Could We Even Win a Real War

[Creedmoor]

I don’t know
Could we replace our military equipment, artillery barrels, steel ships, bullets and powder. Seems we have exported all our heavy industry, foundries, steel mills. A lot of those machines can never be replaced.
AA

You know manufacturing in the USA has been gaining for the last three decades.

 

[buckwacker]

You know manufacturing in the USA has been gaining for the last three decades.

And? Do we currently have the manufacturing base to support a WWII style war effort? Could we raise one if needed in short order? Could we manage the necessary expenditures to do so when we are currently approaching sovereign financial insolvency in the absence of those monumental necessary expenditures?

 

[Wolfhound]

Funny but not really a fair comparison though. The top picture is from a pre-basic prep course. It's to get people who couldn't qualify to even get into basic ready to get into it. Think the chubby kid that wants to join but can't because they are so out of shape so the recruiter sends them to PT with the local NG troops until they are ready. I'm guessing that the photo of your troop was post basic at a minimum and deployed.

‘Prep course’ pilot breaks basic training norms — and just might work

The Army’s top initiative to address its recruiting shortfall is throwing the basic training playbook out the window, but early data shows it may work.

www.armytimes.com

We were a cohort unit and had already deployed to Honduras (Operation Golden Pheasant) and Korea (Team Spirit March 89) not to mention some CONUS rotations. That picture was taken on an LCM in the Panama Canal. We were going from Howard AFB to Fort Sherman for jungle school then security duties during the attempted coup. We ended up back down there for the Panama invasion. So definitely not fresh out of basic. Good call on your part.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

We were a cohort unit and had already deployed to Honduras (Operation Golden Pheasant) and Korea (Team Spirit March 89) not to mention some CONUS rotations. That picture was taken on an LCM in the Panama Canal. We were going from Howard AFB to Fort Sherman for jungle school then security duties during the attempted coup. We ended up back down there for the Panama invasion. So definitely not fresh out of basic. Good call on your part.

The semi mohawk hair on the one guy kinda gave it away.

 

[IUBrink]

The problem isn't the new age of people in the military, it's the propaganda that will convince low-IQ citizens that their country's military isn't equipped to handle a war. They'll cherry pick pictures of skinny marines and LGBT Army clubs in hopes that you'll lose hope.

But you're smarter than that, right?
Don't be so sure about that. Take a look around this thread.

 

[Creedmoor]

And? Do we currently have the manufacturing base to support a WWII style war effort? Could we raise one if needed in short order? Could we manage the necessary expenditures to do so when we are currently approaching sovereign financial insolvency in the absence of those monumental necessary expenditures?

I dont know, as our manufacturing base has also changed since WWII.
I believe for the most part yes, with more modernization in the last 80 years we can do many things cheaper, faster and with less labor.

 

[Creedmoor]

Funny but not really a fair comparison though. The top picture is from a pre-basic prep course. It's to get people who couldn't qualify to even get into basic ready to get into it. Think the chubby kid that wants to join but can't because they are so out of shape so the recruiter sends them to PT with the local NG troops until they are ready. I'm guessing that the photo of your troop was post basic at a minimum and deployed.

‘Prep course’ pilot breaks basic training norms — and just might work

The Army’s top initiative to address its recruiting shortfall is throwing the basic training playbook out the window, but early data shows it may work.

www.armytimes.com

And the pic I posted?

 

[Libertarian01]

Our failure in the Middle East stems, in part, from our failure to observe this simple axiom, ”There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” – Sun Tzu

Our failure in Vietnam also stems from Sun Tzu's observation that the entire army must be motivated from the top down by agreement on the moral action the army is taking.

For my part I honestly do not believe that any nation on earth could now challenge us in any war. Sure, they could harm or even destroy us with nuclear weapons, but challenge? Nope.

Look now at Russia. The Ukrainians are beating them back with weapons we have given them, and not our best weapons at that. Our Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps engages them and it wouldn't even be close.

