Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily. You beat us by turning our morality against us.

What do you think beating someone militarily is? Do you think it requires incapacitating every single soldier? The will of the people becomes particularly important when nuclear weapns are an option.

You beat us by dividing our people (pictures of dead women and children do the trick). You beat us by being willing to sacrifice more than we are willing to sacrifice. You beat us by exploiting your civilian casualties.

You're looking at wars against much smaller nations, incapable of attacking US soil. Hoefully we'll never find out how invincible the US military may or may not be.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

What do you think beating someone militarily is? Do you think it requires incapacitating every single soldier? The will of the people becomes particularly important when nuclear weapns are an option.

You're looking at wars against much smaller nations, incapable of attacking US soil. Hoefully we'll never find out how invincible the US military may or may not be.

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):

Russia is the only other nation, currently, who could pose a legitimate "end of the country" nuclear threat. Strategic nukes are a different animal so let's take that off the table for discussion. A strategic nuclear exchange could not be won because of massive retaliation.

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.

Stealth weapons (planes) and cruise missiles would take out command and control. Those and the bombers would take out transportation bottlenecks trapping the armor. Then the "dumb" weapons would do the butchery.

Nah, what the US has trouble with is smaller, insurgent type adversaries. We have to "go get" those forces which takes boots on the ground where fighting gets bloody for the attacker. The opposing forces also tend to mingle with the civilian population which further ties the hands of the attacker (the US DOES seek to avoid civilian casualties no matter what silly prejudices are present in the world). These opponents hide among civilians and then pop out to attack US forces...that's a hard nut to crack because superior weaponry is a much smaller factor in victory.

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. First, the military, including the National Guard would fight desperately. Maybe more importantly, our civilians are armed to a great extent with around 40% of households having firearms.

Civilians rarely pose a direct threat to military forces, but present a huge thorn in the side of occupying military forces (see the Liberator pistols dropped into France in WWII). Theoretically, we could arm every adult civilian with privately owned firearms. A rifle behind every blade of grass. We are safe from occupation .

Interestingly, Britain found itself with a disarmed population as WWII broke out and sought to quickly remedy the situation (Lend Lease and private firearms from the US).

Speaking pragmatically, you don't take on a force like the US military directly. You chip away at its' foundation which is the American populace's whimsical opinion. With the right nudge here and there, we do a great job of tearing ourselves apart all by ourselves . Parade any civilian deaths before American cameras, make us feel guilty. Claim we targeted schools and hospitals. Put your forces among the population, use them as shields.

Wait us out. Our public has a short attention span. We don't like the thought of your civilians dying. Many of us feel guilty about having the power to defeat any other nation. Our left will join you in your criticisms in short order. We will start fighting your battle in our media. Ask Minh.

One thing that should never be done by an opponent is to commit and act that unites the population. In the short term, that's when we become dangerous to an opponent. But again, just wait.

Splitter

[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

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

If Iraq did not have oil, the gulf wars wouldn't have happened.

Of course. Should we have just let our Western-way of civilization collapse or held hostage by some third world despot gaining control of over half the oil reserves in the world?? It is very easy to sit in your apartment in Bern or The Hague and complain how the evil Americans are starting illegal wars. 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

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

If we were as terrible as many in the Euro-left believe, we would have taken over Iraq oil and not paid them a cent for it...we didn't even get a discount on it

[Splitter]

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

Well, maybe next time 'cause I paid $2.75 a gallon today and I don't understand why it has gone back up. I think that as long as we are accused of such things in any case we should at some point prove them right .

Splitter