NationStates Jolt Archive

Who else believes that modern armies like the US and UK are over-dependent on modern technology, and that in the event of a world war they would be ground down and politicaly beaten like in Vietnam and now Iraq?

There's a BIG difference between a machine gun and a pointy stick. Likewise there is a difference between a modern mechanised army with the ability to carpet bomb literally thousands of square miles of terrain at a time and spray bullets everywhere effortlessly and a couple of million militia, even if they have mortars and RPGs.

If it came to WWWIII there would be no need to worry about preserving the local population, allowing them free reign to blow tiSh up.

There's a BIG difference between a machine gun and a pointy stick. Likewise there is a difference between a modern mechanised army with the ability to carpet bomb literally thousands of square miles of terrain at a time and spray bullets everywhere effortlessly and a couple of million militia, even if they have mortars and RPGs.

Just for the record, why didn't you say that? I'm sitting three feet from this guy.

On going into the Vietnam War, everyone (even the Vietnamese) said that the US would win. They DID carpet bomb and they DID spray bullets effortlessly everywhere and they still lost the war.

Just for the record, why didn't you say that? I'm sitting three feet from this guy.

On going into the Vietnam War, everyone (even the Vietnamese) said that the US would win. They DID carpet bomb and they DID spray bullets effortlessly everywhere and they still lost the war.
Ah, but they held on to the cities and tried to preserve the population. It is a well known fact that high ranking members of the NVA were holed up directly above the American's favourite noodle bar. If they had just leveled the place to start with, no problem!

Vietnam - politicians directly involved in directing the combat. Remember "policy bombing pauses"?

Gulf War I and II, politicians let generals do the fighting, actual armed conflict between armies all over quick.

On going into the Vietnam War, everyone (even the Vietnamese) said that the US would win. They DID carpet bomb and they DID spray bullets effortlessly everywhere and they still lost the war.

It was politics that lost us the war. The politicians got involved, screwed it up, and hand-tied us at every step of the way, which meant that we didn't have a chance of really fighting the war.

Anyway, in the event of WWIII the US and its allies would win. We've got the technology, the economy, and the population (especially with India on our side...there's no way in hell they would ever side with Russia or China) to defeat anything thrown at us.

Who else believes that modern armies like the US and UK are over-dependent on modern technology, and that in the event of a world war they would be ground down and politicaly beaten like in Vietnam and now Iraq?


War = neutralizing opposition.

combat is destructive capacity on a target.

defence is essentially stealth, evasion and armor

Techonology is said to enhance these things...

Essentially it is the capacity to power technology, thus strategic locations for getting the resources for the technology.

Politics does not integrate with war, except as a means of support of those individuals you need to control your technology, foodsources etc..

A functional army should be able to do this independantly by engineers etc.. but that comes with added cost (or time / manpower) most modern miitaries appear to contract OUT.

In a time of real /dire/ war it seems unplausable how the citizens woud force the miitary to attack them, unless the invader was a liberator and not an oppressor.

However, there is no reason for a world war except an attempt to 'clean up'.
It is a very dangerous gambit but considering most states are loosely allied or interdependant World War does not seem likely unless there is a split, but due to the destructive capacities of the major players it just can't happen unless they allow a conventional battle to occur for the sake of it.

UNless the supernatural exists, and as such there being immortal g-dlike superhumans naturally able to punch through walls of titanium technology seems to be the utility to circumvent opposition. It is essentail.

People don't matter in war, all you need is killing machines.

-----
Skynet.

Everyone is a a posible killing machine.. some are just armed better or with stronger defences.. stealth comes in many forms including covert operations and mobility is generally seen as speed which varies from 1 mile per day or more to the speed of light (or plausably beyond)
-----

In a technological reality, technology is the untensil to war.

Some experts don't join the military just work for them. Normaly you can't leave a contract, without penalties. The government OWNS EVERYTHING. People just get to lease it out when the government doesn't need it for something.

If WWIII went nuclear then the low tech countries wouldnt win.

In a low tech war, it would depend on whose terrain it was being fought...

It'll come down to an arms race for Lithium Fusion missile technology.

