Let's Just Get Drunk And Become A Third-Rate Power — Russia The New Spain?
	found on the Christian Science Monitor written by chatsubo, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 16 Apr 6:55am
		"Saddam borrowed many things from the former Soviet Union — a centralized, Stalinist police state and economy; a penchant for large statues; and, most worryingly for the Russians, the military tactics, techniques and strategies of the Red Army," chatsubo reminds us.

	"Started as a emergency response by Trotsky to invading White Russians seeking to overthrow the new communist regime, the fighting force became respected after breaking the might of the German forces at Stalingrad and chasing them back to Berlin. The tactics that led to that famous victory -- huge conscript armies along a broad fighting front using massive amounts of tanks and artillery, all controlled by a highly centralized structure, have remain unchanged to this day. "While the Americans have used the new surveillance perspective of outer space to achieve truly frightening results in terms of surveillance, precision bombing, and command and control. As Bruce Sterling put it: Its skill today boggles the mind. Satellites detect objects on the ground and relay their coordinates to commanders in hardened bunkers thousands of miles away, who radio the data to Green Berets and Delta Force soldiers carrying laser pointers in the field. The pointers point. The bombers bomb. The enemy evaporates. The world's fourth-largest army: smashed. Battle-hardened Balkan fighters: smashed. The most feared and respected mountain bandits on earth: smashed. It's a new strategic reality. "So the speed and precision with which Coalition forces tore through Iraqi forces has caused serious disquiet amongst some in Russia's defence establishment. "The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals." -- Vitaly Shlykov, former deputy defense minister of Russia. "Indeed, many Russians experts expected that any battle for Baghdad would be much like their own experiences in Grozny, and Russian newspaper Gazeta.ru, reported that Russian experts in street fighting and air defense played key roles in designing the defenses of Baghdad. "While reforming the Red Army seems vital, just as important is a redefinition of Russia's security role, after any pretense of being on a equal military footing with the U.S. has been cruelly demolished by recent events. "Vladimir Dvorkin, head of a Russian think tank said, 'How can we reform our Army when we have not defined the threats it must deal with? We must first identify our national interests, then we'll know who our enemies might be.' Can Russia regain its superpower status, or is it destined to be relegated to the Third Division of nations, squeezed between the hyperpower of the U.S. and the sheer weight of numbers of the Chinese?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 111 commentsbest: 9 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Part of it may be the composition of armies   by srose       at Wed 16 Apr 7:20am score of 1     Better Command, Control, Communications and Intel is only part of a bigger equation. In the old Soviet model, NCOs were conscripts just like the privates, so few were "professional soldiers". Thus, junior officers had to do many of the tasks NCOs in the US army do. Also, with a smaller, all volunteer force, it is easier to train without the need for commissars or any type of "political officer". Lastly, and on a different topic — has anyone else noticed that it seems that the average US soldier is carrying a lot more firepower these days? My dad (Vietnam vet) commented that most of the soldiers seem to be sporting scopes on their M16's and a lot have grenade launchers slung underneath. Is that just the elite troops (ie Rangers) or do most riflemen have them these days? If anyone wants me, I'll be in the angrydome!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Part of it may be the composition of armies   by richlove       at Wed 16 Apr 8:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     ...and a lot have grenade launchers slung underneath. Is that just the elite troops (ie Rangers) or do most riflemen have them these days? In _Men Against Fire_, Marshall contends that only 15% of the soldiers in combat actually did any effective shooting (this has been disputed). I've also read (can't find the cite) that those 15% are the 'natural fighters'; those that excel in combat for some untestable reason. Based on those facts, it's best to give more firepower to everyone as it's now more likely that it'll end up in one of the 15% of the hands most likely to use it. Of course, that makes sense even w/o Marshall's findings, but there you go.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: Part of it may be the composition of armies   by Snuffy       at Wed 16 Apr 3:26pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 10     I think Marshall's statistics were compiled from WW2 data. According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in "On Killing: the Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society", the figures have been changing. In Korea, it was about 50%, and in Vietnam it was somewhere around 90%. He attributes this to lots of things, including a difference in training techniques. The higher "shoot" ratio may also help explain the differences we hear about in casualties sustained from fire fights in Iraq. (Huge Iraqi losses, and much lower US losses.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Actually..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 6:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     .. there's some evidence that Marshall's statistics were just plain compiled, data be damned. That being said, for all the protestations of his statistics, there is something to be said for the basic thesis. Of course I'm one of those historians with no experience of combat. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Part of it may be the composition of armies   by Satur 9       at Wed 16 Apr 9:53pm score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 1     Actually, the observation that the average US soldier carries more firepower these days is incorrect. In the Marine Corps, a four man fireteam consists of two riflemen with M16A2 service rifles, one automatic rifleman with a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), and one fire team leader with an M203, which is an M16A2 with a grenade launcher mounted underneath. The only Marines having scopes in place of the classic iron sights are Force Recon and some of the other Recon elements. 3 Fire Teams make up a squad (one man in each squad carries an M240G 7.62MM machine gun, which replaced the M60), and four squads make up a platoon. The army has a similar make-up in their standard rifle companies. Most Rangers carry standard M16A2's and grenades in the same vein. It's in Delta Force and the Green Berets and other SOF units that you see the smaller M4 Rifle with a scope and sometimes the under barrel grenade launcher also. When comparing notes with my father, who is also a Vietnam Vet, he was shocked that today we are not just allowed to go into the armory and pull all of the ammunition and grenades that we want and are able to carry. We are issued a very strictly accounted for amount of ammo and grenades, if issued grenades at all. So individually, we do not carry a lot more firepower. I would say that we have much better and more effective close air support and indirect fire support. So, in a roundabout way we do have more firepower available to us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Thu 17 Apr 6:05am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 82     More ammunition isn't necessarily a positive if you can't carry it. Perhaps that's the thinking. A soldier in Grenada said, "We attacked to secure the air head. We were like slow moving turtles. My rucksack weighed 120 pounds. I would get up and rush for 10 yards, throw myself down and couldn't get up. I'd rest for 10 to 15 minutes, struggle to get up, go 10 yards, and collapse. After a few rushes, I was physically unable to move, and I am in great shape. Finally, after I got to the assembly area, I shucked my rucksack and was able to fight, but I was totally drained." In the early morning hours prior to deploying into Grenada, one of the Commanders in the 82d ABN DIV made a conscious decision to issue a double basic load of ammunition to his unit. The commander thought this was a prudent decision because his unit was designated as the assault battalion for Operation Urgent Fury. In addition to the ammunition, the troops were issued flakjackets, mosquito nets, 5QT canteens and poncho liners. By the time the soldier was issued three days basic load of C-rations, there was no room in the rucksack. The battalion commander recognized his error in deciding to take a double issue as he watched his soldiers struggle under their heavy loads during the 2 mile march from the unit holding area to the departure airfield. In retrospect, the commander realized he should have taken only one basic load for the initial assault and resupplied his unit as needed./blockquote stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by Satur 9       at Thu 17 Apr 6:49am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 88     It could very well be. Most of our gear is much lighter at this point though, and it bears the combat load much more easily. The new "interceptor" flak jacket is ridiculously more comfortable and utilitarian than the old-school flaks that we wore and the kevlar helmets are obviously much lighter than the steel pots were. Within USMC markmanship, there is a serious stress placed on single, well-aimed shots as opposed to just throwing your weapon on burst and sending rounds downrange. The M16A2 doesn't even have a fully automatic mode, just semi and burst. The overall intent may just be a fiscal one; more stress placed on one well aimed shot to take the enemy out means less money spent on ammo, since you're not sending a 10 round burst downrange. I can't quote the numbers but I know that in Vietnam, statistics show that it took an obscene amount of ammo for one kill. I'd wager that today that amount has gone way down.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 17 Apr 11:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 91     I'm betting one thing still hasn't changed, though. Rifle bullets probably still don't cause very many casualties. The last war where they did was the US Civil War. Since then machine guns, air strikes, and most importantly, artillery, have been the big killers on the battlefield. More and more it seems that the rifleman is there to protect the forward observer. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by Satur 9       at Thu 17 Apr 8:51pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 97     No, the shots fired by riflemen definitely rack up less casualties that indirect fires. Interestingly enough, the 5.56mm rounds that we use in our M16's and SAW's aren't designed so much to kill as they are to incapacitate. The theory behind this is that if we incapacitate one enemy soldier, we've now taken 3 men off of the battlefield (the one that was shot and two of his buddies to remove him) as opposed to putting him down for good and only taking out one. As far as I know, it is official military doctrine, but I can't quote the source because my bandwidth sucks out here and I can't open most of the pages that I find on google. But the days of small caliber rounds killing the majority of the enemy are long over. We will, however, always need large forces of riflemen to occupy space and take out the small pockets of enemy left on the ground. And yes, the FO's and FAC's will always feel better with a heavily armed and highly skilled company of shooters around them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by Adipic Acid       at Fri 18 Apr 6:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 110     By casualties I meant wounded, as well. Several medical studies post WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all discovered a very low number of small arms wounds or fatalities in relation to the overall number of killed and wounded on the battlefield. I agree with the spirit of your message, though. I'm reminded of the old saying "the war's not over until your infantry takes up residence in his cities." No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by zyxwvutsr       at Fri 18 Apr 9:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 110     Interestingly enough, the 5.56mm rounds that we use in our M16's and SAW's aren't designed so much to kill as they are to incapacitate...it is official military doctrine, but I can't quote the source because my bandwidth sucks That is not correct. And if someone in the military told you that, he is full of shit. Your inability to find a reference to US military doctrine that would support your assertion is not due to bandwidth limitations. Rather, it is because doctrine says the opposite. Ballistics is a tremendously complex subject, but it will suffice to say that every type of rifle and ammunition is a compromise. The main compromise of the 5.56 NATO round, as mentioned above, was for weight. It was decided that having an assault rifle based on the 5.56 rather than the 7.62 round would enable a rifleman to carry more rounds and therefore enable him to maintain a higher rate of supressive fires to cover maneuvering elements. The US military does not fight as a guerrilla force. If a unit has the capability to shoot an enemy soldier, the desired outcome of the battle would be to kill or capture the entire enemy unit immediately, not to try and inflict a death of a thousand cuts.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   116.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by semonyenko       at Fri 18 Apr 11:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 97     More and more it seems that the rifleman is there to protect the forward observer. This isn't such a recent development, at least not for the U.S. Army. I read a quote (I think it was in Mansoor's GI Offensive in Europe) from a U.S. Army infantry office who said that his job during the war had been "to escort the FOs across France and Germany." That said, if I was in the infantry, I'd be more than happy to have several tons of high explosive dropped on the other guy, rather than have to go dig him out of his hole with my rifle. It's the American Way! Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by Satur 9       at Fri 18 Apr 9:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 114     Zyxwvutsr, I don't see how your link has any relevance. Yes, weapons that cause unnecessary pain are strictly forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, but this isn't cogent to the 5.56mm round. Whether it kills or incapacitates, it's not causing the sort of "unnecessary pain and suffering" that the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit. The Conventions do not specifically prohibit incapacitating weapons. If you've got a link that specifically counters than what I've previous stated, please share.