Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

It's not the large militaries that give us trouble. Assuming the US fights some sort of defensive battle (like an invasion of South Korea by NK backed by China):

The large militaries do not give the US trouble, because (thankfully) you're not at war with them.

Russia is the only other nation, currently, who could pose a legitimate "end of the country" nuclear threat.

Why do you think that other nuclear countries could not pose a threat to you? Any country with nuclear weapons, that the US was aggressive towards, would pose a threat to the US.

The two largest militaries in the world, other than the US, are China and North Korea (to the best of my knowledge). If either, or somehow both, decided to test the US militarily they would lose because wherever they massed their troops, those troops would die en-mass.

It depends what form the war would take. Your statement was that "no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily". That doesn't narrow down what type of war it was. For example, if the US wanted to invade China, as the US invaded Iraq (say for example the US objected to China claiming Taiwan as its own), and Russia decided to fight with China, you think that you could not be beaten militarily? If you were dropping bombs on China, as you (and my country) did on Iraq, you'd find bombs were landing on US soil too, and that may not go down to well. You might find pressure to withdraw your troops from China. Now the fact is, that if China invaded Taiwan, the US would not invade China, because the US knows it is not invincible.

Military attacks on US soil are just impossible at the moment and for any foreseeable future. I know it's the dream of some for the US to get its' "come upin's", but no combined military alliance in the world could take and hold any US territory.

Well let's ignore those who'd actually like a war of any sort anywhere for a second, and stick to the point. Firstly, an enemy doesn't need to want to hold US territory in order for it to be a target. And if the US invaded Russia or China, attacks on US soil are a given, not an impossibility.

[Sven]

interesting how a reconnaissance pilot triggered a WW3 scenario.

I really like reading about personal war experiences, it gives a good image how life was at the front and the actual aerial combat. Too bad all that info will slowly disappear as less people care about WW2 and the stories will no longer be told by the ones who were there.

Sven

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Well let's ignore those who'd actually like a war of any sort anywhere for a second, and stick to the point. Firstly, an enemy doesn't need to want to hold US territory in order for it to be a target. And if the US invaded Russia or China, attacks on US soil are a given, not an impossibility.

I couched my comments with the caveat of the US fighting a "defensive" war. Driving out aggressors is always easier than taking and holding territory. Just ask the Germans and Russians of WWII .

As you said, it's not like the US has cause to invade China, Russia, or even North Korea. In the case of China and NK, the much more likely scenario would be countering an invasion of one of their neighbors. It is not even a given that the US would bomb targets in either of those countries.

Attacks on US soil would have to be either clandestine or with ICBM's (or subs). I don't see how any other country even contemplate occupying US soil....if we had too much trouble driving them out we could always (and would) nuke them into oblivion. Even getting enough troops across intervening oceans would be impossible. Such an invasion is just not a winning scenario for an adversary.

China could do damage with their ICBMs, but they would cease to exist in return and I don't think they are crazy (plus they are outgunned on the nuclear front for the time being). Little Kim in NK doesn't have the delivery means to do much damage even though he is crazy enough to do it.

The larger threat to the West is WMD's showing up in an urban area. Cargo containers at a dock, sneaked over the border (Mexico/US) in a backpack or tractor trailer, or on board an airliner and airburst. These kinds of threats usually do not come form other nations but rather factions secretly supported by nations.

War has changed in the years since WWII. People generally wore uniforms then and fought battles. Small nations were prey to large nations in many instances who were looking for colonies. Wars were usually wars of conquest. Civilian casualties were accepted on all sides. Men like the Russian fighter pilot that started this wayward thread were fighting for the very survival of their nation, not a fanatical idea.

Yes, he strafed retreating enemy troops, but they were soldiers just like him. As we become more civilized perhaps we become less civilized?

Splitter

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I couched my comments with the caveat of the US fighting a "defensive" war.

You didn't make that caveat when you made the statement that "NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily", and that is what I was disagreeing with.

As you said, it's not like the US has cause to invade China, Russia, or even North Korea. In the case of China and NK, the much more likely scenario would be countering an invasion of one of their neighbors. It is not even a given that the US would bomb targets in either of those countries.

I don't see how any other country even contemplate occupying US soil....if we had too much trouble driving them out we could always (and would) nuke them into oblivion.

Who is talking about occupying US soil? You said that no two country alliance could beat the US militarily, and I'm simply saying that if the US provoked Russia or China (eg, attacked their homeland), they could also attack US soil. I'm not suggesting for a minute they'd want to occupy. You can't assume that if such a terrible set of circumstances ever (which is a mighty long time) did occur, the US would simply nuke the enemy into oblivion, because the enemy could do the same to the US.

Many in the US likes to think that it is kindly policing the world, but we all know it's not as simple as that. If Iraq did not have oil, the gulf wars wouldn't have happened. There are other countries where atrocities occur, and war is not waged, either because there is not the finacial incentive, or because the US doesn't have the military capability.

[Splitter]

....or is it because US interests are not threatened?

