Quote:
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