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: Perhaps a consequence of "The Soldier's Load"   by zyxwvutsr       at Sat 19 Apr 8:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 122     Maybe the confusion is with the word "incapacitate." In the military context it means only that a targeted enemy soldier will be unable to continue fighting. That is, he is either killed or so severely wounded as to render him helpless and unable to return fire. To say that the 5.56 round was designed to incapacitate is equivalent to saying that it is designed to kill. If you meant that the round is used to wound, then I still disagree with you. Such methods are suitable for guerrilla-type tactics, but as I mentioned above, the U.S. does not use guerrilla tactics. The interpretation of the Geneva Conventions differs from nation to nation, and has evolved over the years. (The U.S., for example, no longer uses incendiary weapons on personnel though it was commonplace during the Vietnam war and earlier wars.) The idea of a weapon being designed primarily to wound an enemy soldier would seem to violate the spirit of the Convention. There is plenty of information available on the internet about the 5.56mm NATO round (which is used in the M-16 rifle and the M-249 light machinegun). The bullet has been controversial from its inception in the early 1960s, with many experts questioning its effectiveness compared to the 7.62x51 NATO, but I cannot finds any reliable source that says the round was designed to do anything other than kill. For instance, from a NATO research paper, The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56 x 45mm NATO cartidge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and power of the SS109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter, and more compact rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the 5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal combat ranges Or, another example from testimony before the U.S. Congress, The trend in assault rifles over the last 20 years has been away from the 7.62-mm to either 5.45-mm or 5.56-mm weapons. These smaller assault rifles, as well as their ammunition, are generally lighter and cheaper than 7.62-mm systems and maintain lethality at ranges of 300 meters and less You still have not offered anything to support your contention that wounding an enemy soldier in order to remove three from the battlefield is "official military doctrine." I strongly doubt your ability to do so, whether you use links to other sources or merely try to argue that such a method is consistent with common sense and U.S. tactics.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Look at the West Bank for the future of warfare.   by David Flores       at Wed 16 Apr 7:21am score of 2.5 compelling     Russia should be concerned, as should the rest of the world. However, the Russian military establishment should have abandoned all illusions of military parity with the US a long time ago. As I said in the Sub-Q, the Kursk incident underscored the sad state of the Russian military today. Russia can barely stay above water economically, and its military hardware is a generation or two behind the US. No country can defeat the US military in ordinary, face to face combat. Anyone who would suggest fielding a tank against the US military machine should be immediately laughed out of their nation's war room. The European union is the only political entity that has any hope of producing equivalent military hardware, and it has shown little inclination to spend the sorts of money that the US does on its military. The future of resistance to US military adventurism will rest with unconventional of asymmetrical approaches, but it's not altogether clear how those would work. I suspect that future resistance to US imperial pretensions will probably look a lot like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The targetted nation will have to simply abandon its heavy military hardware, have its troops drop their uniforms and blend in with the populace, allow the miltary to occupy the country, and then drive them out with an unending succession of small scale, low level engagements that kill a soldier here, a soldier there for every 10 or so of their own troops. In fact, it's not altogether certain that this is not what's actually going to happen in Iraq. We'll have to wait and see. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by chatsubo       at Wed 16 Apr 7:27am score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 2     as much as I hate the Stalinist bastards, I think North Korea's policy of building nukes that can hit the West Coast will prove a lot more effective in deterring US military adventurism, than throwing rocks at armored personnel carriers. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   4.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by David Flores       at Wed 16 Apr 7:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     as much as I hate the Stalinist bastards, I think North Korea's policy of building nukes that can hit the West Coast will prove a lot more effective in deterring US military adventurism, than throwing rocks at armored personnel carriers. North Korea has one edge that few other countries can claim: it is holding South Korea hostage. In any given moment, North Korea could launch a devastating fusillade of conventional artillery that would devastate Seoul, killing potentially millions of people and sending devastating shockwaves through the world economy. That's the reason that the US hasn't pre-emptively invaded that nation. The real problem for other nations if getting to the state that NK has already reached. There are few nations that hold a gun to the head of the world economy in the way that North Korea does, and it's pretty clear that if any nation that does not already possess one tries to develop an ICBM, the US will invade before they get the chance to deploy. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by bufferoverflowed       at Wed 16 Apr 7:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction. Bomb us all you want, but we'll nuke you into the stone age. We'll both die, and no one wants that. So long as Russia maintains that capacity, they have nothing to really fear from us. We invade, they launch, we launch, end of world, cockroaches rule the earth. Or, as you astutely mentioned, being able to hit the west coast and it's dense population centers makes things a hell of a lot more complicated for us to invade North Korea. All they have to do is be able to launch 3 ICBMs and even if missile defense works as tested, two will impact and release nuclear hell. never(17), world(16), wrong(15), weapons(14), country(13), every(13), reasons(11), saddam(11), still(10), american(10)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by charlies       at Wed 16 Apr 2:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Chatsubo, this is OT, but I want to thank you for a fine write-up combining news, history, and analysis. This is what makes Plastic such an interesting place to be. We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by scott229       at Wed 16 Apr 8:09am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 5     North Korea is a different case because they hold South Korea hostage, as was pointed out above, and also because they hold Japan hostage too. Complicating the problem is the presence of China nearby. Would North Korea bomb South Korea or Japan if they felt threatened? Would the Chinese come to their aid if they appeared to be losing to us, as they did in the 1950's? If we knew we had China's tacit approval, we could easily remove any North Korean weapons facilities without having to invade the country. No doubt we have the technology to do it quickly and safely (for us). Didn't Israel do something like this many years ago to Iraq, when the Iraqis we developing nuclear facilities that threatened Israel? In the final analysis, though, the safer, saner approach is for the US, Russia and China to put enough pressure on North Korea, so they back off from their current threatening approach to defense. But the two wild cards are North Korean President Kim and American President Bush. How long will one allow himself to be threatened by the other before he takes "appropriate action"? And will the world still be inhabitable the day following that "action"?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by chatsubo       at Wed 16 Apr 8:18am score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 4     I think your point that if you want to hit the US where it hurts, it should be its wallet, is a better strategy for counter-insurgency or asymmetrical warfare, than classical guerrilla methods. The IRA bombed the shit out of army bases and military installations for years, but it wasn't until they started targeting London's financial institutions that the British Government became serious about negotiating. Even just a bomb threat would paralyse the city's streets for hours and cost millions of pounds. In one of Bruce Sterling's books (what can I say, I'm a fan) the US Government is bankrupt after Chinese hackers release the source code for all significant US software/I.P. on the web, free for everyone to get. To touch on another point you raised, I think that the US will have to be a lot more pro-active in combating the proliferation of WMD's than just through the use of threat. Phillip Bobbit suggested a scheme where, for the sake of argument, you convince the Middle East to become a WMD's free zone through America providing satellite information to all parties, so they can be sure that they are not about to be the victim of a surprise attack. Carrots not sticks, will help make the world a safer place. Christ, I'm sure if we promised to buy every single North Korean a Happy Meal, they would dismantles their nuclear plant themselves. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by bufferoverflowed       at Wed 16 Apr 8:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     I'm not sure that we could easily take out everything without them being able to launch anything. We didn't even accomplish that in the current conflict in Iraq for all of our technological superiority, and Iraq is a country that has had strict sanctions on it for over a decade, militarily frozen in time. Think of the organizational nightmare necessary to hit a multitude of targets accurately and in almost perfect sync with each other. I don't share your optimism that even the US is capable of doing this quite yet. Worst case scenario, a minor nuclear scuffle, part of the West coast, Japan, and/or South Korea are irradiated and the background count goes up a notch or two worldwide for a time. North Korea ceases to exist in a flash of light. Not exactly a good outcome, but not the end of human life on this planet either. never(17), world(16), wrong(15), weapons(14), country(13), every(13), reasons(11), saddam(11), still(10), american(10)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by CaptainLiberal       at Wed 16 Apr 8:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Define nuclear hell. If you're talking about a single N.Korean missile landing, you're talking about probably 10 or 20 kiloton yields, depending on how much fissionable material they have and how skilled their scientists are. According to my reading, a 20 kiloton airburst is likely to create a fireball nearly 1,500 feet in diameter. Of course, the damage will extend considerably further. Even assuming that they manage to hit a heavily populated target (a big assumption, since the missile they have that can reach the West coast has never been tested), you're talking about the possible eradication of a single American city. As horrific as that is, it won't mean abject surrender by the government, but it probably will mean a launch of vastly more powerful warheads from the American government. North Korea is playing a very dangerous game here, because there's a fairly reasonable line of thought that it makes more sense to deal with them before they can hit the U.S., regardless of what happens to the S. Koreans in the process. More importantly, N.Korea is sitting next to a country that not only could choose, with very little difficulty, to go nuclear at any time, but that historically has cared very little about the welfare of S.Korea and actively dislikes N.Korea. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by bufferoverflowed       at Wed 16 Apr 9:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Oh, I figured we'd nuke them into a part of the pacific ocean and damn the consequences in response. We could even claim it was an automated cold war system run amok to reduce political flak. And a 10-20 kiloton yield is enough to take out most of the larger cities along the west coast (one at a time, not all together). That's a lot of dead people, if of course, it hit and went off. never(17), world(16), wrong(15), weapons(14), country(13), every(13), reasons(11), saddam(11), still(10), american(10)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by srose       at Wed 16 Apr 9:25am score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 13     Worst case scenario, a minor nuclear scuffle, part of the West coast, Japan, and/or South Korea are irradiated and the background count goes up a notch or two worldwide for a time. North Korea ceases to exist in a flash of light. Not exactly a good outcome, but not the end of human life on this planet either. To quote Dr. Strangelove: "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed!" Still, the impact of using nuclear weapons by the handfull are long lasting, both in a geopolitical realm and ecological. Yeah we would win in a nuclear exchange, but not without a lot of people losing — especially North Koreans who basically have no say whatsoever in the matter. If anyone wants me, I'll be in the angrydome!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by David Flores       at Wed 16 Apr 12:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     I'm not sure that we could easily take out everything without them being able to launch anything. Exactly: Seoul is threatened by thousands of artillery tubes that are dug into moutain-sides. Even if our Patriot betteries knocked every NK missile out of the sky, death would rain on in the form of tens of thousands of rounds of old fashioned artilley shells. Not a pretty sight. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by Kardath       at Wed 16 Apr 3:45pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 46     I've always thought that the only way to deal with those artillery tubes hidden in the hills would be a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike. Luckily our leadership would never be crazy enough to do something like that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by SVGD       at Wed 16 Apr 6:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     not without a lot of people losing ? especially North Koreans who basically have no say whatsoever in the matter. And those of us sitting in nice pretty West Coast targets.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Chill.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 7:53pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 66     not without a lot of people losing--especially North Koreans who basically have no say whatsoever in the matter. And those of us sitting in nice pretty West Coast targets. Keep your shirt on--a) North Korea's only ICBM-range missile has never been flight-tested; b) it could only range portions of Alaska and the western-most portions of Hawaii, not the West Coast; it could only reach those ranges carrying a minimal payload--ie. not a 700+ kg sphere of a very dense metal, like a primitive nuclear weapon; c) it's a liquid-fueled rocket and requires a significant amount of time for fueling prior to firing; d) North Korea has a long coastline. The U.S. Navy has numerous submarines. These submarines are armed with missiles. The flight time from the coast is not that long--the flight time from outer space of Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles is particularly brief. Do the math. All this might be different in 2010, but for now it's not really a threat worth worrying too much about. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Oh, and...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 8:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 71     ... see this for steps being taken toward conventionally-armed GPS-precise Trident ballistic missiles. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by Petronius       at Wed 16 Apr 10:11am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 2     It seems to me that asymmetric warfare only works if you have an enemy who feels some constraints on his actions, either moral or political. If the Shiites had tried an Intifada uprising against the Baathists, the Iraqi government would have simply shot everybody and let Allah sort it out later. Their use of toxic gasses and other scorched earth techniques in the past shows how effective an army can be if it really doesn't give a damn about winning hearts and minds. The Israelis could just napalm the entire West Bank and be done with it. That they don't shows that they have removed a whole set of options from their thinking. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by zyxwvutsr       at Wed 16 Apr 11:10am score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 24     It seems to me that asymmetric warfare only works if you have an enemy who feels some constraints on his actions... There is a great deal of confusion, I think, about what constitutes "asymmetric warfare." The term is tossed around by pundits in the media and used to mean almost any quasi-military action. It is especially over-used when referring to low-tech tactics such as those employed by terrorists. Asymmetric warfare is not new, nor is it necessarily low tech or inexpensive. The term became vogue after the CIA translated a paper by two Chinese colonels entitled Unrestricted Warfare. It was noted in this paper that asymmetry has been a guiding principle for military strategists since Sun Tzu wrote, "Therefore those skilled at the unorthodox are infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers. When they come to an end, they begin again, like the days and months; they die and are reborn, like the four seasons." One example of asymmetrical warfare is China's development of better and better anti-ship cruise missiles such as the Silkworm. The logic behind this strategy is that China can negate the American's advantage (a powerful navy) without attempting to duplicate America's military structure. Another example of asymmetry are some of the methods used by the U.S. against al Qaeda. Rather than simply blasting them to smithereens with our superior weapons (though some of this is certainly happening) al Qaeda's financing and ability to travel is targeted.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by slaphappy       at Wed 16 Apr 11:11am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 2     And look at how much the Palestinian way of war has achieved! Israel stepping up settlements and re-occupying the West Bank with continual incursions in Gaza, missiles in the streets, economic ruin, the crumbling of any possibility of a two-state solution and the deep enmity of the two powers who could make a difference: the US and Israel. They are a model for failure, and it's only because the Israelis are being nice about it that they haven't been shoveled en masse into Jordan or Egypt. (Hey, it worked for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait's insurrectionist Palestinian problem, didn't it?) The US has successfully fought several non-linear campaigns, usually with success. After the Spanish American War, the US fought guerrilla insurrectionists in the Phillipines for ten years who used much the same tactics. They were utterly defeated by the US, who introduced new tactics and technology (like the M1911 automatic pistol) to deal with the situation. The US managed to occupy and pacify the scattered island nation, seething with ethnically and religiously divides, for more than forty years, when they were politely asked to go by a popular refferendum voted on my the Phillipinos. They left. Also remember that the US won most of the running battles with the VC in Vietnam... note the Tet Offensive. Scary and spectacular, but utterly crushed in a week. The US lost the war because of the inability of the Chiefs of Staff and the Administration(s) to agree on a winning strategy that adapted to the guerrilla tactics of the VC and NVA and satisfied the geopolitical strategic concerns... the soldiers on the ground knew how to win it, and were winning it, one battle at a time. It was the top brass who, through petty politics and terminal shortsightedness, turned a 3-year police action into a 12 year quagmire. And, finally, Afghanistan was the death of the Guerrilla. The Taliban and Al Quaeda still actively fighting, and they're being ruthlessly rooted out a cell at a time before they can do much damage. I mean, sure, non-linear war is a way for small actors to tango with the big boys on the world stage... it's just that the US has figured out how to cut them off at the knees. slap*happy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by Subtle Trouble       at Wed 16 Apr 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     Well, exactly. If you take the Russian/Chechen example- how many times did the Chechens take Grozny? That would be the same number of times were they slaughtered, despite their guerrilla-style street fighting. Of course, the Russians didn't do so well either. But the point is, despite all the rumbling about the effectiveness of guerrillas against more organized forces, it doesn't really pan out when you look at the results. The one positive example I can think of are the mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan. But they were fighting Soviets, so it doesn't count. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by joyful immolation       at Thu 17 Apr 6:51pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 33     Also remember that the US won most of the running battles with the VC in Vietnam... note the Tet Offensive. Scary and spectacular, but utterly crushed in a week. The US lost the war because of the inability of the Chiefs of Staff and the Administration(s) to agree on a winning strategy that adapted to the guerrilla tactics of the VC and NVA and satisfied the geopolitical strategic concerns... the soldiers on the ground knew how to win it, and were winning it, one battle at a time. It was the top brass who, through petty politics and terminal shortsightedness, turned a 3-year police action into a 12 year quagmire 47000 US deaths and 150000 wounded over 12 years were not gunned down in the streets by US generals and Richard Nixon. The North Vietnamese won the war by any stretch of the imagination and to throw the entire thing at the feet of poor generalship is a distortion of absurd proportions. By carefully picking examples to that are most supportive to your case, you have presented a blanket disimssal of assymetric warfare in general. This is most unwise. The Palestinians have been able to keep the body count to only a 3-to-1 disadvantage over several years, and Israel has no hope of ending the war without the fall of the Syrian and Iranian governments. Israel has also, as a society, and an economy, taken severe and punishing damage. Ask anyone who lives there. But Palestine is a middle of the road example — (whereas Afghanistan 2001 is all the way at the Absurdly Easy end of the spectrum). A better example is Israel's attempt to conquer Lebanon in 1984 — resulting in their first nationally recognized military defeat in their history, at the