# What will the Chinese and Russians do to counter the new American military tactics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020 "2003-04-16T03:55:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/21 "2003-04-16T20:40:20Z")
I think that the more interesting question is: How has the military success of the war in Iraq altered U.S. warplans for taking on Russia and China (or more likely, North Korea). Are the guys sharpening their pencils on a map of the Korean peninsula planning a daring helicopter raid on Pyongyang now? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/22 "2003-04-16T22:26:49Z")
I’m not a military expert, but I think part of the reason for the success of air support in this war was because the United States has spent the last decade or so enforcing the Iraq no-fly zones and taking snipes at Iraq’s anti-aircraft capabilities during the time. I don’t think air superiority would have been so easy in this war if Iraq had a more robust AA system in place. ---
**Author:** ![Alien2022](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e19adc/32.png) [@Alien2022](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien2022)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/23 "2003-04-16T23:05:22Z")
Actually, if the Iraqis had more AA, then it really wouldnt have made a difference. Without radar, AA is useless, and if they do switch on their radar, the HARMS are already on their way before they can even start tracking targets. AA is really dangerous using radar nowadays. The only way they couldve had a chance at taking down our planes was with “heat-seekers.” If anyway this changes their plans… it means you make a preemptive strike against the troop build up. You dont let the Americans into forward bases and let their air power build. If you do… might as well weep like little children, because your AirForces are going to be gone within a week or so. Thats another thing. If we fully deployed all of our carriers and divisions to one region, there would be no way that even the Chinese could withstand that onslaught. Once your airforce is gone, and you have lost air superiority, you have no chance in winning the war. Air power is going to become the next big race, because very soon wars are going to be fought in the air, and the ground forces will just be mop up units. ---
**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/24 "2003-04-17T00:35:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > **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.** Jamming cruise missiles? I thought those things were self-piloted based on visual and infrared terrain recognition. How do you jam that? (Then again, I wasn’t in the air force, so perhaps I misunderstand that technology.) ---
**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/25 "2003-04-17T00:47:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billdo \* > \*\*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.\*\* True, but isn’t the 3rd Infantry really a heavy armor division, their name notwithstanding? I know they are blended, with M-1s and Bradleys, but I thought they were considered to be a heavy armor division. Of course, the Marines, the 101st and the 173 are all quite “light” - no M-1 Tanks as far as I am aware. Do they even have Bradleys? Or do they use the old M-119s? (Is my military nomenclature failing me? It’s been a while since I was in the service.) ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/26 "2003-04-17T03:04:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by il Topo \* > \*\*True, but isn’t the 3rd Infantry really a heavy armor division, their name notwithstanding? I know they are blended, with M-1s and Bradleys, but I thought they were considered to be a heavy armor division. Of course, the Marines, the 101st and the 173 are all quite “light” - no M-1 Tanks as far as I am aware. Do they even have Bradleys? Or do they use the old M-119s? (Is my military nomenclature failing me? It’s been a while since I was in the service.) [/B] Right - western “infantry” divisions, excluding airborne and deliberately equiped “light infantry” or “mountain” divisions, tend to be heavily mechanized, with lots of armor. All of the U.S. and British units deployed, excluding the airborne/air assaulty forces, have some ( actually quite a fair bit of ) heavy armor. Even the 1rst Marine Expeditionary Force has a tank battalion and I believe about 110 of the heavy M-1’s. Just as an aside, I think you mean the M-113 APC, which I believe is still in service in some numbers ( but modernized ). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/27 "2003-04-17T03:48:03Z")
The difference between the Americans and the Russians in military capability is far more complex than just saying, “Our weapons are better”. Individual weapons are not necessarily that important. And the Russians have some pretty good gear. The difference is much more complex than that. The American military has different cultural values than other militaries. The Russian military is controlled from the top down, with individual units used like chess pieces by field commanders who give orders like, “You, move 500 yards north. You, set up an emplacement here.” Etc. This is the way the Iraqi military was set up as well. Classic defensive formations, moving armor to prevent encirclment, that sort of thing. The Americans are much more creative. Their small unit commanders are given a lot more lattitude. Massive amounts of information are collected and transmitted out so that everyone has situational awareness. In the Russian Army, Unit A may not know that Unit B is beside them, because all they do is report their own position to commanders and respond to orders. The Americans, on the other hand, know where everyone is all the time. Coupled with small unit initiative, you have a very flexible force that can respond rapidly to changes on the battlefield. Then there’s logistics. There’s a saying among generals: “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” The U.S. army is superb at this. The reason why they could make that lightning push to Baghdad wasn’t because their tanks were better, but because they could stretch out a supply line behind them, protect it, and make it all come together. That takes massive amounts of coordination. One thing I noticed about the modern military - antennas are EVERYWHERE. A group of vehicles looks like a sea of antennas. Everything’s interlinked. It’s a revolution in warfighting that’s made the old way of doing things obsolete. And the thing is, dictators can’t emulate it, because they can’t surrender that much control to lower-level commanders without risking having their own military turn on them. Free societies can pull this off - tyrants can’t. Russia’s army still looks much like the old Soviet Army - complete with poorly trained conscripts. It would have no chance against Americans in any conflict above, say, the squad level. Here’s what a [Russian General](http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0416/p06s01-woiq.html) has to say about this: > [@](#): > > “The key conclusion we must draw from the latest Gulf war is that the obsolete structure of the Russian armed forces has to be urgently changed,” says Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s official think tank on strategic nuclear policy. “The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast. We are very lucky that Russia has no major enemies at the moment, but the future is impossible to predict, and we must be ready.” > > The swift victory by mobile, high-tech American forces over heavily armored Iraqi troops dug in to defend large cities like Baghdad has jolted many Russian military planners. “The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals,” says Vitaly Shlykov, a former deputy defense minister of Russia. > … > “The military paradigm has changed, and luckily we didn’t have to learn that lesson firsthand,” says Yevgeny Pashentsev, author of a book on Russian military reform. “The Americans have rewritten the textbook, and every country had better take note.” ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/28 "2003-04-17T07:02:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > It would have no chance against Americans in any conflict above, say, the squad level. I was right with you until this comment. Never underestimate a potential adversary - Despite the weaknesses and inflexibility of Soviet-era tactical doctrine, we’re not talking Iraq, or Syria, or even India ( to name a pretty professional low-tech third world military ). Top-grade Russian units might be at a definite, even significant disadvantage in certain respects - But to say they would have _no chance_ is to be excessively overconfidant. Especially as we are talking a complete package here, where even air superiority couldn’t be taken for granted. Superior initiative, flexibility, even logistics, make a big difference - but it does not grant victory in every scenario. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/29 "2003-04-17T07:44:16Z")
Well yeah, ok. I was trying to make the point that individual units may be comparable in effectiveness in many cases, but the disparity in capability grows as you zoom out and look at larger battlefields, because U.S. Command, Control, and Intelligence becomes progressively more overwhelming. But you’re right. Underestimating the enemy is a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/30 "2003-04-17T12:43:08Z")
I think that people are forgetting one very crucial thing: the Iraqi military was rendered deaf dumb and blind, by a combination of: -special ops forces (who cut the phone lines connecting the Iraqi command posts) -EMP bombs (which fried all of the Iraqi’s communications gear) -intensive carpet bombing of Iraqi division HQs-it would not surprise me to learn that most of the Iraqi generals were killed within days of the start of the war No army can fight if it cannot be commanded-individual iraqi units probably had no way to communicate, and thus command of the army was lost. I cannot see that this scenario could be repeated against the Russians. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/31 "2003-04-17T13:00:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Well yeah, ok. I was trying to make the point that individual units may be comparable in effectiveness in many cases, but the disparity in capability grows as you zoom out and look at larger battlefields, because U.S. Command, Control, and Intelligence becomes progressively more overwhelming. > > But you’re right. Underestimating the enemy is a bad idea. \*\* There’s also the issue of the size and length of the campaign. Large countries have a long-established tendency to learn very quickly from defeat. Look at the massive improvements the Soviets made in the first 18 months of their war with Germany. A war measured in weeks or a few months gives the inferior force no time to adapt its strategy or conduct new tactics. The war ends before lessons can be learned, information digested, and changes made. A longer war, however, gives a country the change to respond to its strategic errors. I suspect a war with Russia or China would be much longer than a war with Raq, and I think you’d be amazed how fast they could learn. ---