Anyway, in the event of WWIII the US and its allies would win. We've got the technology, the economy, and the population (especially with India on our side...there's no way in hell they would ever side with Russia or China) to defeat anything thrown at us.How-d-Hell do you defeat a wave of Russian nukes ??

It'll come down to an arms race for Lithium Fusion missile technology.
And who can build the best mech, which can pwn n00b/rogue 4$$! d00d!

How-d-Hell do you defeat a wave of Russian nukes ??

With our wave of American/European nukes...everyone wins!

With our wave of American/European nukes...everyone wins!
And Canada sits by, ready to clean up, because we were too busy worry about softwood lumber and keeping the Conservatives out of office.

If WWIII went nuclear then the low tech countries wouldnt win.

In a low tech war, it would depend on whose terrain it was being fought...and how would WW3 ignite?
there is several scenarios..

- China invades Taiwan.. .

- Israel/US strikes at the Iranian nukes

- Kashemer.

- NorthKorea <> Japan.

etc

With our wave of American/European nukes...everyone wins!

YAY!!! *dances in the streets*

and how would WW3 ignite?
there is several scenarios..

- China invades Taiwan.. .

- Israel/US strikes at the Iranian nukes

- Kashemer.

- NorthKorea <> Japan.

etc
Canada gets really, really, really mad because of softwood lumber and makes missiles out of our surplus of Beavers and using RPGs, launches a shitload of these toxic beasts into America, thus wrecking the ecosystem, paving the way for the ultimate WWIII!! :D

YAY!!! *dances in the streets*I will not be dancing..

and I will not be on an Big City street.. Ideally I would not be inside the US.. I would take a long vacation in Latin-America.

I will not be dancing..

and I will not be on an Big City street.. Ideally I would not be inside the US.. I would take a long vacation in Latin-America.
The Yukon is also a nice place this time of year...

And who would bomb Alaska?

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein.

The Yukon is also a nice place this time of year...
YEAH.. its just that I do not like the ... emptiness ;)
err unless... are you girl? and are you going to personally give me human company... and warm me up :D ;) :fluffle: :D

I will not be dancing..

and I will not be on an Big City street.. Ideally I would not be inside the US.. I would take a long vacation in Latin-America.

It wouldn't matter. :p

*does the Nuclear Winter Dance*

And Canada sits by, ready to clean up, because we were too busy worry about softwood lumber and keeping the Conservatives out of office.

Look at you up there...plotting. :eek:

The original poster makes the assumption that we are losing in Iraq. Simply not true at all. Also another poster implied that we lost on the battlefield in Vietnam. Another myth of young minds and alot of older ones. Vietnam we won every battle there was. As far as the battlefield goes the US dominated. What we lost was the home political war. The pressure from home forced a withdrawl. The South Vietnamese actually lost the war after the support from the US was withdrawn.

dp

In the event of a fight-for-your-life war, western armies would win.

The only possibility of defeat for a well funded western army like America's is where it's not politically or diplomatically possible to _really_ take the gloves off, and just _not care_ about enemy civilian casualties and nation building. This was the case in Vietnam, and is a risk in Iraq (a receding risk, apparently :)).

I know not what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - A.E.

With our wave of American/European nukes...everyone wins!

The only way to win is not to play... - War Games

I know not what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - A.E.



The only way to win is not to play... - War Games

And even then, you lose. - TSI's Book Of Wisdom

Kind of a pickle, don't you think?

India wouldn't join America against China. China could pwn India. It would probably stay neutral in such a conflict.

I agree. India, sitting on China's border and effectively at the mercy of its far vaster military, economy, and population, wouldn't take them on like that. If China tried to attack them, though, we might be able to gain their allegiance and open up a two-front war on China, as on Nazi Germany.

I personalyl don't quite believe that any such war would be fought with low-tech weaponry. I believe there is no country with a sizeable military force that would not have access to the latest in weaponry. Therefore, I believe that alike WWII, the smaller countries would either be allied with some other country or simply occupied. And even if there would be a country with low tech that would not do so, I think they would just crumble under the pressure of larger nations.

