I’m not proposing war with France - I suspect Syria is next on the hit list. My question is: would an invasian of a “High-Tech” country like France (given a suitible base of operations, etc), be easier or harder than the war against Iraq?
Obviously the French military is much stronger that the Iraqi military ever was, but it seems like the Iraqi’s were able to fall back on hand delivered/low-tech communication networks. Would the inevitable desruction of the French military communications (and support) networks cause the French military to become much less effective? Would any “force-multiplier” that it’s high tech equipment gives it be reduced to a bunch of guys with guns? Would they do worse that the Iraqi’s, as the bulk of their training probably presumes a high level of communications and support?
Again, I’m not proposing that the French are next, I just wonder how a “High-Tech” military would fare against the US.
It could never happen, at least not without the game changing considerably: France, unlike Iraq, is a serious nuclear power. You can bet we (and the Brits, if they helped) would lose a few cities.
An attack on any European country would result in all of Europe - perhaps except for the UK, depending on who the attacker is - retaliating.
Even Bush isn’t crazy enough to try a stunt like that. But I refer you to the board game “Fortress America” for the likely repercussions of a scenario like that
Agreed. However, the question was more directed to: is America’s ultra-high tech warfare just good vs. high-tech countrys (such as a NATO country) as against lower-tech country like Iraq/Afghanistan, and does a high-tech military do worse if access to it’s technology/support systems are removed than a low-tech military (which may not have relied on them in the 1st palce).
I fail to see why the French, or any other military in the world, wouldn’t be able to adapt and go through lot-tech communication networks. Obviously it will prove to be difficult but I don’t see why it couldn’t get done. It isn’t like they’re going to give up after their normal means of communication fails.
France is much more likely to surrendur. This is not an insult, I merely note that the French have a lot more to lose by continued fighitn and a lot more to gain by surrenduring. On the other hand, they could probably mount a much more effective guerrilla campaign. Then again that may not actually help them sicne the US has such superior technology.
One of the things that greatly aided our quick campaign in Iraq was the complete and total absence of an Air Force or any really effective anti-aircraft measures. I would imagine that France would be able to put up much more of an effective air defence than did the Iraqis. This would also hold for any aother such nation (Germany, etc.) if you want to get away from the Nuke threat.
As ‘smiling bandit’ and ‘bjohn13’ came close to pointing out;
Point a sharp stick at France and they’ll fold like a house of cards (if in duobt, check 20th cent. history)
Well, I’m not at all sure they have the range on those missiles ot threaten the US.
Anyway, I’m certain Air superiority could be quickly established. France really doesn’t have that many planes, and has much less spotting ability. In other words, its not all that hard for one carrier to take them out.
But they really could do a guerrilla war. BTW, I noticed my last post had atrocious spelling.
French losses 1914-18: 1.3 million killed, 4.2 million wounded, 0.5 million prisoners and missing, >75% casualty rate. “Folded like a house of cards”, indeed. :rolleyes:
