The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

The ability to destroy key infrastructure today is so much advanced that it is essentially unstoppable.

In the realm of conventional warfare that's just not true.

If it were, then NATO efforts in Trial Hammer 05 using the legacy Slovak owned and Soviet made S300 missile system would not have been such a strong priority, nor would there have been such strong diplomatic(and otherwise) efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring the S300 system, then and still now.

The US(and other nations) have invested VERY heavily in recent decades on extremely capable missile defense systems whose purpose is to protect extremely high value infrastructure.

However, the ability to conquer and rule is lower than ever before.

You are confusing the word ability with the word will.

While total military headcount in most western nations is decreasing, reducing some capability in some missions, it largely refers to their reduced ability to hold ground, while their ability to seize it remains.

IF the WILL existed to match the existing ability, seizing(but particularly HOLDING) ground becomes much easier.....but that's not a world in which we would want to live.

That's why the US is only able to beat up on 3rd tier militaries; even a 2nd tier military presents unacceptable risk of severe losses.

Again you are confusing the word able with the word willing...and even then it's debatable.

When the US led coalition initiated Desert Storm they were opposing one of the world's largest and best defended military networks in the world.

Iraq's military post Iran-Iraq War possessed a substantial combat experienced military that possessed considerable quantitative and qualitative capabilities. Amongst the largest militaries in the world, possessing some of the most capable weapons systems in the world, and plenty of actual operational experience in using them.

The former Yugoslavia possessed considerable capabilities(including high level domestic military manufacturing) broken into pieces, with some of the biggest and best held by Serbia...which were decisively "reduced".

The much more seriously impaired Iraq and Iraqi military in 2003 required only 6 weeks to be seized by a significantly undermanned break-in force. Conventional military doctrine is to possess a minimum of a 3 to 1 numerical advantage for offensive operations.....the US used only a fraction of that.


And even for those 3rd tier militaries, what the formal militaries were unable to accomplish, the informal ones have been and continue to do so.

Have a rethink about your choice of the word ability and the more accurate replacement with the word will.

Equally so in the past it required significant state effort to fight a war: to gather the logistics, build the equipment, build up armies, etc etc.

Today it is quite apparent that small subsegments of the population are perfectly able to build weapons, train, and coordinate without this huge logistics tail.

That is incorrect.

"Time and space" appreciation is what you will often hear from folks in the military who are trying to perform an appreciation of the job in front of them.

While the US military(and many other militaries around the world) have shrunk considerably in total head count, they have increased capability significantly in many(though not all) respects.

But the weapons systems those smaller number of military personnel use as a force multiplier to dominate the battlespace are not only horrendously expensive, but more importantly take an incredibly long TIME to develop and field.

If a MAJOR conflict erupted tomorrow....everyone will fight with what they've already got. Unless we engage in a long and protracted conventional conflict lasting many months to years we would not likely see much beyond some ramped up munitions production capacity and some "work in process" weapons systems nearly through the production line deployed as attrition replacements.

The time it takes to accelerate production of a major weapon system is considerable.....you're talking anywhere from many months to many years for additional complex weapon systems to make it into the field.

It's also worth noting that the horrific hijacking of the US political process comes into play as well....in the form of defense subcontractors organized not necessarily for maximum manufacturing efficiency, but for political purposes(political district jobs) at times compounding the problem.

[c1ue]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

In the realm of conventional warfare that's just not true.

If it were, then NATO efforts in Trial Hammer 05 using the legacy Slovak owned and Soviet made S300 missile system would not have been such a strong priority, nor would there have been such strong diplomatic(and otherwise) efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring the S300 system, then and still now.

The US(and other nations) have invested VERY heavily in recent decades on extremely capable missile defense systems whose purpose is to protect extremely high value infrastructure.

You are confusing the desire of the US to preserve a low cost, low risk capability to destroy Iranian infrastructure in the face of a single S300 system, or perhaps a handful of S300 systems, vs. the ability of the US to destroy the infrastructure anywhere in the world if that is the over-riding policy goal.

The same could be said, to a lesser degree, to other militarily advanced nations with respect to US infrastructure. Consider the destruction of a handful of objectives would mean for the US economy: Hoover dam, electrical grid choke points, interstate bridges across the Mississippi, etc etc.

As another example, examine the US losses in Vietnam when performing strategic bombing.

You are confusing the word ability with the word will.

While total military headcount in most western nations is decreasing, reducing some capability in some missions, it largely refers to their reduced ability to hold ground, while their ability to seize it remains.

IF the WILL existed to match the existing ability, seizing(but particularly HOLDING) ground becomes much easier.....but that's not a world in which we would want to live.

You're confusing the word 'seize' with conquer and rule.

The terms are completely separate.

Terrorists can seize a hotel in Kabul, but that isn't conquering and ruling it. Similarly the US could seize control of the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, but cannot conquer or rule it.

In contrast the Romans, the Normans, etc etc were able to seize and hold territories for centuries or even millenia until assimilation.

Again you are confusing the word able with the word willing...and even then it's debatable.

When the US led coalition initiated Desert Storm they were opposing one of the world's largest and best defended military networks in the world.

Iraq's military post Iran-Iraq War possessed a substantial combat experienced military that possessed considerable quantitative and qualitative capabilities. Amongst the largest militaries in the world, possessing some of the most capable weapons systems in the world, and plenty of actual operational experience in using them.

The former Yugoslavia possessed considerable capabilities(including high level domestic military manufacturing) broken into pieces, with some of the biggest and best held by Serbia...which were decisively "reduced".

The much more seriously impaired Iraq and Iraqi military in 2003 required only 6 weeks to be seized by a significantly undermanned break-in force. Conventional military doctrine is to possess a minimum of a 3 to 1 numerical advantage for offensive operations.....the US used only a fraction of that.

I think it is interesting that you're trying to play up Iraq's and Yugoslavia's capabilities.

Both nations were using foreign purchased/acquired technology, and both nations' military technology was literally decades out of date.

Serbia/Yugoslavia was a leader in anti-aircraft missile systems? In aircraft production and operation? In heavy military equipment like tanks? I think not.

The Soviet Union was very careful to preserve its development and manufacturing capabilities for these systems in its core territories, which Yugoslavia/Serbia most definitely was not. Stalin was to Tito was Mao was to Kim.

Equally so I disagree that the mere existence of hundreds or thousands of obsolete export grade ex-Soviet weapons is to any significant degree an indicator of military capability. Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein had largely severed ties with the Soviet Union in favor of receiving American money as an inducement to fight Iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...#8211;Iraq_war

Thus Desert Storm was against an Iraqi military under many of the same types of constraints as Iran during the Iran/Iraq war: no outside support and no access to parts supplies for foreign made equipment. Sure, the ground-pound aspect was relatively strong vs. another 2nd or 3rd tier nation, but you'll have to do a lot more explaining to convince me that Iraq in any way was in a position to threaten US air superiority or successfully engage 1 on 1 with US armored vehicles.

Have a rethink about your choice of the word ability and the more accurate replacement with the word will.

So you're saying that the US could fully occupy Iraq and Afghanistan if only the will were there?

I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree; if 200,000 troops is not an expression of will, then I don't know what is.

For that matter, 500,000 troops in Vietnam didn't work. Why do you think it is different this time?

If a MAJOR conflict erupted tomorrow....everyone will fight with what they've already got. Unless we engage in a long and protracted conventional conflict lasting many months to years we would not likely see much beyond some ramped up munitions production capacity and some "work in process" weapons systems nearly through the production line deployed as attrition replacements.

The time it takes to accelerate production of a major weapon system is considerable.....you're talking anywhere from many months to many years for additional complex weapon systems to make it into the field.

These statements are symptomatic of a Cold War mentality, one which is thoroughly out of date.

For one thing, there are no nations in the world - with the possible exception of the US - that still thinks it is either realistic or worthwhile to engage in wars of conquest.

Thus the 'complex weapon systems' you speak of exist only because the US continues to try and create ever more powerful weapon systems to fight imaginary conflicts.

What exactly do these complex weapon systems have to do with the actual conflicts the US is engaged in now or might conceivably be engaged in?

What need is there for an F-35 when the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore? The same can be said for naval, armored vehicle, or any other 'heavy metal' weapons.

My comment was in reference to reality: the 'insurgents' in Iraq and Afghanistan are innovating daily. They've gone from factory produced land mines, to jury rigged conventional artillery, to kitchen sink created, cell phone or wifi detonated IEDs.

They've gone back to guerrilla warfare and 'hearts and minds' a la Mao even as the US continues to reprise its Vietnam experience - only with drones rather than B52 bombers.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

you are confusing the desire of the us to preserve a low cost, low risk capability to destroy iranian infrastructure in the face of a single s300 system, or perhaps a handful of s300 systems, vs. The ability of the us to destroy the infrastructure anywhere in the world if that is the over-riding policy goal.

