[Moderator Warning]
ralph124c, I have already issued specific instructions for not pursuing this line of discussion in this thread, mentioning your posts in particular. If you want to advocate “horrible massacres” as a standard military practice, open a thread in Great Debates. This is an official warning for violating moderator instructions.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Maybe the scene from the Longest Day - when the German soldier in the bunker is getting bombarded from the ships at sea, and he is on the phone trying to convince his commandant that the Allies do indeed have 5,000 ships. It’s an old movie but the intensity comes across pretty good.
Another thought about Germans vs. Americans and Germans vs. Evil Empire: We just wanted to root them out of their conquered territories. I think the Sovs a) had a really big chip on their shoulder about their homeland being invaded, and b) Stalin probably would have been happy erasing Germany as a geopolitical entity.
My impression from various news stories and documetaries, is that it (at least in recent years) is like fighting the Transformers or the world-dominating Terminator machines. The USA can bring overwhelming firepower and clever high tech to bear,which cannot be matched. However, they are capable of spectacular goofs too. The most best fighting was when it was the guys on the ground, using their experience and brains.
Case in point - during the original invasion of Afghanistan, he US forces and friendlies had the Taliban forces trapped inside an old fort. They used GPS to call in a bombimg run, which brought a wave of bombs - not on the fort, but on the group calling down the bombs. Apparently they used a GPS unit to pin-point the target. While they were calling in the raid, they had to change the batteries on the GPS locator. At that point, on reboot it reset from the target setting (i.e. “540 yards due east”) to current location - where the bombs were acurately dropped. As one combatant said, at that point the friendlies realized that we had massive firepower but we could also make major screwups so don’t put too much trust in us.
I think this is very germane. American high tech is (still, although this is changing) intended primarily to fight conventional wars, and the US can do things to an organized military in the field that are much harder to do to guerrillas hiding in urban environments.
Also, technological change is occurring very rapidly at this particular point in time, with the stealth, computer, and robotics revolutions all occurring simultaneously. From what I’ve seen, I’d wager good money that American military technology in 2012 is considerably different than in 2003, the last time it faced a conventional military (in Iraq). And that time, as well as the previous time (Gulf War), the enemy army was so overwhelmed that many of the units did not try to fight.
This is for a variety of reasons, but in simple terms, modern mechanized warfare is won by assembling a local preponderance of force and driving it through defenses and into the enemy rear areas. In the past, even with aerial scouting, sufficient fog of war and difficulty in processing and transmitting information quickly and reliably made it possible to disguise the assembly of such a force until it was too late to respond usefully. Modern technology, from satellite imagery to drones to spy planes to IR cameras to look-down radars to nightvision equipment to stealth aircraft and so on and so on has made it MUCH harder to hide large concentrations of military activity, AND coordination/dissemination of information has VASTLY improved through computer networking. This enables command to respond to any force assembly the other technology has (almost inevitably) detected. A small force might be assembled too quickly for a response to be mounted, but a SMALL force will not win major battles by definition.
A large force has the unenviable choice of either remaining dispersed, passively allowing the US forces to pick and choose how to attack separated elements with massive force, or of assembling a large concentration that will immediately be drenched with a high volume of precision-guided, extremely violent weapons.
I would imagine that against a deployed major military force, IF the US decided to fight AND spend the money on a major effort, it would be astonishingly one-sided.
That’s WHY we’re unlikely to see that sort of fighting nowadays – maybe ever again. But on the other hand, asymmetric (guerrilla) warfare:
[ul]
[li]Costs much less to conduct (and orders of magnitude less to prepare for)[/li][li]Will result in lower losses when fighting the US[/li][li]Has some chance of working (as opposed to the “no chance at all” that a conventional armored force in the field has)[/li][/ul]
Love this movie
Daylight at last. A whole night wasted again! My God!
The invasion. They’re coming! It’s the invasion! There must be five thousand ships out there!
Get hold of yourself, Pluskat. The enemy doesn’t have even half that many.
Well dammit! Come and seefor yourself, you fool!
The thing learned in WWII and repeated since then - command of the air allows all the rest of the technology to work. Hence the Gulf War preludes (both) where the first thing was to eliminate anything that could take out air cover, then eliminate threats to ground troops. Eliminating any air support also eliminates a lot of intelligence; plus taking out radio capability can take out a lot of coordination and warning capability on the other side.
The alternative is the Iran-Iraq war, where the two sides pummelled each other back to the point where they ended up with techonology they could support and defend; basically Civil War/Crimea/WWI level trench warfare. Then, it was a stalemate. The wars since the US Civil War have tended to be decided by which side has the unhindered protected manufacturing capability to overwhelm the other side.
You are kidding correct? We were under strict rules of engagement that didn’t allow our troops to fire unless fired upon. We were under strict rules to not fire in the direction of civilians, even though those same civilians would intentionally mix in with the enemy soldiers and pick up dropped weapons and fire at our troops. If that isn’t hands tied, I don’t know what is.
As far as the Clinton Administration is concerned, they are the ones responsible for denying armor or C-130 Gunships to our troops in Somalia. That Administration is also directly responsible for pulling our troops out after the “Black Hawk Down” firefight, essentially making the deaths of our Rangers in vain.
Which brings me back to the OP, to fight against American troops should be the most terrifying moment of your life. But, thanks to our politicians the only thing you have to do is hide among civilians and we won’t touch you. We also won’t unleash the full might of our weaponry because it might be viewed as unfair.
The way it should be is that anyone foolish enough to go up against our troops should not be left around to describe what it was like. I am not a “war-monger”, however if we send in combat troops then we better be prepared to stand aside and let them do their job, the way they see fit. You don’t call the military out unless you want them to win.
Given the number of casualties inflicted on British servicemen by “friendly fire” from American forces in the Gulf War, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, it is conceivable that the average British soldier might opine that it is less dangerous fighting ***against ***the Americans than fighting alongside them.
This seems false to me. There are well-known massacres by US troops in Iraq (Haditha sp?) and of course the US is pretty blase about the civilian casualties caused by drone strikes.
This strikes me as fundamental attribution error.
pdts
[quote=“ralph124c, post:6, topic:608483”]
Since Korea, the US has been obsessed with the idiotic concept of “fighting fair”-an idea that makes NO sense at all.
WE have the most advanced weaponry in the world, but we wind up fighting on the enemy’s terms, because we want to avoid civilian casualties.
A classic case of this was in our ill-fated Somalia “mission”-where guerillas attacking US troops fired at us from behind women. The Somalis knew that our troops wanted to avoid killing civilians, so they used their own women as human shields.
well, i think you saw the movie, in the book Blackhawk Down Mark Bowden makes it clear we made a great slaughter of women and children throughout the fight, to the tune of thousands.
I thought the concept was to take out the warlords and get food to the citizens. When it became apparent that we were just killing people, we withdrew.
[Moderator Note]
Since several posters have already posted factual information related to the questions in the OP, while other posters seem to be intent on debating policy rather than addressing those questions, I’m going to close this thread.
Thanks to those who provided pertinent responses. Those interested in debating other aspects of US military policy are welcome to start a thread in Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator