Could We Even Win a Real War

[buckwacker]

While reading through the military recruitment thread, thinking that's bad enough, I started thinking of other challenges to our success in fighting an actual war against another moderately equipped state with a sizeable population. Sovereign debt is near the highest it's ever been, but those other peaks came at the end of years long wars. I don't think we could fund an actual state on state war, without a collapse of our overleveraged government.

 

[BigRed]

A bunch of goat ****ers running around in dresses in central South Asia say, "No".

 

[Jeepster48439]

I don't think we can even win a make believe war.

 

[MCgrease08]

What's a "real war" mean to you? Like WWII or Vietnam?

If so, I'm not sure it matters. That's not how war is fought these days. Much more damage can be done using cyber attacks and technology than a bunch of dudes shooting at each other.

 

[Wolfhound]

I completely get the frustration. Our economy and leadership are not great right now. Probably downright bad actually.

But asking if we could win a war is similar to asking if you could win a gunfight. Too many variables. So yes, no and maybe.

 

[Bugzilla]

Divide the conflict land area in square miles by 10. That’s about how many MOAB’s we would need, plus a few aircraft and good pilots. Collateral damage may be high, but hay, it’s war.

 

[2in1evtime]

If war came to our soil it would be up to the population to defend our nation as our politicians have no backbone to defend us, Just look at what was elected this last election and all we hear are crickets from those that elected them!!!!!! Our military leadership is so woke they wont know how to win a war!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wolfhound]

Divide the conflict land area in square miles by 10. That’s about how many MOAB’s we would need, plus a few aircraft and good pilots. Collateral damage may be high, but hay, it’s war.

I looked into it and the only number I could find is 20 MOABs. So we have a few square miles covered. Sounds like we need to start mass production.

 

[HoughMade]

A better question is what does it mean to "win" a war?

Unconditional surrender? In a total war environment against non-fanatics, sure we could. However, no one has had the stomach to go "all in" since September 2, 1945 (maybe August 9, 1945).

The history of U.S. warfare since then has been trying to do just enough to reach near arbitrary political objectives. Even if the overall reason for the war was sound, time and time again politicians and generals have steadfastly refused to wage total war. I'm convinced that the generation of officers and politicians that came up in WWII never wanted the country to sacrifice in that way a again....and that was a dreadful mistake. That was passed on to every generation since.

So, we end up with military objectives that are pretty much always met because, literally, no one does it better. But, we don't get the "win" because we refuse to go far enough. Heck, even Churchill had to be talked into extensive bombing of France to prepare for D-Day because he thought it would make an enemy of the French people. I'm not sure we really know what it means to "win" anymore, at least not in the limited wars since WWII.

If you can't define what "winning" is and, whatever it is, it can't be obtained by killing people and breaking things, I don't know how you ever "win" a war. Note that "winning the peace" in WWII meant occupying Germany and Japan for years and essentially overseeing their laws and even writing them at times and essentially running their governments...and those are vastly different cultures than we have dealt with after the Korean War. I'll let you know when we are done occupying Germany and Japan, but I doubt it happens in my lifetime.

I would further note that the Korean War was, more or less, a stalemate, but one where we accomplished the stated goals of pushing the commies back into their own country. Why couldn't we accomplish in Vietnam what we did in Korea? Easy. Laos and Cambodia. There is no land route for insurgents or armies to get into South Korea. Control the border and the sea and you can defend South Korea. How do you do that with Vietnam when the politicians refuse to operate in Laos or Cambodia? We all know that the Viet Cong and even NVA could get into South Vietnam whenever they wanted because they freely operated in Laos and Cambodia.

Anyhoo, I guess we could theoretically come up with a fantasy idea what winning in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq would look like, but I'm not sure that anyone quite knows what true victory would be in those places in realistic terms.

 

[buckwacker]

What's a "real war" mean to you? Like WWII or Vietnam?

If so, I'm not sure it matters. That's not how war is saved these days. Much more damage can be done using cyber attacks and technology than a bunch of dudes shooting at each other.

A real war meaning state to state conventional war, rifles, tanks, bombers, fighters, submarines, etc, etc. The only real way to control territory.

 

[Leadeye]

A large conventional war will use up existing stocks way faster than they could be replaced so logistics would say that any large conventional conflict will be short. Modern weapons are way more accurate and effective than those of the past.

 

[buckwacker]

A better question is what does it mean to "win" a war?

Unconditional surrender? In a total war environment against non-fanatics, sure we could. However, no one has had the stomach to go "all in" since September 2, 1945 (maybe August 9, 1945).

The history of U.S. warfare since then has been trying to do just enough to reach near arbitrary political objectives. Even if the overall reason for the war was sound, time and time again politicians and generals have steadfastly refused to wage total war. I'm convinced that the generation of officers and politicians that came up in WWII never wanted the country to sacrifice in that way a again....and that was a dreadful mistake. That was passed on to every generation since.

So, we end up with military objectives that are pretty much always met because, literally, no one does it better. But, we don't get the "win" because we refuse to go far enough. Heck, even Churchill had to be talked into extensive bombing of France to prepare for D-Day because he thought it would make an enemy of the French people. I'm not sure we really know what it means to "win" anymore, at least not in the limited wars since WWII.

If you can't define what "winning" is and, whatever it is, it can't be obtained by killing people and breaking things, I don't know how you ever "win" a war. Note that "winning the peace" in WWII meant occupying Germany and Japan for years and essentially overseeing their laws and even writing them at times and essentially running their governments...and those are vastly different cultures than we have dealt with after the Korean War. I'll let you know when we are done occupying Germany and Japan, but I doubt it happens in my lifetime.

I would further note that the Korean War was, more or less, a stalemate, but one where we accomplished the stated goals of pushing the commies back into their own country. Why couldn't we accomplish in Vietnam what we did in Korea? Easy. Laos and Cambodia. There is no land route for insurgents or armies to get into South Korea. Control the border and the sea and you can defend South Korea. How do you do that with Vietnam when the politicians refuse to operate in Laos or Cambodia? We all know that the Viet Cong and even NVA could get into South Vietnam whenever they wanted because they freely operated in Laos and Cambodia.

Anyhoo, I guess we could theoretically come up with a fantasy idea what winning in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq would look like, but I'm not sure that anyone quite knows what true victory would be in those places in realistic terms.

Maybe I should have just said "successfully wage" a conventional war. My point was that at the beginning of every conventional war we've been engaged in over the last century or more, our debt to GDP was nowhere near what it is today. The closest we came to this level of debt was the END of WWII. It's been said that a significant factor in deciding to go nuclear on Japan was that the accumulated war debt had pushed the US to the brink of financial collapse, and prolonging the war would have pushed us over the edge. We HAD to end the war quickly to survive financially.

Starting a war in such a precarious fiscal position seems foolish. It makes me wonder, where lie the loyalties of those attempting to light the fires of WWIII.

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe I should have just said "successfully wage" a conventional war. My point was that at the beginning of every conventional war we've been engaged in over the last century or more, our debt to GDP was nowhere near what it is today. The closest we came to this level of debt was the END of WWII. It's been said that a significant factor in deciding to go nuclear on Japan was that the accumulated war debt had pushed the US to the brink of financial collapse, and prolonging the war would have pushed us over the edge. We HAD to end the war quickly to survive financially.

Starting a war in such a precarious fiscal position seems foolish. It makes me wonder, where lie the loyalties of those attempting to light the fires of WWIII.

I think we could. I'll use this inflation adjusted old saying:

When you owe the bank a billion, the bank owns you. When you owe the bank several trillion, you own the bank.

 

[Ark]

Have we even developed and successfully fielded a major new weapons system or ship class in the last 15 years? Emphasis on successfully?

I have very little faith, and after the debasement inflicted on our currency by QE and coof, we couldn't pay for it anyway. Or fuel it, thanks to Biden.

 

[buckwacker]

I think we could. I'll use this inflation adjusted old saying:

When you owe the bank a billion, the bank owns you. When you owe the bank several trillion, you own the bank.

Well when the government is the bank, who owns who?

 

[snapping turtle]

If war came to our soil it would be up to the population to defend our nation as our politicians have no backbone to defend us, Just look at what was elected this last election and all we hear are crickets from those that elected them!!!!!! Our military leadership is so woke they wont know how to win a war!!!!!!!!!!!

Let’s say “red dawn” happened. Russian’s Cuban’s North Korea’s and Chinese troops invaded somehow. The government is in disrepair and scattered or dead.

Do we have say mechanics to repair old planes to drop even 55 gallon drum bombs From piper cubs? Do we have the ability to produce gun ‘s and ammo if we can’t get steel from China or drill bits from Germany? Will the teenage “wolverines “ put down the game controller long enough to fight or even load a truck with supplies? Can we ramp up the female population into factory workers as we did in WW 2? Do we even have the manufacturing plants to ramp up?

if all imports go away do we have gas, transformers, electrical cable, starters, pumps, dam control, railroad spikes or track, ect. You get the idea.

i don’t really worry much about an invasion like “red dawn” cause we are in a wonderful area geographically with two neighbors and two oceans.

 

[Wolfhound]

God help us.

For comparison my unit July 1989….

 

[buckwacker]

Have we even developed and successfully fielded a major new weapons system or ship class in the last 15 years? Emphasis on successfully?

I have very little faith, and after the debasement inflicted on our currency by QE and coof, we couldn't pay for it anyway. Or fuel it, thanks to Biden.

I work for a defense contractor, your lack of faith is not unfounded. It's another reason I worry about our success in a traditional conflict.

 

[blue2golf]

View attachment 228573
God help us.

For comparison my unit July 1989….
View attachment 228579

Battling Bastards of Wonju, Team Spirit '91

 

[Creedmoor]

Todays Infantry Marines are Still Marines.