hands of assymetrical warfare. And it's not because "the Israelis are being nice" that the Palestinians aren't being shoveled into Jordan. (another word for this is "ethnic cleansing") It's because of the extreme and painful conseuqences that they would suffer at the hands of the world community. Which brings us to the larger point. The Vietnam illusion of poor generalship is synonomous that with the Illusion that "Israel could just napalm the place and win"-- the illusion that political constraints somehow don't count or aren't real. Nations have been losing wars due to political factors since wars started happening. War is a political instrument. When you achieve your objectives, which are political, you win. When you don't, you lose. The US has had the capacity to exterminate every living thing in the physical territory of Vietnam and annex the smoldering ashes — but instead it lost 40,000 soldiers, because that action would have been detrimental to its poltiical objectives. The US has a huge conventional military advantage in the world at the moment, but there are many, many wars it could and would lose. Don't kid yourself. this city's dance/makes you feel so cold, it's got/so many people, but it's got no soul-   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by semonyenko       at Wed 16 Apr 1:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     But the point is, despite all the rumbling about the effectiveness of guerrillas against more organized forces, it doesn't really pan out when you look at the results Which is exactly why enemies of the U.S. will target civilians and economic targets in the future. Al Qaeda is already doing this (think 9/11). Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by slaphappy       at Wed 16 Apr 6:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 51     And now Al Quaeda has seen the fall of a very symbolic Arab capital, a quintupling of the US presence in Arab lands, the fall of Afghanistan and the Taliban, and the complete discreditation of the will of the Arab people for their troubles. They picked a fight with the US, and they've lost... big time. What's to keep them from taking another swipe at the US? The Cowboys are at the doorstep to Saudi Arabia... Bin Laden knows what comes next if he pulls another 9-11, and so do his backers: American soldiers occupying Mecca, with the Arab world helpless to stop it. For better or for ill, the Iraq War was a very powerful message of deterrent to Al Quaeda and its backers slap*happy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by semonyenko       at Thu 17 Apr 11:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 65     What's to keep them from taking another swipe at the US? The Cowboys are at the doorstep to Saudi Arabia... Bin Laden knows what comes next if he pulls another 9-11, and so do his backers: American soldiers occupying Mecca, with the Arab world helpless to stop it. Isn't the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi, dangerously close to Mecca, for the last 10 years one of bin Laden's beefs with the U.S.? I seriously doubt that the presence of more of them is going to make him settle down. And I cannot imagine a more stupid thing for the Americans to do than descrecate a Muslim holy site. This would piss of every Muslim in the world. The terrorist organizations would be turning volunteers away. And, with U.S. troops so omnipresent in the Middle East, they wouldn't even have to go very far to find targets. Imagine all the money al Qaeda would save on airline tickets. The Iraq War did send a very powerful message to al Qaeda — I'm just not sure it was a message of deterrence. Time will tell. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Look at the West Bank for the future of   by AlfaWolph       at Thu 17 Apr 10:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The targetted nation will have to simply abandon its heavy military hardware, have its troops drop their uniforms and blend in with the populace, allow the miltary to occupy the country, and then drive them out with an unending succession of small scale, low level engagements that kill a soldier here, a soldier there for every 10 or so of their own troops. You mean terrorism.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  bad words.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Thu 17 Apr 11:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 94     The targetted nation will have to simply abandon its heavy military hardware, have its troops drop their uniforms and blend in with the populace, allow the miltary to occupy the country, and then drive them out with an unending succession of small scale, low level engagements that kill a soldier here, a soldier there for every 10 or so of their own troops. You mean terrorism. Call it whatever you want--but using pejoratives isn't going to change the reality of the situation. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  I'm sorry, but why exactly are we surprised?   by philipmarlowe       at Wed 16 Apr 7:57am score of 1     So, tactics designed to defeat militaries who had just recently mastered the fighter jet don't work against 21st century cyber armies armed with lazer guided missles and unfathomable technology? And nobody saw this coming? The only way that any military is going to be able to make a stand against the US is to develop technology on our level. Iraq's military was up to date, if the date was 1968. It's not exactly conquistadors versus Aztecs, but it's not entirely different either. this is not a sig   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  LOL   by eduardo       at Wed 16 Apr 8:01am score of 2.5 funny     Techniques and strategies of the Red Army I wonder if some genius Russian adviser told Saddam to lure American troops into Baghdad and wait for winter. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Re: LOL   by rEvolution inAction       at Wed 16 Apr 11:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     I wonder if some genius Russian adviser told Saddam to lure American troops into Baghdad and wait for winter. Wait for summer, not winter; and if they could hold it, you know it would work. Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: LOL   by eduardo       at Wed 16 Apr 1:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     Wait for summer, not winter; and if they could hold it, you know it would work. Yeah but it's not really the same. If my '91 Corolla has A/C, I think Humvees and Bradleys do too. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  And?   by Goldmund       at Wed 16 Apr 8:04am score of 1     When your military spending per year is equivalent to the total expenditures of six other nations on the top ten list, it's easy to see why the US defeated Iraq. United States — $276 billion China — Mainland 75 (rough estimate) Russia — $42 billion France — $42 billion Japan — $41 billion United Kingdom — $35 billion Germany — $33 billion Italy — $23 billion Saudi Arabia — $22 billion South Korea — $15 billion (source) The failure of Red Army tactics is nothing new, they failed in Afghanistan, they failed in Chechnya, hell, most of the victories they won in WWII were battles of attrition that the Soviets won because of forced conscriptions and sheer numbers (not to mention the war to them was about a people defending their homeland using scorched earth tactics and playing the weather card). The only people who are really surprised about this are those that aren't very well versed in the new toys and tactics of the US Military Machine.