The same could be said, to a lesser degree, to other militarily advanced nations with respect to us infrastructure. Consider the destruction of a handful of objectives would mean for the us economy: Hoover dam, electrical grid choke points, interstate bridges across the mississippi, etc etc.

As another example, examine the us losses in vietnam when performing strategic bombing.

I'm not confusing anything.......however I am becoming confused by your incessant and repeated need to argue for the sake of arguing(see below).

I don't see the relevancy of us losses in vietnam. I don't need to examine them. The US lost considerable numbers of airframes both fixed wing and rotary wing. Since that time the us has suffered quite low relative airframe losses in conflict even against capable enemies in Iraq and former Yugoslavia which both possessed dense air defense networks with considerable capability.


you're confusing the word 'seize' with conquer and rule.

I'm not confusing anything, this is simply a counter accusation without merit.

As both student and practitioner: Seize is to conquer as hold is to rule. I was correct in my original post as I am here. You are again arguing for the sake of arguing which is a complete waste of time.

The US has within it's ability to both seize and hold. It has dedicated the resources to seizing iraq and afghanistan.....it has not dedicated the resources to holding them.

The resources required to hold them are beyond the cost the US is willing to spend. And that includes sufficient will.......mass genocide isn't a cost the US is willing to spend.

"To seize" from a military standpoint does not imply hold or hold permanently. I can be ordered to seize an objective(say a 800m feature). I can then be ordered to move my forces to seize another objective(say a 1000m feature 2km away). The order to "hold" terrain is a separate action from "seize".

Much as conquer and rule are two separate actions.


the terms are completely separate.

I'm aware of that, as i've stated before and once again above.....seize is to conquer as hold is to rule. I also posted this in my last post which you must have overlooked:

"IF the WILL existed to match the existing ability, seizing(but particularly HOLDING) ground becomes much easier.....but that's not a world in which we would want to live."

terrorists can seize a hotel in kabul, but that isn't conquering and ruling it. Similarly the us could seize control of the ground in iraq and afghanistan, but cannot conquer or rule it.

In contrast the romans, the normans, etc etc were able to seize and hold territories for centuries or even millenia until assimilation.

I think you should consider stepping away from your self-imposed role as teacher on this forum.

You can't even acknowledge your error in confusing ability with will. You clearly seem to be writing(talking) more than reading(listening).

i think it is interesting that you're trying to play up iraq's and yugoslavia's capabilities.

Both nations were using foreign purchased/acquired technology, and both nations' military technology was literally decades out of date.

you are incorrect.

The iraqis spent tens of billions in 1980's dollars, tens of billions on acquiring quite advanced weapon systems, everything from state of the art world leading south african artillery, late model french f1 fighter planes, soviet mig29 fighters first exported to iraq outside warsaw pact, late gen soviet surface to air missile systems, french c3i network, soviet hind gunships, first su24 and su25 deep strike and cas aircraft outside the warsaw pact, etc. The military hardened basing/logistics infrastructure in iraq was world class. I never said the Iraqis represented an existential threat to the US, but they were effectively a "honey badger" in their invasion of Kuwait. In order to forcibly remove them it took considerable effort. Your description of the situation makes it sound like a boy scout troop could have knocked over Iraq.

In that regard you are completely mistaken.


serbia/yugoslavia was a leader in anti-aircraft missile systems? In aircraft production and operation? In heavy military equipment like tanks? I think not.

You are incorrect.

The serbs managed to shoot down a f117 stealth fighter at night using modified legacy soviet sam systems coupled with outside the square thinking and c3i.

Yugoslavia also produced indigenous combat aircraft via it's considerable military manufacturing capability.....that produced everything from small arms, to military grade radios/electronic warfare, to submarines, to modern main battle tanks.

Yugoslavia was also a major contractor to iraq for it's military hardened basing and logistics.

Yugoslavia was a MAJOR manufacturer/exporter of modern, complex, and capable weapon systems


the soviet union was very careful to preserve its development and manufacturing capabilities for these systems in its core territories, which yugoslavia/serbia most definitely was not. Stalin was to tito was mao was to kim.

Equally so i disagree that the mere existence of hundreds or thousands of obsolete export grade ex-soviet weapons is to any significant degree an indicator of military capability. Let's not forget that saddam hussein had largely severed ties with the soviet union in favor of receiving american money as an inducement to fight iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/united_..._iran–iraq_war

thus desert storm was against an iraqi military under many of the same types of constraints as iran during the iran/iraq war: No outside support and no access to parts supplies for foreign made equipment. Sure, the ground-pound aspect was relatively strong vs. Another 2nd or 3rd tier nation, but you'll have to do a lot more explaining to convince me that iraq in any way was in a position to threaten us air superiority or successfully engage 1 on 1 with us armored vehicles.

you'll excuse me if i don't regard your post above as having much credibility with the rather substantial holes in it.

The us sold iraq some duel use helicopters.......but you completely neglect to mention(or simply don't comprehend) the staggering levels(tens of billions) of modern military equipment sold to iraq during the 1970's-1980's.

Iraq purchased and received(with substantial seller support) enough modern weapons in sufficient quantity to successfully engage the largest and most modern military force in the middle east. Iraq went toe to toe against iran whose military spending spree was off the charts, so much so that without iranian support(pre iranian revolution) a number of us and uk defense contractors were at risk of bankruptcy without iranian support. Everything from f14 fighters with phoenix missile systems thru to thousands of chieftain tanks and hundreds of late model heavy lift and attack helos.

If iraq only had ancient monkey model weapon systems it would have been slaughtered by the iranians.

It also wouldn't have been able to successfully engage the USS Stark and nearly sink it, it wouldn't have had thousands of it's personnel being trained in France/USSR as well as thousands of technical support staff from France/USSR during the conflict with Iran. iraq possessed broad and deep war stocks of munitions and critical spare parts.

This is simply another example of your choice to cherry pick in order to argue points for the sake of arguing points.....another example of your desire to "win" on this forum as opposed to what most people are here for, which is learning.

so you're saying that the us could fully occupy iraq and afghanistan if only the will were there?

I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree; if 200,000 troops is not an expression of will, then i don't know what is.

For that matter, 500,000 troops in vietnam didn't work. Why do you think it is different this time?

here's another example of your contradictory and intentionally argumentative behavior on this forum.

You claim in previous posts the only way it's possible to win against an insurgency is to liquidate the opposition.

Yet when i accurately claim "not a problem of ability but sufficient will" which can include such horrific things as genocide.....i'm still wrong....or at best you choose to "agree to disagree".

these statements are symptomatic of a cold war mentality, one which is thoroughly out of date.

For one thing, there are no nations in the world - with the possible exception of the us - that still thinks it is either realistic or worthwhile to engage in wars of conquest.

Really? Forever? Or just for a few years? Do we have that in writing somewhere? How long has humanity been murdering each other? So we've decided to stop? Really? Was a memo sent out? I must have missed that one.

I'm sorry for sounding so facetious......but this is just silly. While I do not wish for further conflict, do you actually believe humanity has evolved beyond war? You should look at a conflict map.

Thus the 'complex weapon systems' you speak of exist only because the us continues to try and create ever more powerful weapon systems to fight imaginary conflicts.

I'm no fan of silly defense projects, but every nation has the right to protect their sovereignty and their interests. Unfortunately, with us being warlike humans we don't always agree peacefully and require a means of deterrence. I'd be happy to lay down my rifle if you could convince the world to settle it's differences over a game of Chess or Twister. Until such time, you will continue to think it silly for countries to possess credible deterrents.

What exactly do these complex weapon systems have to do with the actual conflicts the us is engaged in now or might conceivably be engaged in?

What need is there for an f-35 when the soviet union doesn't exist anymore? The same can be said for naval, armored vehicle, or any other 'heavy metal' weapons.

My comment was in reference to reality: The 'insurgents' in iraq and afghanistan are innovating daily. They've gone from factory produced land mines, to jury rigged conventional artillery, to kitchen sink created, cell phone or wifi detonated ieds.

They've gone back to guerrilla warfare and 'hearts and minds' a la mao even as the us continues to reprise its vietnam experience - only with drones rather than b52 bombers.

c1ue....I give up.......this thread has turned into another perfect example of your motivation on this forum being to "win" rather than "learn".

I try to learn from everyone on this forum, including you....no matter how hard you make it at times.

Is it THAT inconceivable I might be able to offer something of value to you? In your mind it would appear to be so.

You ask what the need is for major weapon systems in a world of asymmetric warfare?

If you had as good of a comprehension of conflict as you aggressively and assertively imply in your posts, you would know the answer.

Which is the next war is often quite different from the last. Which means if we are engaged in asymmetric warfare today, there's a better than zero chance we could be engaged in a large scale conventional conflict with a peer or near peer tomorrow.

You tell me to examine US aircraft losses in Vietnam when I already know how high they were....and how low they have been since in conflict(relatively speaking), and you question WHY the US produces gold plated systems????

