What will the Chinese and Russians learn from this conflict, or were the United States strategy and tactics in whipping a relative lightweight like Iraq not really instuctive or relevant to the Russians and Chinese with respect to how they would fight a war against the Americans.
Well, they have both learnt they have to be well armed and both have already said they will be increasing their defense budgets. They are both nuclear powers and the USA would not dream of attacking them anyway. They are not Iraq.
Well, the primary response is that none of us have anything to gain by attacking the others.
I don’t think it’s a matter of strategy and tactics, it’s tech. Our tanks killed their tanks. Their rifles and RPGs couldn’t affect our tanks or our APC’s much.
In World War II the German tanks were much more effective than U.S. tanks, and the only reason we were able to defeat them is we had a LOT more tanks than they did. In Iraq, our tanks were MUCH better than theirs, and we had a LOT more than they did. Not much in the way of strategy you can do against something like that.
Well, you don’t try to out box a boxer. They won’t try to go toe to toe with the US. WMD and more of them. Also, anything that prevents air superiority.
Cringe.
Perhaps they’ll try to use a veto in the UNSC. Oops, they already did and that didn’t work.
If China and Russia think that adding to their nuke arsenal will make any difference, they are pretty stupid. More resources from a relativelly poor populace, and for what? An attack by the US against Russia or China is more in the realm of SciFi. If they are just beefing up more “conventional” forces, perhaps they are looking at the likes of Tiibet and Chechnya.
I doubt that the US’s defense budget will be affected much by what China and Russia do. The cold war arms race ain’t what it used to be. We’ll look at accelerating technological advances, if anything. That has been a huge strategic and tactical advantage of late.
I’m not sure what you see as new in the American military tactics against Iraq (other than the blatant disregard for international law, invading a sovereign nation).
New? More use of so-called smart bombs. I seem to remember something along the lines of: 10% of ordinance dropped in Gulf War I were “smart” bombs, while 80% were “smart” in OIF. I could’ve gotten the exact number wrong, but that’s what I meant.
I think, though, that in Gulf War I, the US didn’t blatently disregard international law, so yes, that might also be a new tactic.
Seeing as all 3 nations in the OP probably have had for years as a basic policy to as long as possible avoid a direct slug-it-out shooting war with either of the other two, I’d say change very little. Continue to seek to achieve political and trade victories. Go more cloak-and-dagger – industrial espionage, bribery, etc. Nibble at the periphery. Cause shifts in alliances and trading dependencies. Recall that they also must have learned the lesson of Cold War I that getting into a direct “race” to actually outgun the US Mil-Ind Complex is not cost-efficient.
Oh, I see. The smart bomb thing is more of a mechanism than a tactic but, nonetheless, I do see how their use could come to bear upon potential future conflicts with China or Russia.
As to what China and Russia will “learn” from such a conflict with Iraq is unclear to me and highly speculative - suffice to say that they both will pour resources into efforts to match and combat such an arsenal. Maybe satellite-signal jamming or taking out satellites perhaps?
Not instructive. I doubt the Russians or the Chinese would throw down their weapons and take off their uniforms at the first sign of US soldiers. They are real powers with real air forces with real tanks (more advanced than the Iraqi’s if I’m not mistaken), with real soldiers with real training with real equipment (e.g., shoes)…at least the Russians are. I truly don’t know much about the Chinese military except that rumor about there being a lot of them.
Of course, most German troops in WWII had to use horses to pull their supplies and artillery around. It kind of helps your tanks when your opponent is still primarily a horse-drawn army.
The Allies also had more planes, more artillery, more ships, more radios, more supplies, more fuel, more cryptography, more everything. WWII was a victory based on strategic superiority more than tactical superiority.
I don’t see many tactical lessons anyone could draw from either Gulf War; the USA was massively superior in every respect. There wasn’t really a tactical failure on Iraq’s part; most Iraqis didn’t even fight back, and those that did were just smushed like a bug.