China? The big food & energy importer? We put some ships in the Indian Ocean and we can turn China off without firing a a shot at them. Their navy sucks! We have eleven (11) supercarriers. They have two (2) carriers. The first is a modified cruise ship. Their second? It's a clone of the first. Worried I am not.

Beyond China which cannot reach beyond the first island chain and Russia that is proving so incompetent it's sad for their soldiers, who else is there? For there's not even them.

Regards,

Doug

PS - We can feed ourselves. We have been an oil exporter since 2019.

 

[Wolfhound]

Our failure in the Middle East stems, in part, from our failure to observe this simple axiom, ”There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” – Sun Tzu

Our failure in Vietnam also stems from Sun Tzu's observation that the entire army must be motivated from the top down by agreement on the moral action the army is taking.

For my part I honestly do not believe that any nation on earth could now challenge us in any war. Sure, they could harm or even destroy us with nuclear weapons, but challenge? Nope.

Look now at Russia. The Ukrainians are beating them back with weapons we have given them, and not our best weapons at that. Our Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps engages them and it wouldn't even be close.

China? The big food & energy importer? We put some ships in the Indian Ocean and we can turn China off without firing a a shot at them. Their navy sucks! We have eleven (11) supercarriers. They have two (2) carriers. The first is a modified cruise ship. Their second? It's a clone of the first. Worried I am not.

Beyond China which cannot reach beyond the first island chain and Russia that is proving so incompetent it's sad for their soldiers, who else is there? For there's not even them.

Regards,

Doug

PS - We can feed ourselves. We have been an oil exporter since 2019.

Just playing devils advocate. What about Russia and China together? That doesn’t go too well in the simulations from what I’ve heard. Not predicting anything though.

Was Sun Tsu Chinese or Japanese?

 

[Tombs]

Yes, we could easily win a real war.

I've had numerous friends enlist in the past year, and from the sounds of things, the whole recruiting shortage thing is being overblown in the media by a ridiculous margin.

The problem is a real war with any serious axis powers today wouldn't be fought conventionally. If it was fought conventionally, even if the entire planet tried to invade the US, they would lose and lose dramatically.

Covid is an example of how an axis power will wage war on the US, today. As is woke ideology.

What's terrifying about all of this is that many people are aware of this going on, but are powerless to do anything as the higher ups are entirely onboard -that- train.
The reality is that we'll never see a war between the US and China that involves shooting bullets at each other. They'll be propagandizing and seeding destructive ideologies and biological weapons, while those in power continue to bend the knee to them.

 

[Tombs]

Just playing devils advocate. What about Russia and China together? That doesn’t go too well in the simulations from what I’ve heard. Not predicting anything though.

Was Sun Tsu Chinese or Japanese?

China has no combat veterans and no experience in real warfare. Russia is so crippled from corruption that they can't even successfully invade a neighboring nation that is as corrupt and broken as they are.

They pose no real conventional military threat.

 

[Mij]

After reading all 3 pages, just to answer your question. YES.

 

[Wolfhound]

China has no combat veterans and no experience in real warfare. Russia is so crippled from corruption that they can't even successfully invade a neighboring nation that is as corrupt and broken as they are.

They pose no real conventional military threat.

I guess from an offensive standpoint talking purely conventional we wouldn’t be much of a threat to them either. Invading China would be suicidal from a manpower perspective and Russia is huge in terms of square miles. Russia might be doable but it would be costly and not remain conventional.

 

[Bugzilla]

Our failure in the Middle East stems, in part, from our failure to observe this simple axiom, ”There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” – Sun Tzu

Our failure in Vietnam also stems from Sun Tzu's observation that the entire army must be motivated from the top down by agreement on the moral action the army is taking.

.

But how can the military complex make billions if we don’t have prolonged warfare? I believe they were the most against Trump as he brought our boys home and had no major conflicts. Should have dropped a few more MOAB’s to keep the military complex happy

 

[Tombs]

I guess from an offensive standpoint talking purely conventional we wouldn’t be much of a threat to them either. Invading China would be suicidal from a manpower perspective and Russia is huge in terms of square miles. Russia might be doable but it would be costly and not remain conventional.