I think a present scenario of WWIII would be the EU and/or Russia/China simply getting mad at what the US is doing right now, that is attacking and complaining and whining their asses off, and threaten with hostilities. Although I do not believe the EU, Russia or China would have the guts to attack the US, I think it could spur some of the other countries to violence, and also having the US having cut off connections with China, Russia, EU.

Anyhow, thinking that the US right now probably is the spearhead of weaponry technology. But if they continue like they do, I do think they could meet some fierce resistance. Also, I do think no country would actually dare use nuclear weapons; the worst-case scenario would be another Cold War.

It wouldn't matter. :p

*does the Nuclear Winter Dance*

*joins Lunatic Goofballs and dances his way towards the apocalype*

The original poster makes the assumption that we are losing in Iraq. Simply not true at all.


Hmmmmmmm. Not sure about this at all. I attended a political-risk briefing today by Exclusive Analysis (http://exclusive-analysis.com). In a nutshell, the situation there is all a bit Life of Brian (my choice of phrase, not their phrasing). The Baathists hate the domestic Islamists and the foreign Islamists. The foreign Islamists hate the domestic Islamists. They both hate the Baathists. The Kurds hate the foreign Islamists, who hate them right back. The Kurds are trying to go autonomous. The Sunni are fighting the Shia. The Shia are fighting the Sunni and the Kurds. The Shia are fighting each other. The Federalists are fighting the Regionalists. And everyone's fighting the Americans. EA's view is that the US army will confine itself to base this year (thereby leading to a reduction in US casualties - just simply less US soldiers on the street to be blown up).

The other big worry, according to EA, is that the US Army is suffering from exhaustion. It's essentially a great big peacetime army and now all the reservists are being asked to do too much too often and the Army is running up against its own rules on troop rotation etc (apologies for being vague but I'm new to this stuff and I don't have my notes to hand). Anywho, you get the idea. It's a SNAFU - and the US is blatantly not winning the Iraqi war.

IMHO, the time of large-scale armed conflicts is coming to a close, at least for a temporary time. The increasing feeling of globablism vs. patriotism, the end of colonialism, and the develpment have really caused the likelihood of such a war to become small. The real conflict that should be considered is the one between organized government and international terrorism. If radical Islamic groups and other terrorist organizations are allowed to gain enough influence, the countries of the world will face a fight against an enemy that operates out of cells in no single location, but acts as one whole in attacking its enemies. Although superior manpower and resources would eventually win out, it would be a costly fight due to the general lack of experience of dealing with such a threat.

The original poster makes the assumption that we are losing in Iraq. Simply not true at all. Also another poster implied that we lost on the battlefield in Vietnam.Fine.. We Won the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.. We also captured and Killed Osama's #2, #3 #2 again, #2, #3,#2,#2..etc.

Oh ...and Bush is smart.. no wait.. Bush is a genious. :D :D :p :D

Oh ...and Bush is smart.. no wait.. Bush is a genious. :D :D :p :D

Well he did beat Gore and Kerry. But in my opinion a monkey could have done that.

Just to be sure you guys do know about the economic problems of fighting a war right?
The U.S economy is in no shape for ANYTHING (8 trillion foreign debt, much owed to China and Japan) let alone a full blown, all out war, it'd destroy any chance of economic regeneration.
In fact there are very few countries that actually have the resources for war, mostly they'd have to borrow the money or have the economic backing of several other countries.
On a sidenote I don't think America could risk war on China over Taiwan, the resulting Chinese economic backlash would be...unpleasant.

It was politics that lost us the war. The politicians got involved, screwed it up, and hand-tied us at every step of the way, which meant that we didn't have a chance of really fighting the war.

Anyway, in the event of WWIII the US and its allies would win. We've got the technology, the economy, and the population (especially with India on our side...there's no way in hell they would ever side with Russia or China) to defeat anything thrown at us.

OK, so some of the most powerful countries in the world invade a tiny little country. It has a higher than average proportion of military to civilians, but only with outdated Soviet equipment. You (and me, before about three years ago) would expect two or three weeks' fighting and then a quick victory. A few bits of resistance, but that would soon be flushed out with all the modern technology and money to make it work.