Isn't it obvious?

It's because they WORK...and they've been able to successfully mitigate considerable casualties in conventional operations. Be it the destruction of the Baghdad air defense network in 1991, the air campaign over Yugoslavia in 1999, Libya in 2011, or even just comparing rotary wing helo losses between Vietnam and more recent campaigns....rotary wing losses were horrific in Vietnam.....while there have been some tragic high profile losses, overall...the loss rate is far better than previous conflicts.....and that's not just numbers found on the internet...that's straight from an Apache pilot friend currently serving in Afghanistan on his 5th year deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years.

Those gold plated weapon systems:

Carrier battle groups......those are highly visible projections of US diplomacy and hegemony around the world....they are high profile moveable "States" and floating embassies of the USA.

the ones below.....

F22 Raptor
Los Angeles/Seawolf/Virginia class attack submarines
B2 Stealth Bomber

.....these are the weapon systems of conventional battle space dominance that deter peers and near peers....light years away from current or projected peer or near peer capability....which also offers some substantial if less overt diplomatic value.

IF there is a real war looming these will help "win" or deter it.


And ALL this over your inability to acknowledge the key difference between the words ability and will.

[c1ue]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

I don't see the relevancy of us losses in vietnam. I don't need to examine them. The US lost considerable numbers of airframes both fixed wing and rotary wing. Since that time the us has suffered quite low relative airframe losses in conflict even against capable enemies in Iraq and former Yugoslavia which both possessed dense air defense networks with considerable capability.

The relevancy of US losses in Vietnam would seem to be obvious. Vietnam was a testing ground for state of the art anti-aircraft systems; the large US losses - as you yourself admit - did not in any way deter the US from attacking and destroying Vietnam's infrastructure.

What I have been pointing out is that the US has the identical capability today: it can still destroy - or at least very significantly degrade - any other nation's infrastructure if the US is willing to suffer significant military losses.

As both student and practitioner: Seize is to conquer as hold is to rule. I was correct in my original post as I am here. You are again arguing for the sake of arguing which is a complete waste of time.

The US has within it's ability to both seize and hold. It has dedicated the resources to seizing iraq and afghanistan.....it has not dedicated the resources to holding them.

The resources required to hold them are beyond the cost the US is willing to spend. And that includes sufficient will.......mass genocide isn't a cost the US is willing to spend.

The first part, I agree with.

The second, I do not. The US has demonstrated zero capability to hold - yet you keep asserting that it can.

You're saying that 200K plus troops in Iraq for 7+ years is not a commitment - perhaps you might outline what exactly is a commitment then. While you're at it, perhaps you can also outline the political and societal circumstances in which the US would want to make this much larger commitment.

Again, Vietnam is a prime example of a larger commitment - one which ultimately proved both fiscally and politically unsustainable. The Vietnam conflict, however, was not that much larger in terms of actual troop vs. population deployments vs. Iraq. Unlike Vietnam the actual numbers of Americans on the ground in Iraq was minimized through the use of 'civilian' contractors.

The last point then reiterates what I had already noted: the US is unable to conquer and rule Iraq. So you're in agreement - only noting that if somehow the conquest of Iraq was the single greatest overriding need for the US, that it could be done.

Given that this hypothetical scenario is completely speculative and poorly grounded - especially given the post 9/11 charter granted to Bush which was expended on the Iraq invasion - I'd suggest that you'd need to be a lot more clear on how and why your belief on the US' ability to 'conquer and rule' in Iraq is what you say it is.

I think you should consider stepping away from your self-imposed role as teacher on this forum.

You can't even acknowledge your error in confusing ability with will. You clearly seem to be writing(talking) more than reading(listening).

I think you're trying to use semantics to avoid the actual point.

I clearly stated 'conquer and rule' - and you've tried several times to lecture me on the difference between the two. Given that I'm not stating only one or the other, this semantic exercise is interesting but irrelevant.

You also are attempting to assumptively close that the US can both conquer and rule - when in fact this is anything but proven.

The iraqis spent tens of billions in 1980's dollars, tens of billions on acquiring quite advanced weapon systems, everything from state of the art world leading south african artillery, late model french f1 fighter planes, soviet mig29 fighters first exported to iraq outside warsaw pact, late gen soviet surface to air missile systems, french c3i network, soviet hind gunships, first su24 and su25 deep strike and cas aircraft outside the warsaw pact, etc. The military hardened basing/logistics infrastructure in iraq was world class. I never said the Iraqis represented an existential threat to the US, but they were effectively a "honey badger" in their invasion of Kuwait. In order to forcibly remove them it took considerable effort. Your description of the situation makes it sound like a boy scout troop could have knocked over Iraq.

Tens of billions sounds like a lot - except you've failed to provide the time frame for said expenditure. Was it an annual expense? Was it over decades? How much of this was Iraq's expenditures in the Iran/Iraq war?

As for the weapons systems, you still didn't respond to another point I made: that the systems Iraq purchased were export grade. Surely you're not going to assert that the US, when selling weapons systems abroad, sells the exact same state of the art as is employed at home? The USSR and its successor state certainly did not.

As for the hardware: the Su-24 first came out in 1974, the Su-25 first came out in 1978, the Mi-24 (Hind) came out in 1972. The Mig 29s you refer to were first used in the Iran-Iraq war - a full decade before the US 2nd conflict with Iraq. The 'late model' F1's you refer to - the last one was produced in 1983, and one Iraqi F1 was 'shot down' by an unarmed American F-111.

Hardly a shining set of examples of Iraq's military forwardness.

The serbs managed to shoot down a f117 stealth fighter at night using modified legacy soviet sam systems coupled with outside the square thinking and c3i.

I actually looked into this when it happened out of personal curiosity. The means by which the F117 was shot down was by no means standard, and was further enabled by extremely stupid tactical deployment. So basically you had a SAM system tweaked by a super experienced and smart unit leader shooting at an F117 that had put itself into a fish bowl, and even then he got damned lucky.

The impression I got from this was that it is not repeatable, especially if stupidity on the part of the F117 deployers isn't ongoing.

Yugoslavia also produced indigenous combat aircraft via it's considerable military manufacturing capability.....that produced everything from small arms, to military grade radios/electronic warfare, to submarines, to modern main battle tanks.

Yugoslavia was also a major contractor to iraq for it's military hardened basing and logistics.

Yugoslavia was a MAJOR manufacturer/exporter of modern, complex, and capable weapon systems

Yugoslavia made all sorts of 2nd rate military systems. The mere fact that it made them does not in any way translate into (2nd Iraq conflict era) modern military systems. This is compounded by the reality of the USSR's wind-down; let's not forget that Gorbachev and perestroika started in 1985.

So if you want to point to Yugoslavia as a military manufacturer of first rate - perhaps this might have been true in the 1950s.

It was not true at any time after the 1970s.

you'll excuse me if i don't regard your post above as having much credibility with the rather substantial holes in it.

The us sold iraq some duel use helicopters.......but you completely neglect to mention(or simply don't comprehend) the staggering levels(tens of billions) of modern military equipment sold to iraq during the 1970's-1980's.

Iraq purchased and received(with substantial seller support) enough modern weapons in sufficient quantity to successfully engage the largest and most modern military force in the middle east. Iraq went toe to toe against iran whose military spending spree was off the charts, so much so that without iranian support(pre iranian revolution) a number of us and uk defense contractors were at risk of bankruptcy without iranian support. Everything from f14 fighters with phoenix missile systems thru to thousands of chieftain tanks and hundreds of late model heavy lift and attack helos.

If iraq only had ancient monkey model weapon systems it would have been slaughtered by the iranians.

It also wouldn't have been able to successfully engage the USS Stark and nearly sink it, it wouldn't have had thousands of it's personnel being trained in France/USSR as well as thousands of technical support staff from France/USSR during the conflict with Iran. iraq possessed broad and deep war stocks of munitions and critical spare parts.

As I noted above, the 'staggering' levels of spending you speak of are not nearly so staggering considering Iraq fought a near decade long war with a neighbor who was literally more than twice its size.

It is interesting that you are pointing out Iran was supported - are you telling me that the US was permitting US and/or NATO defense contractors to continue to sell parts and supplies to Iran despite the outright hostilities?

Quite a strong statement that requires some evidence. Sure, Iran certainly had at least some stockpiles since the Iranian Revolution was only 2 years before the outbreak of the Iran/Iraq war, but then again, outright conflict - as you presumably know - is far more demanding of military equipment than peacetime.

Either way - it is a very, very long stretch for you to say Iraq was such a technological powerhouse when it was unable to prevail in its war with Iran - despite Iran's literal military supplier isolation. Especially given the SuperCobra, F14, and F15 successes against successive waves of Russian export grade equipment.

here's another example of your contradictory and intentionally argumentative behavior on this forum.

You claim in previous posts the only way it's possible to win against an insurgency is to liquidate the opposition.

Yet when i accurately claim "not a problem of ability but sufficient will" which can include such horrific things as genocide.....i'm still wrong....or at best you choose to "agree to disagree".

I don't see the contradiction whatsoever.

Are you seriously trying to say that there is any conceivable situation in the present or near future where the US political system AND society will be willing to engage in genocide? This isn't a case of expropriating neighboring Native Americans' land.

I don't believe there is any even remotely realistic scenario whatsoever where Americans would be willing to support genocide. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like are categorically not even debatable.

Really? Forever? Or just for a few years? Do we have that in writing somewhere? How long has humanity been murdering each other? So we've decided to stop? Really? Was a memo sent out? I must have missed that one.

I'm sorry for sounding so facetious......but this is just silly. While I do not wish for further conflict, do you actually believe humanity has evolved beyond war? You should look at a conflict map.

I'm completely unsure what you're trying to say.

In what way is the United States threatened militarily in the next generation (35 years)?

Is Mexico or Canada going to invade?

Have 'them Communists' just put up Sputnik? Deployed a new technology or weapons systems which threatens in any way US military superiority? Is anyone spending even 1/5th as much as the US?

I've never said the US should not spend anything on defense. Your ongoing refusal to even consider the possibility that the US is spending far too much on defense undermines any possibility of objectivity on your part, especially given that the US is spending more on 'defense' than the entire rest of the world by a significant margin.

You ask what the need is for major weapon systems in a world of asymmetric warfare?

I'm not asking a generic question - I'm asking very specific questions. What exactly does an F35 do for asymmetric warfare? Or gigantic new other weapons systems, whether carriers or whatever?

Which means if we are engaged in asymmetric warfare today, there's a better than zero chance we could be engaged in a large scale conventional conflict with a peer or near peer tomorrow.

This is quite nonsensical. Perhaps you can explain how the Iraqis and Afghans/Pashtuns are going to morph from guerrillas to conventional combatants against the US military.

Or are you referring to China? Where exactly is China supporting asymmetric warfare against the US or US allies? And even were this to be the case, does China have any realistic military capability outside its immediate region?

What other peers and near peers are you referring to? The Arabs? Even disregarding the utter lunacy of even thinking the ridonkulously disparate Arab-speaking peoples could unite, the reality is that even such an imaginatively created Islamic Empire would have no manufacturing capability to speak of. There are huge societal, infrastructure, education, and so on and so forth hurdles that the Arab speaking nations have to overcome that it isn't even funny.

The entire Arab league is only slightly larger in population than the United States. The GDP comparison is 25 to 1 in the US' favor. etc etc.

You tell me to examine US aircraft losses in Vietnam when I already know how high they were....and how low they have been since in conflict(relatively speaking), and you question WHY the US produces gold plated systems????

Let's see the many flaws in this series of statements:

1) North Vietnam supported not so clandestinely by the USSR and China. Where are the not-so clandestine supporters these days? Oh right, they're the US allies of Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

2) No more Soviet Union. No more gigantic block of humanity engaged in supposed 'anti-American' activities.

3) Despite the best the Soviet Union and China could do, the US could still bomb North Vietnam with impunity, if not without cost.

4) Despite the bombing with impunity, the US still lost.

So what exactly is the benefit of gold plated weapons systems?

It's because they WORK...and they've been able to successfully mitigate considerable casualties in conventional operations. Be it the destruction of the Baghdad air defense network in 1991, the air campaign over Yugoslavia in 1999, Libya in 2011, or even just comparing rotary wing helo losses between Vietnam and more recent campaigns....rotary wing losses were horrific in Vietnam.....while there have been some tragic high profile losses, overall...the loss rate is far better than previous conflicts.....and that's not just numbers found on the internet...that's straight from an Apache pilot friend currently serving in Afghanistan on his 5th year deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years.

I don't debate the gold plated weapons systems reduce US casualties.

However, the purpose of military conflict isn't to rack up kill ratios. It is to accomplish geopolitical goals.

Have these gold plated weapons systems produced a more stable Iraq? A more stable Afghanistan? A lasting friendship with Pashtun, Arab, Farsi, or other language speaking peoples?

Are these gold plated weapons systems needed to defend against an inimicable enemy? Who is this enemy?

Just because some Apache pilot can shoot up AK armed villagers using his night vision goggle and gatling gun doen't in and of itself accomplish a damn thing, as is clearly being demonstrated in Afghanistan and was demonstrated in Iraq.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

The relevancy of US losses in Vietnam would seem to be obvious.

Considering how this entire mess has spun out of control due to your failure to acknowledge the critical difference between "ability" and "will" it is far from obvious.

Vietnam was a testing ground for state of the art anti-aircraft systems; the large US losses - as you yourself admit - did not in any way deter the US from attacking and destroying Vietnam's infrastructure.

North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure didn't receive the full weight of impact from US forces until the Linebacker II raids of late 1972. Until that time, air raids beyond Close Air Support(CAS) along the Forward Edge Battle Area(FEBA) were quite often politically controlled and quite restrained. Linebacker II was the first mass and concerted attack on North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure and it brought North Vietnam back to the negotiating table in 11 days.

What I have been pointing out is that the US has the identical capability today: it can still destroy - or at least very significantly degrade - any other nation's infrastructure if the US is willing to suffer significant military losses.

US capability is not identical......if it were, then US losses would be significantly greater than those suffered since Vietnam. Doctrine to attack a nation's strategic infrastructure during Vietnam was based around the use of nuclear weapons. The employment of conventional weapons and even first generation precision guided munitions required a change in doctrine to mitigate losses.

The first part, I agree with.

The second, I do not. The US has demonstrated zero capability to hold - yet you keep asserting that it can.

You're confusing words again. Swap out "capability" with "will".

The US possesses the "capability" of turning Iraq into a self lit glass parking lot with no one or thing left in it by simply detonating a bunch of nukes. THAT is "capability".

"Will" is pressing the button.

Fortunately the US doesn't possess that type or extent of will.


You're saying that 200K plus troops in Iraq for 7+ years is not a commitment - perhaps you might outline what exactly is a commitment then. While you're at it, perhaps you can also outline the political and societal circumstances in which the US would want to make this much larger commitment.

Again, Vietnam is a prime example of a larger commitment - one which ultimately proved both fiscally and politically unsustainable. The Vietnam conflict, however, was not that much larger in terms of actual troop vs. population deployments vs. Iraq. Unlike Vietnam the actual numbers of Americans on the ground in Iraq was minimized through the use of 'civilian' contractors.

The last point then reiterates what I had already noted: the US is unable to conquer and rule Iraq. So you're in agreement - only noting that if somehow the conquest of Iraq was the single greatest overriding need for the US, that it could be done.

Given that this hypothetical scenario is completely speculative and poorly grounded - especially given the post 9/11 charter granted to Bush which was expended on the Iraq invasion - I'd suggest that you'd need to be a lot more clear on how and why your belief on the US' ability to 'conquer and rule' in Iraq is what you say it is.

Here a perfect exampe:

It's 2005 and I'm sitting in a briefing conducted by a UK Parachute Regiment Officer upon his return from service in Iraq.

He was there from the time of the SEIZURE of Iraq and regime change, right thru to the initial rise of the insurgency.

This officer had experience/understanding of the long-term UK Forces deployment in Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland area of operations(AO) and his AO around Basra, Iraq were roughly similar in size.

The number of people in both AOs were roughly similar.

The differences are the following: At the peak of The Troubles there were over 12 times as many UK Forces personnel to HOLD the ground operating against an enemy of approximately 100-150 IRA shooters.

In Southern Iraq they had 1/12 as many UK Forces personnel to try to HOLD a similar sized piece of ground against an enemy 10+ times bigger.

In the example provided, 1/12 the personnel against an enemy 10+ times greater in numbers is woefully insufficient to HOLD ground.

They were there to SEIZE it, and get out quickly.....because the numbers they had were woefully insufficient for even SEIZURE by any generally accepted measure of military action. Which means the far higher numbers required to HOLD the ground were dangerously low.

I think you're trying to use semantics to avoid the actual point.

I clearly stated 'conquer and rule' - and you've tried several times to lecture me on the difference between the two. Given that I'm not stating only one or the other, this semantic exercise is interesting but irrelevant.

You also are attempting to assumptively close that the US can both conquer and rule - when in fact this is anything but proven.

Where you are failing and what you continue to fail to acknowledge is that SEIZE and HOLD(generally accepted nomenclature), or your choice of conquer and rule, are two completely separate activites.

Peanut butter and jelly are synonymous...but they are two separate substances correct?

So are SEIZE/conquer and HOLD/rule

SEIZING is easy(relatively speaking) HOLDING is obviously far harder. HOLDING requires far greater WILL to achieve the objective IF HOLDING IS the objective.

