You mean we probably don’t make enough bullets in one year. We have lots of bullets made in previous years, however, stockpiled. Those things have a shelf life. The world is full of bullets.
Plus, forget “army”; given the OP, aren’t we first talking about “navy”?
So, okay, say it’s “go” now for India, or China, or Great Britain, or whoever, to come over and kick our ass, plus for some reason nukes are off the table. How are they going to get here? Even as a General Question, (a) IMHO it’s a looooong sail across the Atlantic or the Pacific, and (b) IMHO we’re tops at sending in plenty of submarines along with lots of aircraft carriers.
Aren’t you jumping the gun just a bit? What we’ve demonstrated is that it’s pretty easy to do just that. It’s hard to maintain it without significant dollar cost. Body-wise, it’s been relatively cheap. We lost three times the number of soldiers during a year or two of U.S.-based flight training in WW II than we have holding our ground in the sand box. Just because our cultural threshold for violence is different nowadays, doesn’t mean it’s now “nearly impossible” to conduct stabilization and counterinsurgency ops after an invasion.
The bottom line with major combat ops is that no one is going to successfully invade the U.S. Not many countries have the air- and sea-lift to move the requisite number of troops and then perform an opposed landing, and even if they did, no one can crush our Navy so that they’d be free to land them.
Things get more iffy when you talk about China trying to retake Taiwan, or NK trying to retake SK. I think we’d win, but there would be a huge cost. Even Iran can do serious damage if it really wanted. No country can project power (land or sea) like us, but that doesn’t mean we won’t take a beating before we “win” in certain scenarios. The other major problem is defining what “win” is, but I won’t get into that.
Well, yes, but they also get used up, in training exercises and target practice if nothing else, and it costs money to store them. I would have expected the army to buy ammo on a more as-needed basis, with perhaps enough stockpiled to cover for a few months’ worth of missed shipments. How long do they actually store it?
No, I’m not jumping the gun.
It is nearly impossible. The United States only has the capability to do it because we have a ridiculously large military and a high threshold for debt.
Im certain the US could achieve a surprise first strike on any of the top 10 nations and decapitate their command and control structures, kill most political leaders, and a good chance of killing all high level government officials and most of their military within weeks if not days.
The opposite might be true, but the US has a global presence and with quite an air defense network, not to mention a larger network of powerful allies than countries like China or Russia have. Once you weigh things like number of carriers groups, number of solders who can be deployed, number of veterans who can actually fight, sub technology, plane technology, missile technology, etc etc, the US comes out on top in most categories.
As far as post decapitation strategy, well, historically, that’s the rub and fairly unpredictable.
In a nuclear world this is all academic. Many powers would see this level of aggression as total war and would launch nukes pretty quickly, knowing that the US conventional forces would decimate them anyway. Even without nukes, it would all tumble into another world war as two superpowers fighting means all the rules/diplomacy/agreements are suddenly off the table.
Iraq took over Kuwait with no real problems, until the Allies got together and took it back.
Why won’t a 110 year old bullet stored correctly work well? Nothing is perishable if stored in a cool dry place. Might not be the best bullet to choose for a sharpshooting competition, but it will still go downrange from a machine gun well enough to kill anything it hits.
I have used WWII surplus ammo, and it’s iffy. I would certainly not want to use it in an automatic weapon. But yes, ammo is often good for decades.
I’ve shot '80s surplus ammunition that was shoddily manufactured and literally blew my finger apart.
I’ve also shot ammunition that was far, far older (I believe it dated back to around the '30s?) and shot perfectly fine.
It’s not an issue of age, it’s an issue of 1) Quality of MFG, and 2) Storage. If it’s a high quality manufacturer, and it’s stored properly, ammunition will last indefinitely. Not forever, but it’ll out last yours and my lifetimes combined, theoretically.
That’s what I thought. Proper production and storage should make it last as long as SPAM.
You repeating that mantra doesn’t make it true. What’s your basis for saying it? The U.S. has a large military, and yes, a high threshold for debt. These things, plus our advanced technology and reasonably solid tactics and ability to perform joint operations effectively, have all combined to allow 1) a very easy and quick invasion of two countries, and 2) a relatively easy occupation.
Have we been pushed back to Iraq’s or Afghanistan’s borders by the insurgencies? Have they come close to attriting our forces to the point where we can no longer hold a position? Have we retrograded anywhere on an operational or strategic level? There has been some difficult fighting in places, and the asymmetrical warfare has been difficult to counter, and our ability to win the hearts and minds of the people has been questionable, but overall, our capacity to easily sit tight where we are is obvious. All it takes is resources and a willingness to endure an average of eight casualties a month. I’m not sure where the “nearly impossible” comes from.
Please find where CENTCOM himself or some ground force commander somewhere in the sand box has said it was “nearly impossible” to invade and occupy. I think a better way of phrasing it is “it can be exceedingly difficult to conduct successful counterinsurgency ops and set the conditions for a transfer of authority to the local populace.” Because after all, we’re not out to occupy these places.
Where the the USA become the entire world?
Just because we’re capable of it, doesn’t mean that anyone can do it.
Let me put it this way, “It’s almost impossible to run a 9.72 second 100 meter.”
There are people who can do it… but it’s still almost impossible.
See, the word “Almost” means “under most circumstances,” the US is devoid of enough of these that we’re capable of it.
Christ on a cracker, you’d think I’d have said it actually was impossible or something. :rolleyes:
You said it was almost impossible for the US to accomplish it. I said it was quite easy, and that we had demonstrated as much, and gave reasons for my assertion. I honestly have no clue what you’re trying to get across at this point. What does “Where the the USA become the entire world?” even mean?
Did I? Please, point out where I said that.
I’ll wait. Go on.
It was supposed to read “Where did the USA become the entire world?”
Well, you did say “[a]s for the US invading another country?”
That’s meant to say “As for invading another country, the US has demonstrated that it’s nearly impossible invade and occupy…”
Either way, it’s still nearly impossible. It’s a major financial drain, and even the former USSR was incapable of doing it long term.
The fact that some nations are capable of it doesn’t make it any less of a feat.
The US military has the best logistics in the world. We are currently fighting two wars on the other side of the globe. The UK has a very decent and noteworthy military but even keeping the Falklands stocked is a barrier for them. China has numbers but they would not be able to coordinate the way the US does. IMO China’s numbers are what would dampen their effectiveness. Again the US has two things going for it, distance for one. Who is going to invade us Mexico or Canada? Second, the US would probably be a invaders worst nitemare when it came to resistance of the populous, we probably dont have the nationalism that china has but i say we are a hairline away
Ok, so what you’re saying is that for the generic nation, it’s nearly impossible. I’ll buy that. However, for the U.S., it’s not nearly impossible (and your post read like it was aimed directly at the U.S., so if you want to see where you said it, just read what you wrote). If the government and will of the people is even somewhat behind it, I still maintain that it’s not difficult from a military perspective. There are difficulties to overcome, but we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years without too much expense (aside from the dollar amount). Also keep in mind we haven’t been billing ourselves as an occupation force. We want to get out of there. That’s not quite where the USSR was coming from.
No it isn’t.