Not really.

China and Russia do not have very effective means of power projection. Meanwhile the US has centered its entire doctrine on power projection.

They're technologically in the stone age compared to us. They'd be rolled up about as easily as Iraq was, if nukes weren't a factor. Manpower doesn't mean much if your government and manufacturing abilities are destroyed within the first day of the war.

We wouldn't be seeking to nation build in such an instance, lol.

 

[Wolfhound]

Not really.

China and Russia do not have very effective means of power projection. Meanwhile the US has centered its entire doctrine on power projection.

They're technologically in the stone age compared to us. They'd be rolled up about as easily as Iraq was, if nukes weren't a factor. Manpower doesn't mean much if your government and manufacturing abilities are destroyed within the first day of the war.

We wouldn't be seeking to nation build in such an instance, lol.

I will respect your opinion but attempting to invade a nation of 1.6 billion people with a military of 1.4 million with let’s say 700k actual deployable combat troops probably wouldn’t end well. I hope we never find out. I love my grandchildren. For comparison Iraq’s population was just under 30 million when we invaded.

Interesting article on the 5 nations considered nearly impossible to conquer. USA, Russia and China all make the list. Along with India and Afghanistan.

The 5 countries that are most impossible to conquer

When it comes to having to defend their home turf, some countries are just not going to roll over for any reason. Read more on WATM.

www.wearethemighty.com

 

[Libertarian01]

Just playing devils advocate. What about Russia and China together? That doesn’t go too well in the simulations from what I’ve heard. Not predicting anything though.

Was Sun Tsu Chinese or Japanese?

Russia and China together threatening who, us?

So their combined navies... suck! The only way the Russians have a good navy is in American movies. The Russians have one (1) carrier. I don't fear it any more than the Ukrainians fear the Moskva (even IF they raise it from the bottom of the Black Sea.)

I don't know if the Russian trains could haul that many Chinese... And even if they could, where would they go? That is before we blew up their rail lines in a real war.

The Chinese have never broken through the first island chain. If they tried, Japan would do unto them today as they did in the 1930's. The Russians cannot get through Ukraine. Maybe combined they could march south through the Himalayan Mountains and invade India...? I doubt it.

Sun Tzu was Chinese. The Chinese don't listen to him today like we don't listen to Eisenhower or any of our other wise forefathers. The Japanese? They read Sun Tzu.

Again, for those who didn't read my first post - EITHER of these countries could cripple or destroy us with nuclear weapons, but take us?

Note: That presumes that when Russia launches their ICBM fleet it was better maintained than their other equipment, which I doubt.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Wolfhound]

Russia and China together threatening who, us?

So their combined navies... suck! The only way the Russians have a good navy is in American movies. The Russians have one (1) carrier. I don't fear it any more than the Ukrainians fear the Moskva (even IF they raise it from the bottom of the Black Sea.)

I don't know if the Russian trains could haul that many Chinese... And even if they could, where would they go? That is before we blew up their rail lines in a real war.

The Chinese have never broken through the first island chain. If they tried, Japan would do unto them today as they did in the 1930's. The Russians cannot get through Ukraine. Maybe combined they could march south through the Himalayan Mountains and invade India...? I doubt it.

Sun Tzu was Chinese. The Chinese don't listen to him today like we don't listen to Eisenhower or any of our other wise forefathers. The Japanese? They read Sun Tzu.

Again, for those who didn't read my first post - EITHER of these countries could cripple or destroy us with nuclear weapons, but take us?

Note: That presumes that when Russia launches their ICBM fleet it was better maintained than their other equipment, which I doubt.

Regards,

Doug

I think you missed the point. It’s not that the US could be invaded. It’s that there would be no way to win in that scenario. A stalemate would likely be the result with no clear victor in terms of invasion and unconditional surrender. The thread title is ”Could we WIN a real war”.

I definitely agree that our Navy and military in general is still the best in the world.