And as I stated above, the US easily possesses the CAPABILITY of focused violence(conventional/nuclear/other) to HOLD Iraq, but what it lacks is the WILL, thankfully.

The CAPABILITY(Peanut Butter) is there, fortunately the WILL(Jelly) is missing to make such a sh!t sandwich. If you can't see that I can't help you.


Tens of billions sounds like a lot - except you've failed to provide the time frame for said expenditure. Was it an annual expense? Was it over decades? How much of this was Iraq's expenditures in the Iran/Iraq war?

So my correcting you in swapping out the word "ability" for the word "will" has led to your demand for me to provide weapons procurement data for Iraq through the 70's-80's on a thread titled The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

All you had to do was acknowledge it, ignore it, or move on...instead it's all about "winning" with you.

There's plenty of data on Iraq's massive military spending spree and the significant capabilities they developed. I'm not doing your homework for you. It's there and I'm correct, I don't need to prove it to you. You can find it if you really want to, but I strongly suspect it's not a search for knowledge that is driving you in this endeavour.

As for the weapons systems, you still didn't respond to another point I made: that the systems Iraq purchased were export grade. Surely you're not going to assert that the US, when selling weapons systems abroad, sells the exact same state of the art as is employed at home? The USSR and its successor state certainly did not.

[b]"ability" and "will" turns into me now providing data on export grade military technology? Various grades of military equipment have been exported to many countries. Iran for example received the VERY capable F14/Phoenix missile system...the only nation it was exported to. Iraq received F1 fighters(and air/support crew training throughout the conflict) built to a higher specification that France's own F1 inventory. Just two examples.[b/]

As for the hardware: the Su-24 first came out in 1974, the Su-25 first came out in 1978, the Mi-24 (Hind) came out in 1972. The Mig 29s you refer to were first used in the Iran-Iraq war - a full decade before the US 2nd conflict with Iraq. The 'late model' F1's you refer to - the last one was produced in 1983, and one Iraqi F1 was 'shot down' by an unarmed American F-111.

You obviously know very little about these systems.

The American F111 you mentioned first flew in the 1960's and was used in Vietnam predating the Su24 of similar design and mission....how is that relevant?

It's not.....it's just more effort by you that has helped to blow this entire mess way out of proportion......and it all comes back to your behavior of needing to "win" on this forum at all costs.

The Su25 is to this day a well respected CAS platform roughly equivalent to the also well respected US A10 which first flew in the early 1970s' before the Su25. The MIG 29 was and is a very capable point defense and air superiority platform with outstanding performance in the hands of a capable pilot....ask the German Luftwaffe that inherited them post reunification. The Hind gunship is used around the world to this day to devastating effect in many conflicts. The F1 was used by ALL sides in this conflict.....Iraq, Kuwait, and France.

When I mentioned Iraqi purchased South African G5/6 artillery....widely considered to be the best in the world...I failed to mention Iraq was the single largest user of it around the world....I know a US Army gunner who played a small role in planning against Iraqi counter battery fire due to it's considerable battery on battery advantages over far less capable Coalition artillery.

Hardly a shining set of examples of Iraq's military forwardness.

But your understanding of the conflict and the order of battle on either or both sides is superficial and lacking in credibility.

I actually looked into this when it happened out of personal curiosity. The means by which the F117 was shot down was by no means standard, and was further enabled by extremely stupid tactical deployment. So basically you had a SAM system tweaked by a super experienced and smart unit leader shooting at an F117 that had put itself into a fish bowl, and even then he got damned lucky.

The impression I got from this was that it is not repeatable, especially if stupidity on the part of the F117 deployers isn't ongoing.

Am I to assume you are a qualified tactical air interdiction mission planner? "Extremely stupid" is just another example of your arrogance in making factual statements you are in no position to make with any real credibility.

Is all the relevant information regarding this shoot down in open source? That information in open source, has it been validated as true or could it represent an opportunity at psyop/media op?

Yugoslavia made all sorts of 2nd rate military systems. The mere fact that it made them does not in any way translate into (2nd Iraq conflict era) modern military systems. This is compounded by the reality of the USSR's wind-down; let's not forget that Gorbachev and perestroika started in 1985.

So if you want to point to Yugoslavia as a military manufacturer of first rate - perhaps this might have been true in the 1950s.

It was not true at any time after the 1970s.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion

How definitively wrong of you.

As I noted above, the 'staggering' levels of spending you speak of are not nearly so staggering considering Iraq fought a near decade long war with a neighbor who was literally more than twice its size.

It is interesting that you are pointing out Iran was supported - are you telling me that the US was permitting US and/or NATO defense contractors to continue to sell parts and supplies to Iran despite the outright hostilities?

No.....what I'm telling you is that Iraq's orgy of military procurement was preceded by Iran's massive military procurement orgy in the 70's. BOTH nations went on a military procurement orgy and both also procured deep levels of critical spare parts as well as depot level maintenance capabilities...so much so that Iran is still flying F14 Tomcats without manufacturer support for over 30 years. The difference being Iraq was able to continue to procure increasingly sophisticated weapons systems after the war began.

Quite a strong statement that requires some evidence. Sure, Iran certainly had at least some stockpiles since the Iranian Revolution was only 2 years before the outbreak of the Iran/Iraq war, but then again, outright conflict - as you presumably know - is far more demanding of military equipment than peacetime.

Either way - it is a very, very long stretch for you to say Iraq was such a technological powerhouse when it was unable to prevail in its war with Iran - despite Iran's literal military supplier isolation. Especially given the SuperCobra, F14, and F15 successes against successive waves of Russian export grade equipment.

Iran possessed a fleet of rotary wing(AH 1 gunships, UH1 medium lift, Chinook heavy lift) and tactical aircraft(F4, F5,F14 NOT F15 as stated and was launch customer for F16 pre Revolution) that was the envy of nearly every air force around the world. Far surpassing any other level of capability in the region. It took Iraq YEARS to counter Iran's aerial semi-dominance. Iran had to husband it's capability without external support while Iraq had to build a capability to match or surpass Iran's.

Little is covered in western press about the war. Helicopter "dogfights" originated in the conflict....with Iraqi Hinds battling Iranian Cobras to near parity in many acknowledged engagements.

And Iraq developed tactics to successfully engage and kill the highly capable and well flown Iranian F14 MIG Killers with the help of France, the latest version of the F1 and BVM missile as well as the brand new MIG29 in it's first acquisition outside Warsaw Pact.


I don't believe there is any even remotely realistic scenario whatsoever where Americans would be willing to support genocide. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like are categorically not even debatable.

I don't either, fortunately the US doesn't possess the necessary WILL to commit such levels of atrocity.....I agree that debating whether or not the US would do it is not worth the time.

But that doesn't change the fact that this whole mess revolved around the difference between ABILITY and WILL.

It's not semantics.....they're not synonyms...it's quite crystal clear....the use of ABILITY was fiction, the correct use of WILL is fact.

In what way is the United States threatened militarily in the next generation (35 years)?

I don't know, and neither do you. It's easy to look back now at what threat lay on the horizon in 1928 and 1938. Accurately predicting threats in 2042 is a bit like trying to guess the what the most popular child's name will be in 2050. All that can be done is make some reasonable flexible preparations force ranking threat preparation from most likely to least likely.

I've never said the US should not spend anything on defense. Your ongoing refusal to even consider the possibility that the US is spending far too much on defense undermines any possibility of objectivity on your part, especially given that the US is spending more on 'defense' than the entire rest of the world by a significant margin.

Where have I refused to consider the US is spending far too much on defense? I have written no such thing. Having a decent understanding of how the world work financially and militarily I can see the US military is unsustainable in it's current iteration. Please stop trying to create a one man meme against me in this regard.

I'm not asking a generic question - I'm asking very specific questions. What exactly does an F35 do for asymmetric warfare? Or gigantic new other weapons systems, whether carriers or whatever?

A common problem is preparing to fight the current or the last war. According to your logic, If the US focused on COIN during and after it's intervention in Guatamala/Nicaragua in the 20's/30's it would have been preparing for the wrong war come WWII and wouldn't have developed the aircraft carrier as an effective tool of war used so decisively against Japan in the PTO.

This is quite nonsensical. Perhaps you can explain how the Iraqis and Afghans/Pashtuns are going to morph from guerrillas to conventional combatants against the US military.

No it's not.....again I caution you on your abrasive tone.....see above.

Or are you referring to China? Where exactly is China supporting asymmetric warfare against the US or US allies? And even were this to be the case, does China have any realistic military capability outside its immediate region?

I don't see China as a direct conventional threat against the US. I do see China as a direct threat to the United States in a somewhat known economic and largely unknown cyber threat. I do see China representing an indirect and oblique threats against US interests where they butt heads around the world.