How come the US and UK are still in Iraq after several years, with thousands of of troops dead and billions of dollars spent, not to mention the 110,000 dead Iraqi civilians?

And who can build the best mech, which can pwn n00b/rogue 4$$! d00d!
I like your style!

OK, so some of the most powerful countries in the world invade a tiny little country. It has a higher than average proportion of military to civilians, but only with outdated Soviet equipment. You (and me, before about three years ago) would expect two or three weeks' fighting and then a quick victory. A few bits of resistance, but that would soon be flushed out with all the modern technology and money to make it work.

How come the US and UK are still in Iraq after several years, with thousands of of troops dead and billions of dollars spent, not to mention the 110,000 dead Iraqi civilians?
In a WWIII situation the lives of civilians would be totally irrelevant, as the sole purpose would be to kill other countries rather than capture land.

In a WWIII situation the lives of civilians would be totally irrelevant, as the sole purpose would be to kill other countries rather than capture land.

Seconded: Iraq is an excellent example of a modern war that's fought on camera as much as it is on the battlefields, as it were. It's trying to minimise the effect that warfare has on civilians, a very noble sentiment; an ideal youcan trace from Greek hoplite warfare through to the early middle ages _notions_ (seldom practise, unfortunately!) of chivalric war, to the concepts of war in the enlightenment... This is just another, sometimes successful and sometimes not, attempt to limit the horrors of war.

That said, in a gloves off, if-we-don't-win-we-die war, no one would care about civilian casualties, and again it's worth pointing out that the Iraqi army was destroyed in about 2 weeks - that was the military action. The morass that's happened since is a police action.

Well he did beat Gore and Kerry. But in my opinion a monkey could have done that.


And that's precisely what happened.
---


on topic:

Nobody is going to win WW3.
There will only be losers.

Thought the world had learned a lesson from Cold War.
Apparently not, as one can see from the posts in this very thread.

Thought the world had learned a lesson from Cold War.
Apparently not, as one can see from the posts in this very thread.

Which are of course all being written by policy makers and national leaders

Which are of course all being written by policy makers and national leaders

You're right. Here's hoping.

A WWIII scenario entails all-out war, which is what the US military is designed for, and seems to be very good at.

If you're not going to continue to occupy a nation after you smash its military, destroy its infrastructure, and kill millions of civilians, insurgency doesn't count for anything.

Insurgency doesn't stop an invasion, nor does it stop a rain of guided munitions from wrecking the power system, water system, road networks, rail networks, and government infrastructure in a matter of weeks or less.

And if nuclear weapons are used, the insurgency won't exist.

Who else believes that modern armies like the US and UK are over-dependent on modern technology, and that in the event of a world war they would be ground down and politicaly beaten like in Vietnam and now Iraq?



Modern Armies rely on Zapping, which is we can shove a missile up a mans ass from 1000 miles away (Exagerated). We rely on information and instantanious communication as well as percision strikes. This is why no one forms up a huge military force anymore, because a bigger army today just means a bigger target.

Non-modern armies rely on a tactic known as swarming, which is in effect what the terrorists do, they pick up portions of transmissions and information from a modernized military's network then they come up from the surrounding area and swarm a target, then they dissapear just as quickly and hide.

These are the techniques which will be used in WW3. The War will probably first erupt between China and the US, China and the US will both use Zapping, and China will also use terrorist organization's and tactics to swarm and shut down the US's technological and informational superiority over their country.

Fine.. We Won the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.. We also captured and Killed Osama's #2, #3 #2 again, #2, #3,#2,#2..etc.

How on earth did you arrive at that? (The winning the Vietnam War bit?) 60,000 dead, 300,000 wounded, 3,000 missing and nearly 1,000 captured, and the US still didn't achive their aim of helping the south? Then, when they pulled out and the NVA attacked again, they didn't lift a finger to stop them because they were terrified of getting involved again!

And, if we won the Iraq war (I presume you mean the First Gulf War), why are we there now?

And, if we won the Iraq war (I presume you mean the First Gulf War), why are we there now?
Clerical error.:D

It wouldn't matter. :p

*does the Nuclear Winter Dance*
Then we'd better start increasing global warming to cancel the Nuclear Winter :)