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose. The good news is that nuclear weapons possessed by the the major powers actually keep them from trying to invade one another.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism. So.....tell me why we should care about world opinion? Because, let's face again, someone is always going to criticize the US to further their own agenda. There are many who think the US military should just be a puppet of the UN.

Always there when they need us .

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Splitter

....or is it because US interests are not threatened?

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose. The good news is that nuclear weapons possessed by the the major powers actually keep them from trying to invade one another.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism. So.....tell me why we should care about world opinion? Because, let's face again, someone is always going to criticize the US to further their own agenda. There are many who think the US military should just be a puppet of the UN.

Always there when they need us .

Nicely said. It is about time that the European Union started to do some heavy lifting and protect themselves and their interests militarily. When the oilfields in the Middle East are lost, the Euros will be in much worse shape than North America. Stop knocking your Ally and start worrying about the real threats to European civilization. Someday we will not be there to get your chestnuts out of the fire

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

Someday we will not be there to get your chestnuts out of the fire

Not a moment to soon..........................................as we wave you goodbye... tralala

[K_Freddie]

Shark.. I really think you must be some really naive/indoctrinated person, or just a troll.
You should consult a variety of different sources of information, especially if these sources are a conflict of interest.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose.

Indeed, and likewise if you attacked another major power in the same way, you would not win. Fortunately neither situation is about to happen, I am simply stating that your earlier statement ("NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily") was not correct without specific context.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism.

Well you weren't generally criticised for going to war with Iraq in '91, and the US don't face the criticism for the last war with Iraq alone. But it is hardly surprisng (or undesirable) that going to war attracts criticism.

Originally Posted by Theshark888

It is very easy to sit in your apartment in Bern or The Hague and complain how the evil Americans are starting illegal wars.

Who here is doing that?

We are not happy about policing the world but this goes back to getting dragged into two world wars and not letting that happen again

What? The US joined the second world war because it was attacked. No allied country wanted to be involved, and some joined without the threat of attack.

Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves

Has anyone here said that Iraq were innocent?

It is about time that the European Union started to do some heavy lifting and protect themselves and their interests militarily. When the oilfields in the Middle East are lost, the Euros will be in much worse shape than North America. Stop knocking your Ally and start worrying about the real threats to European civilization.

Who are you talking to? I'm British and I am aware who the threats to civilisation are and are not. I share the same opinions on human rights as most western civilisations. I know that the British were lied to in order to progress with the last gulf war, and I do not knock the US any more than I do the British, and I'm not even close to a Euro leftie. And as for heavy lifting, Britain (as EU example) has done far more than it should, given that it is a tiny mino.

The US do put themselves forward as world police, and like all other countries, the US do things that they shouldn't, and that are sometimes in the interest of their leaders, and not the people from their, or any other country. The US therefore gets a lot of criticism from around the world, mostly undeserved, but sometimes fair. I appreciate that this puts a lot of Americans on the defensive (it's natural to be defensive when criticised, particularly when a lot of the criticism is unjust), but don't assume that everyone that thinks one war was unjustified suddenly thinks that the US are evil and not an ally.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Who are you talking to? I'm British and I am aware who the threats to civilisation are and are not. I share the same opinions on human rights as most western civilisations. I know that the British were lied to in order to progress with the last gulf war, and I do not knock the US any more than I do the British, and I'm not even close to a Euro leftie. And as for heavy lifting, Britain (as EU example) has done far more than it should, given that it is a tiny mino.

The US do put themselves forward as world police, and like all other countries, the US do things that they shouldn't, and that are sometimes in the interest of their leaders, and not the people from their, or any other country. The US therefore gets a lot of criticism from around the world, mostly undeserved, but sometimes fair. I appreciate that this puts a lot of Americans on the defensive (it's natural to be defensive when criticised, particularly when a lot of the criticism is unjust), but don't assume that everyone that thinks one war was unjustified suddenly thinks that the US are evil and not an ally.

Just to set the record straight, a quote you attributed to me in your last post was a post from someone else that I quoted .

Your last paragraph is pretty much spot on.

If you look around, there is a LOT of US bashing going on. When I say bashing, I am not talking about questioning foreign policy here and there, I am talking about "bigoted" comments painting the US intents as evil. We go to war for oil, we kill civilians will nilly, we pollute the world, we try to turn everyone into Christians, you name it. And when I say there is a lot of hatred in the western world for the US, you know there will be a bunch of people who read it and think, "the US brought it all on themselves". Some may even type that if they were openly honest.

The crud we endure on pretty much any forum (or the world stage for that matter) is no different than "bigoted", ignorant statements that could be made about any nationality. Yet, it seems ok to the bash the US even when such statements about other nationalities would not be tolerated.

It just gets old, as you said.

Funny thing is, a lot of the people who tend to espouse these close minded views preach tolerance for every other situation lol.

Anyway, good thread even if it did wander far and wide. I'm out, back to airplanes.

Splitter