What other peers and near peers are you referring to? The Arabs? Even disregarding the utter lunacy of even thinking the ridonkulously disparate Arab-speaking peoples could unite, the reality is that even such an imaginatively created Islamic Empire would have no manufacturing capability to speak of. There are huge societal, infrastructure, education, and so on and so forth hurdles that the Arab speaking nations have to overcome that it isn't even funny.

I view the threat from Islam as real, but caution before you go off your nut and accuse me of anything. I put the threat from Islam into a similar context as the threat from Communism. Communism itself wasn't the threat....but a few who wielded Communism like a weapon WERE a legitimate threat at times. Some claimed it was a global conspiracy, but the threat was a disparate one. There was no global Communist conspiracy against us.....some people draped in Communist ideology often hated each other more than the US....I see the same thing with Islam. Islam will be the popular vernacular for the threat, but the reality will be the odd centre of gravity that cloaks itself in Islam will likely represent a threat to the interest of the US.

The entire Arab league is only slightly larger in population than the United States. The GDP comparison is 25 to 1 in the US' favor. etc etc.

US and many nations possess a flawed foreign policy in the region. It will bite everyone in the @ss eventually. I'd go so far as to say a big threat to western interests coule be an Islamic Ghandi or MLK. We're already seeing political machine activity....the region seems to be evolving politically faster than we can read about it.....what if they move from the early 20th century to the middle 20th century politically using non-violence and civil disobedience......we're in for a world of hurt...and the response could be quite harsh.

Let's see the many flaws in this series of statements:

1) North Vietnam supported not so clandestinely by the USSR and China. Where are the not-so clandestine supporters these days? Oh right, they're the US allies of Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Iran's support of the Iraqi insurgency, up through and including Iranian SF kidnapping and murdering US personnel is well documented. Is it to the level of Soviet/Chinese support for NK or NV? Of course not.

2) No more Soviet Union. No more gigantic block of humanity engaged in supposed 'anti-American' activities.

Germany was totally defanged and emasculated post WW1. Japan was halfway around the world raping China outside of US sphere of influence.....so what? Threats evolve.....and requires a constant evolution of preparing for evolving threats. Preparations that include decade+ long planning for certain systems procurement and deployment to maintain a capABILITY to DETER and DENY.

3) Despite the best the Soviet Union and China could do, the US could still bomb North Vietnam with impunity, if not without cost.

But it didn't bomb North Vietnam with impunity...it bombed North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure with great political restraint.

4) Despite the bombing with impunity, the US still lost.

Again the US could have literally turned North Vietnam into a parking lot. Operation Linebacker II brought North Vietnam back to the table in only 11 days and was incredibly successful as the first and only comprehensive bombing campaign targeting North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure. Again don't confuse ABILITY with WILL.

So what exactly is the benefit of gold plated weapons systems?

I don't debate the gold plated weapons systems reduce US casualties.

You just answered your own question.....it also provides deterrence to a greater or lesser degree depending on the prospective future opponent.

A system such as a carrier battle group is a public waving of the US flag and represents a floating US embassy and several square acres of US sovereign soil. I am not debating it's cost/value proposition, just the fact and purpose of it's existence.

Other systems like the F22 Air Dominance Fighter, B2 Spirit Bomber, and Seawolf/Virginia class Attack subs represent the ability of the US to dominate and destroy anything in the conventional battle space if opposed by a peer or near peer for the foreseeable future.

However, the purpose of military conflict isn't to rack up kill ratios. It is to accomplish geopolitical goals.

Some of those geopolitical goals include additional carefully chosen words such as : DETER and/or DENY which are some of the geopolitical benefits that Aircraft carrier battle groups, F22s, B2s, and Virginia class bring to the diplomatic party.

US military capabilities offer the ability to DETER and/or DENY foreign nations as well as non state actors from doing things we don't want them to do(to a greater or lesser degree).

Have these gold plated weapons systems produced a more stable Iraq? A more stable Afghanistan? A lasting friendship with Pashtun, Arab, Farsi, or other language speaking peoples?

Are these gold plated weapons systems needed to defend against an inimicable enemy? Who is this enemy?

Just because some Apache pilot can shoot up AK armed villagers using his night vision goggle and gatling gun doen't in and of itself accomplish a damn thing, as is clearly being demonstrated in Afghanistan and was demonstrated in Iraq.

System and crew survivability, which was the point of my mentioning personal known examples and anecdotes, increases not only the US ability to persist on a battlefield but to continue to engage in conflict itself to act as the scalpel of national foreign policy explains a decent chunk of the gold plating.

To recap:

ABILITY(nuke everything) and WILL(pressing the nuke button) are NOT interchangeable

SEIZE(peanut butter) and HOLD(jelly) may be synonymous in making a sh!t sandwich, but both words and substances are distinct in their individual purpose and identity and are NOT ALWAYS interchangeable.

[flintlock]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

c1ue....I give up.......this thread has turned into another perfect example of your motivation on this forum being to "win" rather than "learn".

I am not even sure who is making what point in this exchange but I can see you have met the Itulip resident contrarian. Say "white" and be prepared to see 12 paragraphs on why you are wrong and "black" is the obvious answer.

[flintlock]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

War as we've KNOWN it(conventional state on state warfare) has increased to such a velocity that there is simply no time to industrialize and make stuff, and employ people....the war will be over before the first planning meeting for the new weapons factory is even set, let alone met.

But who knows what future conflict will bring for sure......the saying goes nations are all too often preparing to fight the LAST war rather than the NEXT one.

Could not agree more. Most people simply do not realize the capabilities of today's weapons. And Im not just talking about strategic weapons. Fast and bloody will characterize any conventional war I'm afraid. I have no idea of the numbers of some of these wonder weapons, but I can only suppose they exist in enough numbers to make any war very costly. Going up against a state like Syria or Iraq, with weapons like The AT-14 Kornet is very different than fighting insurgents. But a State willing to unleash its full potential on civilians and military targets alike is quite different than what the US is doing today in Afghanistan.
I suppose the winner will be the state with the willingness to pull all the stops.

Possession of a limited number of At-14s in lebanon was enough to wreak havoc on Israeli morale. And Israel was not exactly shy about hitting built up areas in their efforts to stop shelling of their towns. It seems only natural that any serious attempt to win a conventional war will result in massive civilian as well as military casualties.

[c1ue]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

Considering how this entire mess has spun out of control due to your failure to acknowledge the critical difference between "ability" and "will" it is far from obvious.

...

You're confusing words again. Swap out "capability" with "will".

The US possesses the "capability" of turning Iraq into a self lit glass parking lot with no one or thing left in it by simply detonating a bunch of nukes. THAT is "capability".

"Will" is pressing the button.

Fortunately the US doesn't possess that type or extent of will.

...

Where you are failing and what you continue to fail to acknowledge is that SEIZE and HOLD(generally accepted nomenclature), or your choice of conquer and rule, are two completely separate activites.

Peanut butter and jelly are synonymous...but they are two separate substances correct?

So are SEIZE/conquer and HOLD/rule

SEIZING is easy(relatively speaking) HOLDING is obviously far harder. HOLDING requires far greater WILL to achieve the objective IF HOLDING IS the objective.

And as I stated above, the US easily possesses the CAPABILITY of focused violence(conventional/nuclear/other) to HOLD Iraq, but what it lacks is the WILL, thankfully.

The CAPABILITY(Peanut Butter) is there, fortunately the WILL(Jelly) is missing to make such a sh!t sandwich. If you can't see that I can't help you.

You're still confusing the subject.

The subject was conquer and hold. Nuking is neither conquering nor holding, it is destroying. Given that, 'Will to nuke' is equally irrelevant in the context of 'conquer and hold'.

Attempting to say that the US 'could' conquer and hold 'if only it had the will' is, as I've already said, a totally unsupported statement.

The unwillingness of the American people to pay the price to 'conquer and hold' is as much a factor in the reality of inability as is the theoretical technical capability or lack thereof. As you presumably should know, popular support is as much a factor in conflict as is capability - to presume impossible levels is pure fantasy.

As for seize and hold - you're still trying to justify a clearly failed strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan by creating a definition which benefits the US military.

And to be clear - I don't hold the US military responsible for these failures. The decision to go into Afghanistan and Iraq was made politically. But trying to say that the US military was 'successful' in Iraq or Afghanistan by ever narrower definitions of victory - all I can say is that this same exercise was attempted for Vietnam, and I guarantee that history will view the results the same way as well.

And to also be clear: military leadership's responsibility is not just to follow orders, but to clearly communicate what cannot be done. With Iraq and Afghanistan, it is equally unclear to me that this other responsibility was fulfilled.

North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure didn't receive the full weight of impact from US forces until the Linebacker II raids of late 1972. Until that time, air raids beyond Close Air Support(CAS) along the Forward Edge Battle Area(FEBA) were quite often politically controlled and quite restrained. Linebacker II was the first mass and concerted attack on North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure and it brought North Vietnam back to the negotiating table in 11 days.