 

[Libertarian01]

I think you missed the point. It’s not that the US could be invaded. It’s that there would be no way to win in that scenario. A stalemate would likely be the result with no clear victor in terms of invasion and unconditional surrender. The thread title is ”Could we WIN a real war”.

I definitely agree that our Navy and military in general is still the best in the world.

Fair enough. In any war baring the use of nuclear weapons we would decisively destroy any nation silly enough to declare war or poke us hard enough for us to declare war.

Russia has shown that it sucks! It's as bad as the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. It is given a reputation it no longer deserves, save for brutality and willingness to commit war crimes.

China cannot march anywhere near us. China's navy cannot reach out at all. Their ships are far too puny. This ignores the fact that they have NO naval tradition or experience. By stopping the flow of oil into their country we can turn them off.

Japan has a good navy compared to the rest of the world. They have four (4) jump carriers. Compared to us? 1945 all over again.

Britain has two (2) carriers, each at 65k tons. We have eleven (11) Nimitz class carriers, each at 100k tons.

The French have one (1) carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. It weighs 45k tons, less than half of a Nimitz.

After them, what? Some Middle Eastern or African nation...?

Some may argue that I focus too much on the Navy, but to fight us a belligerent has to reach continental North America. They cannot. If one posits that they can destroy us overseas, our navy is more than capable of reaching out at touching someone almost anywhere in the world. Where the navy cannot go, stealth bombers can.

All of my arguments are presuming a stand up fight. In an insurgency that we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq we are not well suited for "winning" there. We lack the brutality of the Russians and lack the experience of the British Empire, or the French. An insurgency is an entirely different conflict. Americans lack the desire to occupy. We kicked out our occupiers in the Revolution and don't embrace that idea well.

I guess one of the hardest thoughts for me to embrace recently is that militarily, America is it! There is no other nation on earth comes near our ability to wage war. Heck, we could take on the combined navies of the rest of the planet and it wouldn't be close, we would stomp them. With naval victory would come overwhelming air superiority.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I didn't even go into the NSA's ability read Vladimir Putin's email. If we can read his what can't we read...?

 

[Wolfhound]

Fair enough. In any war baring the use of nuclear weapons we would decisively destroy any nation silly enough to declare war or poke us hard enough for us to declare war.

Russia has shown that it sucks! It's as bad as the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. It is given a reputation it no longer deserves, save for brutality and willingness to commit war crimes.

China cannot march anywhere near us. China's navy cannot reach out at all. Their ships are far too puny. This ignores the fact that they have NO naval tradition or experience. By stopping the flow of oil into their country we can turn them off.

Japan has a good navy compared to the rest of the world. They have four (4) jump carriers. Compared to us? 1945 all over again.

Britain has two (2) carriers, each at 65k tons. We have eleven (11) Nimitz class carriers, each at 100k tons.

The French have one (1) carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. It weighs 45k tons, less than half of a Nimitz.

After them, what? Some Middle Eastern or African nation...?

Some may argue that I focus too much on the Navy, but to fight us a belligerent has to reach continental North America. They cannot. If one posits that they can destroy us overseas, our navy is more than capable of reaching out at touching someone almost anywhere in the world. Where the navy cannot go, stealth bombers can.

All of my arguments are presuming a stand up fight. In an insurgency that we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq we are not well suited for "winning" there. We lack the brutality of the Russians and lack the experience of the British Empire, or the French. An insurgency is an entirely different conflict. Americans lack the desire to occupy. We kicked out our occupiers in the Revolution and don't embrace that idea well.

I guess one of the hardest thoughts for me to embrace recently is that militarily, America is it! There is no other nation on earth comes near our ability to wage war. Heck, we could take on the combined navies of the rest of the planet and it wouldn't be close, we would stomp them. With naval victory would come overwhelming air superiority.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I didn't even go into the NSA's ability read Vladimir Putin's email. If we can read his what can't we read...?

Good post and I agree with it.

My only concern is the social experiments being forced on our military and China’s steady growth towards matching our naval power. The “carrier killer” missiles are also concerning if they truly function as advertised.