**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/32 "2003-04-17T13:53:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ralph124c \* > **I think that people are forgetting one very crucial thing: the Iraqi military was rendered deaf dumb and blind, by a combination of: > -EMP bombs (which fried all of the Iraqi’s communications gear)** Pleaes elaborate on this point. What EMP bombs? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ralph124c \* > **-intensive carpet bombing of Iraqi division HQs-it would not surprise me to learn that most of the Iraqi generals were killed within days of the start of the war** I don’t recall hearing about any “carpet bombing.” Carpet bombing typically refers to indiscriminate bombing of a large area like a city often without regard to locations of individual targets. Perhaps you mean precision munitions used in such large amounts and in such a short time as to invoke “shock and awe” (to use the language of the day…which I hate)? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/33 "2003-04-17T14:16:06Z")
I don’t believe that we actually used any of the new gee-whiz ‘emp’ cruise missles, or the carbon-fiber shedding cruise-missles. Could be wrong, though. The ‘EMP’ cruise missle is a ALCM or Tomahawk that generates a massive directional burst of electromagnetic energy that fries electronics. The ‘carbon fiber’ cruise missles drop bundles of conductive carbon-fiber on powerlines, and short them out, knocking out electricity We did carpet-bomb, but only Iraqi military formations deployed in the field, well away from civilians and friendly forces. (Even though B-52’s now have laser designators, making them even more relevant, 1,000,000,000 years after their introduction) As to the OP, Russia and China will have ‘cultural’ problems with countering US tactics. The American military has a short ‘Boyd Cycle’ (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). Commanders are free to adapt to rapidly changing battlefield conditions, and American doctrine and equipment facilitates this. PRC forces, as with those of any dictatorship, are chosen and trained more as a instrument of political stability then a proper war-fighting machine. The PRC equiv. of the Politburo does not want a forward-thinking, fast-acting, politically detached Army, since it represents a threat to them. Russian forces simply cannot afford to properly train. PRC and Russia will do what they (and America) have done for decades; Avoid direct conflict. An ICBM needs little training. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/34 "2003-04-17T14:26:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lander2k2 \* > \*\*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). \*\* From the South China Morning Post, 21 September 1999: > [@](#): > > Citing rights beyond borders, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday the United Nations must intervene over the rights of sovereign states when necessary to protect civilians from war and mass slaughter. > > Mr Annan, drawing on the lessons of Rwanda and Kosovo, told the 54th General Assembly its core challenge next century was to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights — wherever they occur — should not be allowed to stand. . . > > Mr Annan contrasted the concepts of state and individual sovereignty. > > The 1994 genocide in Rwanda, he said, will define for our generation the consequences of inaction in the face of mass murder. > > The dilemma for the international community was what to do in cases such as Kosovo, where there had been no consensus for intervention. > > Mr Annan’s reply was that strictly traditional notions of sovereignty can no longer do justice to the aspirations of peoples everywhere to attain their fundamental freedoms. Annan later amplified his remarks on PBS’ NewsHour: > [@](#): > > I argued that the traditional concept of sovereignty is being changed by the developments in the world today, from globalization — there are lots of areas governments do not control. They do not control the external factors that affect their economy. They do not control financial flows. They do not control some of the environmental issues. Why should abuse of human rights should be the only area that they should insist they should be allowed to control without any interference? I think this is something that happened — and also, let me put it this way, if the citizens’ rights are respected, there will be no need for anyone to want to intervene either through diplomatic means or coercive means. And it’s also — I think the governments should see it not as a license for people to come in and intervene. We are talking about those situations where there are serious and gross and systematic violations of human rights. I think that governments who protect their citizens and their rights and do not create that kind of situation have no reason to worry that anyone would intervene. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/35 "2003-04-17T14:36:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*From the South China Morning Post, 21 September 1999: > Annan later amplified his remarks on PBS’ NewsHour: > Sua \*\* Impeach Annan? I’m with him all the way! It’s about time somebody articulated this idea. NOBODY should safely be able to commit genocide or routinely torture and kill citizens. Not even US. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/36 "2003-04-17T15:08:21Z")
**Evil Captor,** so am I. I was employing sarcasm. 🙂 Sua ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/37 "2003-04-17T15:28:37Z")
> [@](#): > > The ‘EMP’ cruise missle is a ALCM or Tomahawk that generates a massive directional burst of electromagnetic energy that fries electronics. > > The ‘carbon fiber’ cruise missles drop bundles of conductive carbon-fiber on powerlines, and short them out, knocking out electricity I don’t really have anything useful to add; I just wanted to say that military technology kicks ass. And the coolest thing about these particular toys is that they don’t even have to kill anyone to be effective. Ain’t non-lethal warfare grand? 😃 Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/38 "2003-04-26T21:26:28Z")