And who again won in Vietnam? Merely stating that 'uncontrolled bombing didn't start until 1972' doesn't change anything of the actual results.

As for 'controlled and constrained' raids - once again your definitions seem more than a little at odds with historical documentation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder

The panhandle of southern North Vietnam, however remained the primary focus of operations and total sorties flown there rose from 3,600 in April to 4,000 in May.^[33]

This doesn't seem very constrained to me - though I do agree there was considerable bureaucracy involved due to LBJ's micromanagement.

US capability is not identical......if it were, then US losses would be significantly greater than those suffered since Vietnam. Doctrine to attack a nation's strategic infrastructure during Vietnam was based around the use of nuclear weapons. The employment of conventional weapons and even first generation precision guided munitions required a change in doctrine to mitigate losses.

The literal capability isn't the question - obviously military technology on both sides has changed since the '70s. The relative capability is the issue.

Is the US' relative capability to destroy any other nation's infrastructure today greater, equal, or less than during the Vietnam War? Because in Vietnam, the US had plenty of capability.

Here a perfect exampe:

It's 2005 and I'm sitting in a briefing conducted by a UK Parachute Regiment Officer upon his return from service in Iraq.

He was there from the time of the SEIZURE of Iraq and regime change, right thru to the initial rise of the insurgency.

This officer had experience/understanding of the long-term UK Forces deployment in Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland area of operations(AO) and his AO around Basra, Iraq were roughly similar in size.

The number of people in both AOs were roughly similar.

The differences are the following: At the peak of The Troubles there were over 12 times as many UK Forces personnel to HOLD the ground operating against an enemy of approximately 100-150 IRA shooters.

In Southern Iraq they had 1/12 as many UK Forces personnel to try to HOLD a similar sized piece of ground against an enemy 10+ times bigger.

In the example provided, 1/12 the personnel against an enemy 10+ times greater in numbers is woefully insufficient to HOLD ground.

They were there to SEIZE it, and get out quickly.....because the numbers they had were woefully insufficient for even SEIZURE by any generally accepted measure of military action. Which means the far higher numbers required to HOLD the ground were dangerously low.

While this is a nice anecdote - I fail to see the relevance.

Northern Ireland was not an open shooting war.

The number of shooters you refer to above vs. the equivalent numbers in Iraq underscores the difference.

You're again trying to take the example of successful suppression of a militant minority as somehow being indicative of how success could theoretically be achieved against a militant majority.

There's plenty of data on Iraq's massive military spending spree and the significant capabilities they developed. I'm not doing your homework for you. It's there and I'm correct, I don't need to prove it to you. You can find it if you really want to, but I strongly suspect it's not a search for knowledge that is driving you in this endeavour.

You say there is, you say you know it, but you won't actually show it even though clearly I don't agree with you.

Excellent way to communicate your supposedly superior knowledge.

The American F111 you mentioned first flew in the 1960's and was used in Vietnam predating the Su24 of similar design and mission....how is that relevant?

The unarmed F111 was used in the Iraq war to 'shoot down' an armed F1 Dassault Mirage. The fact that a '60s era unarmed Vietnam airplane was able to take down one of these supposed modern fighters detracts heavily your argument of Iraq's supposedly modern military capability.

http://everything2.com/title/F-111+Aardvark

The only F-111 credited with downing an enemy plane was an EF-111A on January 17, 1991. It didn't spend any ammunition in doing so, since the Iraqi Mirage F1 chrashed into the ground chasing it. Even if the Raven is completely unarmed, the crew was credited with the "kill".

The Su25 is to this day a well respected CAS platform roughly equivalent to the also well respected US A10 which first flew in the early 1970s' before the Su25. The MIG 29 was and is a very capable point defense and air superiority platform with outstanding performance in the hands of a capable pilot....ask the German Luftwaffe that inherited them post reunification. The Hind gunship is used around the world to this day to devastating effect in many conflicts. The F1 was used by ALL sides in this conflict.....Iraq, Kuwait, and France.

When I mentioned Iraqi purchased South African G5/6 artillery....widely considered to be the best in the world...I failed to mention Iraq was the single largest user of it around the world....I know a US Army gunner who played a small role in planning against Iraqi counter battery fire due to it's considerable battery on battery advantages over far less capable Coalition artillery.

Very capable is nice, but against who or what? Very capable against US aircraft and/or air defense systems? Very capable in the hands of Iraqi pilots?

Clearly not so.

As for artillery - I'm sure it was a very nice parade ground demo. I'm equally sure it was worthless given US air superiority.

I'm sure the Maginot fortresses also were really excellent against German frontal assaults, and this fact was equally irrelevant to the outcome of that conflict.

But your understanding of the conflict and the order of battle on either or both sides is superficial and lacking in credibility.

Given that I've invited you to demonstrate your superior knowledge - and thus far you've failed to do so, I'd say that your credibility is equally superficial and lacking at this point.

Am I to assume you are a qualified tactical air interdiction mission planner? "Extremely stupid" is just another example of your arrogance in making factual statements you are in no position to make with any real credibility.

Is all the relevant information regarding this shoot down in open source? That information in open source, has it been validated as true or could it represent an opportunity at psyop/media op?

The opinions expressed were those of the Serbian air defense commander. You can attack his opinions all you want.

On my part, I give much more credibility to those who speak to both what they did right, did wrong, and got lucky on than to those who only speak of successes.

And all of this is open source - I don't talk about anything else since I am fully aware this is an open forum. Not that I pretend to have access to secret information in any case.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion

How definitively wrong of you.

Wow, you put forward an example of a planned aircraft which never actually was produced. Yep, you sure put me in my place.

The list of nations which tried and failed to produce a modern fighter jet in the '80s is as long as my arm.

No.....what I'm telling you is that Iraq's orgy of military procurement was preceded by Iran's massive military procurement orgy in the 70's. BOTH nations went on a military procurement orgy and both also procured deep levels of critical spare parts as well as depot level maintenance capabilities...so much so that Iran is still flying F14 Tomcats without manufacturer support for over 30 years. The difference being Iraq was able to continue to procure increasingly sophisticated weapons systems after the war began.

...

Iran possessed a fleet of rotary wing(AH 1 gunships, UH1 medium lift, Chinook heavy lift) and tactical aircraft(F4, F5,F14 NOT F15 as stated and was launch customer for F16 pre Revolution) that was the envy of nearly every air force around the world. Far surpassing any other level of capability in the region. It took Iraq YEARS to counter Iran's aerial semi-dominance. Iran had to husband it's capability without external support while Iraq had to build a capability to match or surpass Iran's.

Little is covered in western press about the war. Helicopter "dogfights" originated in the conflict....with Iraqi Hinds battling Iranian Cobras to near parity in many acknowledged engagements.

And Iraq developed tactics to successfully engage and kill the highly capable and well flown Iranian F14 MIG Killers with the help of France, the latest version of the F1 and BVM missile as well as the brand new MIG29 in it's first acquisition outside Warsaw Pact.

This is all very reasonable - but manufacturing spare parts by custom machining isn't the same thing as replacing broken avionics systems or consumables like missiles and guided bombs. The above also just reinforces my point that Iraq's spending was significantly due to the Iran-Iraq war in which Iraq's supposedly superior military didn't perform so spectacularly.

I also wonder as to how many of Iran's pilots and support personnel transitioned to Khomenei - given oil-barrel republic's tendencies towards nepotism.

I don't either, fortunately the US doesn't possess the necessary WILL to commit such levels of atrocity.....I agree that debating whether or not the US would do it is not worth the time.

But that doesn't change the fact that this whole mess revolved around the difference between ABILITY and WILL.

It's not semantics.....they're not synonyms...it's quite crystal clear....the use of ABILITY was fiction, the correct use of WILL is fact.

Ability to carry out genocide via ground war is far less provable than the ability to launch nuclear weapons. In the latterer, all you really need is a crazy President and a few supporters in key positions. In the former, you need lots and lots of willing bodies as well as a societal commitment.

Thus positing the ability of one is very much different than positing the ability of the other.

I don't know, and neither do you. It's easy to look back now at what threat lay on the horizon in 1928 and 1938. Accurately predicting threats in 2042 is a bit like trying to guess the what the most popular child's name will be in 2050. All that can be done is make some reasonable flexible preparations force ranking threat preparation from most likely to least likely.

While all of the above sounds reasonable, it is not actually reasonable in light of the ugly details of said preparation.

What is reasonable is looking at what other nations are spending as well as what they're doing in terms of training, doctrine, politics, and so forth.

To spend more than the rest of the world combined goes so far beyond preparedness that it isn't even funny.

Where have I refused to consider the US is spending far too much on defense? I have written no such thing. Having a decent understanding of how the world work financially and militarily I can see the US military is unsustainable in it's current iteration. Please stop trying to create a one man meme against me in this regard.

"Unsustainable in it's current iteration". That's a very nice, bland, and completely unilluminating statement.