A war between the USA and a legitimate military force like China would proceed very differently. The Chinese would actually fight back in an organized, modern fashion, using honest-to-God “plans” and “doctrine” and “strategy,” and would not just fall apart like a house of cards if handed a few defeats. It would be more of a real war, with counter-tactics and counter-counter-tactics, rather than a test of “Will the U.S. hand them their heads in two weeks, or three?”
If anything an be learned from recent military events, it’s that you would need air defence. Lots and lots and lots of air defence.
:eek: 
I’m more concerned that we would consider fighting Russia and China than I am with wargaming the possibilities. I would like to think that with Russia being somewhat democratic and China sort of reforming* that we could think of some way to engage in a civilized way that doesn’t leave the world with humans in orbit and the South Pole. Besides the mutants with Junkyard Warsesqe dune buggies wearing biker/S&M regalia, of course.
*OTOH, the KGB seems to be in charge of Russian foreign policy (the more things change…) and China is still authoritarian Communist (if not economically). Glass half full or half empty?
Just what we need, MAD II. :rolleyes:
In this war, the U.S. has been testing a very new doctrine based on technological superiority and extremely high mobility for relatively lightweight forces. This is a huge shift in doctrine from the Cold War, when U.S. and Russian war planners wargamed massive armor engagements in Europe, involving huge numbers of everything blowing up anything that moved at the front line.
Extank could go into the difference better, but it amounts to this: the U.S. sacrificed numerical superiority for speed and force multipliers, in the belief (largely borne out) that it was a cheaper and more effective way to make war.
I’m sure the Russians and the Chinese are considering the U.S. campaign very closely, since it implies that, in a meeting with the U.S., it would no longer be a massive armor/infantry battle. Instead, the U.S. would be more likely to use special forces behind the lines, and lighter, more mobile armored units to break through or leapfrog the enemy lines and seize or destroy strategic centers, depending upon air superiority to protect them. Also, a much greater reliance on air superiority and precision bombing to destroy enemy forces. More fundamentally, it implies a greater willingness from the U.S. to be the agressor, where during the cold war, I believe that the U.S.’ plans were more defensive in nature.
And now I suddenly recall the reports I’ve seen anout China and India planning to go to the moon…
“The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”, anyone?
Anyway…
I’d research jammers, like the ones that may have caused the cruise missiles to miss by miles, and lots of them. That was something. Another paradigm shift brought to you by the DoD and Russian technology: either pinpoint accuracy or international danger. 
Camouflage, really good camouflage. Thermal camouflage and decoys. Make sure your night fighting is good.
The Russians already have a very powerful military. China has a huge military. Russian anti-tank weapons can disable our best M1s. They’ve updated the T-72. They have advanced vectored thrust fighters (Su-27 and up, for example) and long-range bombers, etc. In other words, they could just fight us using their present doctrine.
Our plans were defensive because of the numerical superiority of the Soviet block army. Soviet doctrine relied on massed armor and lots of it. NATO doctrine relied on using technology and tactics as a force multiplier.
There is also the ability to project force. China can barely project force into Taiwain and the Russians don’t have supercarriers or sealift capability anywhere near the USs ability. There is a sizable advantage to not having the war waged within your borders.
In any event, I think a war with China and/or Russia is extremely unlikely.
Another thing that was different about this war is that, at least in ground forces, we were significantly numerically inferior.
We essentially invaded with less than five divisions, all primarily infantry (3rd Infantry, 101st Airborne, division-sized Marine Expeditionary Force, division-sized UK combined force and miscellaneous separage batallions and special forces). The Iraqis had something like 18 divisions, including many heavy armor divisions. Admittedly, soldier for soldier, tank for tank and division for divison, we were superior, and we had naval and air support.
Still, we went in with a lot smaller force than the Iraqis we faced, which is contrary to the Powell Doctrine of massively superior forces.
I’m not sure what this means for geopolitical and military considerations, but I think it was a pretty significant change in the way we’ve previously waged war.