear weapons are used. And in the event that the U.S. Army is losing .... expect the nukes to come out.
13 comments:
As if Russia or China wouldn't get the nukes out in case either of them lost...
We have gone from, "how do we win a war" to "how do you defeat an enemy", this is national policy thinking that leads to nowhere. You must start and many times finish with the fact that virtually everyone has the "one size fits all" weapon the nuke.
There are those who from philosophical reasons (detest conventional warfare) argue that conflicts can be won through purely economic or technical means. Their counterparts of course believe in the old fashion way with the variation of nukes giving them the shield for maneuvering of this type. There has been shown limits to the first position regarding economic warfare, the technical side of the position is promising but unproven in actual world class conflict.
Those of the second position sense that and push their agenda accordingly. Has Mao's dictum of "all power flows from the barrel of a gun" been proven true? We are rapidly moving towards finding out willingly or not.
For those who believe no one will use nukes (because they are to terrible) not only for the receptor, but also the user, they should remember that self immolation by countries has long historical roots.
With the fact that all the big knobs have Nukes and will use them if they're losing, in theory the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, India and Pakistan cannot be defeated in a war among any of them. All so countries that now supposedly don't have Nukes, such as Canada, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore etc, could have Nukes in short order. We don't have to worry though, because our So Called Leaders are really sane and would never do anything to provoke a war that could invoke a Nuclear War. Wow I feel really confident.
US Army losing against Russia Hehe ...
How?
When Russia couldnt gain East UKR, when Russia lost Palmyra and now Deir Ezzor in Syria. Thats the efect of good vodka.
Russia Army is a joke
In case of war and (another) invasion of Russia, NATO troops will be lured inside Russian territory, even sacrificing Moscow, then NATO troops will be smashed between a Red Army counterattack and a surprise mass attack from China (through Kazakhstan).
Then the nukes.
But I think before that the next big target is Iran, and only if (most probably) defeated here, Russia.
Accept a multi-polar world fools, before is too late.
No one will use nukes, bot because they are to terrible but simply because MAD doctrine still applies.
No one will use nukes, bot because they are to terrible but simply because MAD doctrine still applies.
There is no such thing as winning a war against a nuclear armed nation. Whole point of MAD is to deter conventional warfare, and with that, war altogether.
It sickens my piss when I read people trying to say "But the US would win in a war against Russia" or vice versa... The saying that nobody wins in a nuclear is dated, but true. Neither nation would be capable of effective conventional warfare after a nuclear exchange. The interesting question is what happens after such an exchange takes place... That's really uncharted territory.
Any open conflict between nuclear armed state is one that would be incredibly dangerous even if it started conventionally. There is no big step from committing conventional warfare to a cause and then using nuclear weapons. No big step at all.
" There is no big step from committing conventional warfare to a cause and then using nuclear weapons. No big step at all."
Absolutely right Plowman.
Extreme Russian bias via wnu editor, he's a Russian for god sakes lol
There is a huge step from committing conventional to a cause and then using nukes.
Huge, and that is why MAD doctrine is more applicable today than ever before.
@Fazman
You miss the point of MAD; MAD doctrine is all well and good for discouraging the outbreak of war between nuclear armed states. It won't prevent war, it does discourage it and encourages solutions through diplomatic channels.
However, once war breaks out, its a game changer. You should look at the history of 'close calls' involving the deployment of nuclear weapons and how close we came due to a full-out nuclear war due to misconceptions, faulty equipment among other things.
Now consider adding heightened tension during wartime. Then add in tactical nuclear weapons which I can assure you, would be used against conventional forces. If you really think MAD is going to stop a nuclear armed state from not using its nuclear strategic weapons once a war breaks out and the shooting begins, then you have far too much faith in the doctrine that is designed purely to prevent war. Key word being prevention.
And to re-emphasis; yes... its a very small step between a conventional shoot-out and a nuclear armed exchange, with both sides not wanting to give the other a first-strike opportunity. Which is why I personally believe that if a shooting war does start between nuclear nations, you can bet your ass that the diplomatic channels will be flooded with attempts to calm the situation and to come to terms within the first 24 hours of such a conflict, cause the first 24/48 hours is what I would consider the redline before it gets so out of control that diplomatic options are no longer on the table.
So yeah, not a big step at all.
Post a Comment