Sam Stone is right. It is mostly tactical response that would decide a battle. The most significant event in this war was the weapon dropped on Saddam. It took 12 minutes from the time a spotter reported his location to the point of detonation. Think of that. Someone was connected to the lowest level in the field and was able to direct the appropriate weapons platform in real time. The platform could have been a Preditor, fighter, bomber, Helo, tank, artillary, ship, or sub. This is why Germany lost WWII. They had a HUGE technological advantage over everyone else. They didn’t know how to use it effectively. The best example was England’s use of radar. Each unit reported contacts in a rapid succession of communication until the information reached the appropriate level for a response. The Germans used radar like it was a toy. Germany wasn’t alone, remember Pearl Harbor. The Russians have concentrated a lot of their technology into missles and torpedos. They have some decent hardware to contend with. You wouldn’t want to lose your tech support in a boxing match with the Russians. The Chinese are an emerging power. They are more buyers than inventors of technology. But they do have the capacity to duplicate anything they can get their hands on. With their population, they can also provide a lot of cannon fodder in a field battle. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/39 "2003-04-27T01:56:18Z")
> [@](#): > > The most significant event in this war was the weapon dropped on Saddam. It took 12 minutes from the time a spotter reported his location to the point of detonation. Exactly. And this is a very new capability, even for the U.S. Look at the first Gulf War, for example. Smart bombs were used, in much smaller numbers. But HOW they were used was dramatically different. Targets were selected weeks or even months in advance. The preparation required to drop a smart bomb took days. If a soldier in the field identified a target that needed a smart bomb, he would relay the request to a unit commander. That commander would then relay the request to his HQ. Since these guys are army, and the bomb would be dropped by Navy, the targetting request was actually FLOWN out to a carrier in the mail. Then the next planning session would take all the target requests and prepare bomb loads, etc. The next day, the bombs would be loaded up, and the mission would be flown. Elapsed time could be two days or more. Now, a soldier on the ground can relay requests directly to aircraft overhead, and get close to instant action. And U.S. capability is growing rapidly. Soon, you’re going to see an ‘umbrella’ of unmanned aircraft like Predators or Global Hawks, armed with smart weapons. Soldiers on the ground will be able to aim a ‘gun’ at a target, pull the trigger, and instead of firing a bullet the target will be hit by a missile from overhead. No other country has the technology to match this. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020/40 "2003-04-27T02:45:17Z")
> **[The World: Out on the Edge; American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/weekinreview/the-world-out-on-the-edge-american-power-moves-beyond-the-mere-super.html)** > > Lightning US conquest of Iraq establishes American military as strongest the world has ever known; its runaway advantage has been called excessive, but it has had positive effect of causing global military spending to decline as other nations concede... Short summary: we rule the seas, we rule the air. We have nine supercarrier groups, with a tenth on the way. No one else has ANYTHING like that: the closest is a Russian carrier that’s about half as big and barely ever leaves port. Our subs can take out any major shipping and no one can retaliate. No country even bothers to try matching us on the sea. We have far far more long range bombers than anyone else. We have five different stealth aircraft: no one else even has such aircraft on the drawing boards. No one else has AWACS, let alone JSTARS. No one else has an effective fleet of aerial refuel tankers. No country even bothers to pretend that it could match us in the air. In ground forces, China rivals us in number, but not when you compare numbers of armored vehicles. Our tanks can destroy anyone else’s, usually with one shot, from longer distances, in any weather condition. No country is even planning on fielding comparable weapons. No other nation is even dreaming of combat drones: but we already have early versions operating in the field. And of course, we control space. Our spending more than outstrips all our major potential major opponents combined. No other country can even afford to spend that much. We export more weapons as surplus than most countries have. In short, the arms race is over. Which puts us in a pretty odd position. I mean, effectively, no one can plausibly argue that our military exists to defend our nations borders in any direct sense. No nation in the world has the capacity to invade our home territory. We even face few plausible conventional threats in the foriegn territories we control. We pretty much go from country to country all over the world, essnetially getting some great field testing of our weaponry on forces that barely manage to rival our _accidents_ in terms of inflicting causalties. Kinda calls into question the very idea of military power in the world when one nation dominates all others so completely that fighting us is simple suicide. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-chinese-and-russians-do-to-counter-the-new-american-military-tactics/169020.md?page=3)