Let's put it on the table:

Do you or do you not think the US is spending far too much on defense?

If you do think so, what levels should the US be spending at?

What projects should be cut back, or at least seriously reconsidered?

A common problem is preparing to fight the current or the last war. According to your logic, If the US focused on COIN during and after it's intervention in Guatamala/Nicaragua in the 20's/30's it would have been preparing for the wrong war come WWII and wouldn't have developed the aircraft carrier as an effective tool of war used so decisively against Japan in the PTO.

Nice try, but you should stick to repeating the establishment military consensus.

The Langley was already being converted in 1920.

As for Japan, if the US hadn't been building aircraft carriers, quite certainly neither would have Japan since Japan copied much of its naval doctrine from the US.

No it's not.....again I caution you on your abrasive tone.....see above.

...

I don't see China as a direct conventional threat against the US. I do see China as a direct threat to the United States in a somewhat known economic and largely unknown cyber threat. I do see China representing an indirect and oblique threats against US interests where they butt heads around the world.

The original question was never answered. You stated that the US might be engaged in a "better than zero" chance of a large scale conventional conflict with a peer or near peer.

Who are these peers or near peers? And what would a large scale conventional conflict be over?

World War I and World War II were not surprises - for one thing large European conflicts had been going on for literally hundreds of years. Adding in large colonial empires logically meant the expansion of conflict outside of Europe's borders, though the Anglo-Dutch conflicts hundreds of years previous were also 'global', as was the Spanish American war, etc etc.

I actually agree a non-zero chance of large scale conflict is there also - but for very different reasons: my view is that the US' attempt to dominate the entire globe militarily will inevitably lead it to attempt to use this global military dominance beyond defense and into outright imperialism. Not imperialism in the old school sense, but economic imperialism such as imposing 'waterway protection fees'.

Thus in my view the primary source of the 'non-zero' chance is the 'defense preparation' itself.

I view the threat from Islam as real, but caution before you go off your nut and accuse me of anything. I put the threat from Islam into a similar context as the threat from Communism. Communism itself wasn't the threat....but a few who wielded Communism like a weapon WERE a legitimate threat at times. Some claimed it was a global conspiracy, but the threat was a disparate one. There was no global Communist conspiracy against us.....some people draped in Communist ideology often hated each other more than the US....I see the same thing with Islam. Islam will be the popular vernacular for the threat, but the reality will be the odd centre of gravity that cloaks itself in Islam will likely represent a threat to the interest of the US.

Given that the demonization of Islam is very widespread and documented, I doubt that I am being in any way nutty in characterizing the threat Islam is being painted as.

US and many nations possess a flawed foreign policy in the region. It will bite everyone in the @ss eventually. I'd go so far as to say a big threat to western interests coule be an Islamic Ghandi or MLK. We're already seeing political machine activity....the region seems to be evolving politically faster than we can read about it.....what if they move from the early 20th century to the middle 20th century politically using non-violence and civil disobedience......we're in for a world of hurt...and the response could be quite harsh.

There is very little precedent for people as widely disparate ethnically, culturally, and geographically as the Arab League to peacefully unite for any but the briefest of periods.

Equally there is no power with both the population or GDP to be able to militarily impose unification - the only one that might would be the Persians, but the entire rest of the Arab world including their co-religionists are dead set against that.

Thus the notion of an Islamic Caliphate or whatever arising is a pure boogeyman.

Iran's support of the Iraqi insurgency, up through and including Iranian SF kidnapping and murdering US personnel is well documented. Is it to the level of Soviet/Chinese support for NK or NV? Of course not.

Iran's support of the Iraqi insurgency also is as much one of restraint as it is anything else. Another characteristic very unlike Soviet/Chinese support in Vietnam, or US support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

As for Iranian SF activities - hardly relevant given the activities on both parties.

Germany was totally defanged and emasculated post WW1. Japan was halfway around the world raping China outside of US sphere of influence.....so what? Threats evolve.....and requires a constant evolution of preparing for evolving threats. Preparations that include decade+ long planning for certain systems procurement and deployment to maintain a capABILITY to DETER and DENY.

Japan was a military power in World War I - including defeat of a backward but still European Russia.

As for Germany - the ability of an industrial power to create conventional weapons in 1939 is quite different than the ability of an industrial power to create modern weapons in 2012.

Bigger, badder tanks can be created from machinery manufacturing lines, but modern combat systems cannot. The failures of so many military aircraft projects in the '80s clearly demonstrates this as does the massive cost of present day equipment.

Sure, some nations could do it - Germany in particular already makes and sells significant and presumably modern military equipment as does Japan. The rampup to a serious threat, however, isn't going to be overnight or even under a decade - and the US has more than enough of a lead to start with even disregarding monitoring and ongoing spending even if spending were cut by 75%.

But it didn't bomb North Vietnam with impunity...it bombed North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure with great political restraint.

Primarily due to propaganda reasons - there was not indiscriminate bombing a la Dresden.

However, there were plenty of infrastructure attacks: railroads, roads, dams, storage depots, harbors, etc etc.

See above.

Again the US could have literally turned North Vietnam into a parking lot. Operation Linebacker II brought North Vietnam back to the table in only 11 days and was incredibly successful as the first and only comprehensive bombing campaign targeting North Vietnamese strategic infrastructure. Again don't confuse ABILITY with WILL.

And as above, who exactly won what? Don't confuse a diplomatic tactic with actual results.

You just answered your own question.....it also provides deterrence to a greater or lesser degree depending on the prospective future opponent.

A system such as a carrier battle group is a public waving of the US flag and represents a floating US embassy and several square acres of US sovereign soil. I am not debating it's cost/value proposition, just the fact and purpose of it's existence.

Other systems like the F22 Air Dominance Fighter, B2 Spirit Bomber, and Seawolf/Virginia class Attack subs represent the ability of the US to dominate and destroy anything in the conventional battle space if opposed by a peer or near peer for the foreseeable future.

...

Some of those geopolitical goals include additional carefully chosen words such as : DETER and/or DENY which are some of the geopolitical benefits that Aircraft carrier battle groups, F22s, B2s, and Virginia class bring to the diplomatic party.

US military capabilities offer the ability to DETER and/or DENY foreign nations as well as non state actors from doing things we don't want them to do(to a greater or lesser degree).

The problem is - the US already has them. So how many more 'floating embassies' are necessary? And when I say embassy, I actually mean Baghdad embassy - not in a positive way.

As for 'domination' - the entire problem with domination is twofold:

1) Domination for defense is easily turned into domination for offense. This makes other nations uneasy to say the least.

2) Putting up new systems when none are needed is not a sign of peace, it is a sign of war. The US - a nation which has been attacked by a foreign power exactly one time, and even then only an eyeblink of a coastal attack - has the least excuse for paranoia about defense of any nation in the entire world.

System and crew survivability, which was the point of my mentioning personal known examples and anecdotes, increases not only the US ability to persist on a battlefield but to continue to engage in conflict itself to act as the scalpel of national foreign policy explains a decent chunk of the gold plating.

The problem here is that the need to engage in conflict is itself not even being examined.

11 carrier strike groups has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with poking the US' nose into the entire rest of the world's business.

Missile defense does nothing but piss off Russia and force Russia to also escalate.

Stealth bombers and what not do nothing but give US policymakers incremental confidence in being able to pull off a first strike and get away with it.

Fewer casualties and greater 'survivability' let politicians to engage in chest thumping foreign policy toughness adventures.

[jk]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

lakedaemonian and c1ue, this has been an interesting exchange, and i've certainly learned a lot about modern weapon systems. at this juncture, though, it is clear that you are talking PAST one another, not TO one another. you reside in different analytic worlds, with different value systems and different categories for thought. that being the case, you are not engaged in productive dialogue that might ever lead to a shared understanding of the world. i'd say it's time to give it a rest.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The End of the Euro: A survivor's guide.

lakedaemonian and c1ue, this has been an interesting exchange, and i've certainly learned a lot about modern weapon systems. at this juncture, though, it is clear that you are talking PAST one another, not TO one another. you reside in different analytic worlds, with different value systems and different categories for thought. that being the case, you are not engaged in productive dialogue that might ever lead to a shared understanding of the world. i'd say it's time to give it a rest.

Good point jk,

I apologize to you and the rest of the iTulip community for my part in yet another completely unnecessary, unproductive, and senseless argument that doesn't meet the minimum standard for productive learning and debate.

I acknowledge my part in it and what I could have done differently. I should have remained focused on my original valid and unacknowledged point and not allowed myself to be distracted and intentionally baited in half a dozen simultaneous directions.

I'm here to learn and contribute to improve my ABILITY. I don't have the WILL to further damage or destroy this forum by putting my personal motivations in front of the better good of the community.

I'll continue to try to SEIZE the opportunity to learn here without HOLDING the iTulip community hostage to irrelevant and unproductive arguing.