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: And?   by M. Mosher       at Wed 16 Apr 8:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     When your military spending per year is equivalent to the total expenditures of six other nations on the top ten list, it's easy to see why the US defeated Iraq. The amount spent on military is important of course but even more important is the way the money is spent. If Iraq had been able to spend an equivalent amount of dollars ($276 billion) but on the same outdated Russian and French hardware, the ultimate result would have been the same. If we had to predict how a country could achieve military parity with the US, we'd probably assume a similar array of orbital satelites. Europe and China are capable of putting stuff in orbit and probably capable of creating the technology to do the things the US military does. Russia is capable of the orbital part but maybe not the technology part (optics, targeting, communications, etc). If we assume a rival nation can do this, the next logical step in an escalation would be methods to destroy or disable the enemy's space based assets and to defend our own. Despite the questionable need for this, the US long ago developed an F-15 launched satelite killer. I haven't done any research, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there is an array of newer programs underway already in the US to maintain orbital superiority. What's funny is to remember the original concepts of space warfare. They almost always involved space based lasers and space lunched nuclear weapons. It seems so naive and childish now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: And?   by Goldmund       at Wed 16 Apr 9:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     The amount spent on military is important of course but even more important is the way the money is spent. If Iraq had been able to spend an equivalent amount of dollars ($276 billion) but on the same outdated Russian and French hardware, the ultimate result would have been the same. A very valid point and one that I was too lazy to raise. Obviously, the better trained Red Army would have held up better than a comparably-sized Iraqi Army. But, a successful economy is still the driving force behind whether there actually is money to spend in the proper ways. If we had to predict how a country could achieve military parity with the US, we'd probably assume a similar array of orbital satelites. Europe and China are capable of putting stuff in orbit and probably capable of creating the technology to do the things the US military does. Russia is capable of the orbital part but maybe not the technology part (optics, targeting, communications, etc). Military parity with the US would require a separate satellite network, the creation of new forms of communication and 50+ years of experience with encryption/decryption (not to mention an impressive spy network to ferret out all our secrets). China, the EU, and even Russia are capable of all these things, they just need the money. And that's why I wrote the post the way I did. It might be that to actually achieve parity (or even superiority) in the long run, tactical innovation, technological superiority and new training methods would have to be devised, but it all boils down to money in the end. A successful economy generating trillions of dollars a year in taxable income, a thriving, government-subsidized military industrial complex with legistlative/diplomatic backing and proper expenditures are the ingredients for a modern-day superpower (that is, if you choose to accept the US-model). So, both of us are right. You gotta have the money AND you gotta spend it right. What's funny is to remember the original concepts of space warfare. They almost always involved space based lasers and space lunched nuclear weapons. It seems so naive and childish now. Yes, Star Wars was proposed in the early 80s is quite laughable, until you realize that there are still proponents of it in positions of power. NMD is just another incarnation of this white elephant as I've mentioned several times before.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: And?   by gaspacho       at Wed 16 Apr 12:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     I haven't done any research, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there is an array of newer programs underway already in the US to maintain orbital superiority. If I were an evil dictator, I'd order my scientific minions to come up with ways to somehow nullify the advantages of GPS: The Achilles' heel of all our precision weaponry is that it depends upon a small number of fragile, completely undefended satellites. IMO the military is actually starting to depend on GPS too much. Fifty more years of this and there'll be no one left who can remember what a gyroscope is for. The Chinese space program is as much a recognition of the fact that space assets are the next level of strategic thinking, as it is about national prestige for them. To his credit, Rumsfeld was thinking about this sort of thing pre-9/11. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Outdated French Hardware?   by Prexaspes       at Wed 16 Apr 2:12pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 16     Who says they have outdated hardware? For its size, and this is also true of nations like the UK and Germany, France has a kickass military, especially in light of the reforms that Chirac introduced in 1996 (which largely mirror reforms that Rumsfeld is trying to put in place right now in the US military). Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: And?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 16 Apr 10:42am score of 0.5 astute   in reply to comment 20     The Defence spending of France + UK + Germany + Italy= $133 Billion. Add in the other members of the fledgling EU and it could be possible that if the Europeans get their act together, a common EU defence force may have a similar budget to the US. Which means the US may actually have to pay attention to their opinions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Equal US Defense Spending?   by Jelly       at Wed 16 Apr 11:08am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 26     Not really. The $276 billion figure is a few years old. The current proposed defense budget is up around $400 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the defense spending of every other country in the world combined. I guess we don't need any allies afterall.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: And?   by tdahnsn       at Wed 16 Apr 12:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     "The Achilles' heel of all our precision weaponry is that it depends upon a small number of fragile, completely undefended satellites." Well, it may be undefended, but when it's that far away it's really hard to hit with your slingshot. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: And?   by gaspacho       at Wed 16 Apr 12:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Well, it may be undefended, but when it's that far away it's really hard to hit with your slingshot. Not if your 'slingshot' is some sort of launch vehicle, tipped with some sort of fragmenting warhead. A satellite that's only a few hundred miles up is a hell of a lot easier to hit than an incoming ICBM, and a hell of a lot easier to kill. As someone else pointed out already, there has also been some research looking into laser-based solutions. Russia, Japan, France, UK, Italy, Germany, Australia, Israel, soon India and China... maybe countries like Iran or Pakistan in 10-15 years... there's a few countries just off the top of my head that could develop this technology, if they made it their national priority. Even Iraq managed an orbital launch, back in 1989. Shortly before the first Gulf War... funny that. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: And?   by mad_clown       at Wed 16 Apr 2:12pm score of 1 brilliant   in reply to comment 26     ...a common EU defence force may have a similar budget to the US. Which means the US may actually have to pay attention to their opinions. Yes, and the pre-war diplomatic disaster in Europe showed just how likely a "common EU defense force" is going to be in the near future. I'm sure that Eastern Europe will be scrambling to throw its military lot in with France after being not-so-politely told to "be quiet." That is to say, a "common" EU defense force won't work as long as states such as France insist on conformity and a diplomatic "united front." Even more important is the UK, especially now after the Iraq War and the diplomatic fallout with France. I don't see the UK signing onto any common EU defense force as long as it can't reserve the right to use its national military wherever and whenever it sees fit without Franco-German interference. Chirac really overplayed his hand this time around, and I predict that any more major EU-strengthening initiatives in the near future will be scrutinized very closely by all those who were on the receiving end of Chirac's diatribes. It's clear that France, or at least neo-Gaullists such as Chirac see both the EU and the UN as vehicles for promoting French interests and prestige just as much as the US has heretofore seen the UN as something of a vehicle for American interests (although I think that this Administration and future administrations for years to come will be very wary about approaching the UN with something of this magnitude for quite some time). If the French continue on this path, more and more states, at least in the UN, are going to be forced to "choose sides" as it were — the French way or the American way. Germany and Belgium seem pretty strongly aligned toward the French, and clearly Australia and the UK, along with the US, make up the so-called "Anglosphere." If the Iraq crisis is any indication, most of Eastern Europe is also aligned with the US, while Russia has opted to play both sides to the middle, publically supporting the Franco-German group, privately hoping for continued goodwill from the Americans, and, if the reports are to be believed, jumping in bed with the Iraqis on the side. But then again, if Australia's Howard has his way, Paris may not have long to live on the UNSC, to be replaced by New Delhi, Tokyo, and a South American capital, which I'd guess would be Brasilia. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Outdated French Hardware?   by M. Mosher       at Wed 16 Apr 2:49pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 53     Who says they have outdated hardware? France, Germany and Russia all have some excellent hardware but I was referring to the French and Russian hardware that Iraq had — all older model stuff like Russian Mig21 fighters, and T-54 tanks and French F1 fighters. France and Germany especially have the technical capabilities to create very high tech space-based weapons if they choose to spend the money.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: And?   by bashibazouk       at Wed 16 Apr 4:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     I always assumed if you want to take on the US the first thing you would do is detonate at least 2 large nuclear weapons, in high earth orbit, on opposite sides of the earth effectively knocking out the entire satellite system. Russia, I would expect, could modify some of it's heavy launch vehicles do just that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  A Brief(?) History of Navigation   by M. Mosher       at Wed 16 Apr 8:00pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 43     IMO the military is actually starting to depend on GPS too much. Fifty more years of this and there'll be no one left who can remember what a gyroscope is for. In the beginning, navigation was purely visual — looking for known landmarks and following known paths. Even early sailing was rarely done out of sight of land. When curiosity got the better of people, they learned to follow the sun and stars. This allowed a limited amount of sailing out of sight of land. When the compass was invented (discovered?) sailors took more chances and left sight of land for longer periods of time. But a compass isn't that accurate because of magnetic variation (the fact that the magnetic north pole is not the same as the geographic north pole) and because it only gives you a heading. It doesn't tell you where you are. Early sailors devised dead reckoning to help. This is nothing more than figuring your location by keeping track of your heading, your speed, and the length of time you spend on that heading and at that speed, and applying it to your last known position. Ships used a log tied to a rope and thrown into the water to estimate how fast they were going and they tried to steer a constant heading for long periods of time. This still wasn't very accurate because it couldn't account for currents and innacurate compasses. For this reason captains usually didn't steer toward their destination. They steered well to the left or right of it and when they hit land they would follow the coast in the appropriate direction to find a landmark or their port of destination. However, storms often blew them so far off course that they would have to backtrack once they hit land to the wrong side of their destination. The north star helped determine latitude (the distance from the equator) with a great degree of accuracy and perhaps in another comment I can describe how this worked. But determining longitude (distance from a line running north and south through Greenwich, England) was very inaccurate until the invention of clocks that would not lose more than 2 minutes over a three month period of time and while at sea. Galileo devised a way to pinpoint longitude in the early 17th century using Jupiter but it only worked on land where you could remain very still during observations. It wasn't until the middle 1700s that the Englishman John Harrison created a timekeeper accurate enough to allow the relatively accurate pinpointing of longitude. Fast forward to the 20th century. Radio transmissions from special navigational facilities gave navigators a heading (direction) to the nav aid. This would plot on a chart (maps used for navigating vessels are always called charts) as a line away from the nav aid. Readings from two nav aids would give two lines and where the lines crossed was your location. Newer nav aids gave range (distance) as well as direction. However, this form of navigation only worked near land where radio nav aids could be set up. For ships at sea and for transoceanic flights navigators had to use celestial navigation. This worked at night with a sextant, an air almanac, an accurate timekeeper, and a good compass. With celestial navigation, location could be pinpointed within about 10 nautical miles. This was more than accurate enough until the ship or plane was within range of land based nav aids. In the 1960s NASA and the Air Force developed the inertial navigation system (INS). This was a machine that had gyroscopes and accelerometers inside. It detected motion with a very high degree of accuracy. An INS is sensitive enough to detect the motion of the planet. Within a few minutes of turning it on, it can point to true north just by detecting the earth spinning. The point of it all was to keep track of location by sensing how far and how fast the vessel was moving and in what direction. In an airplane, the compass could tell you which way the nose was pointed but a side wind would work to throw the plane off course. This is called drift. The INS could detect drift and update its position with it. True airspeed (how fast the plane is moving through the air) is easy to measure in a plane but headwinds make true airspeed different from ground speed (how fast the plane is moving across the map). The INS computed ground speed by sensing head and tail winds and applying them to true airspeed. In the 1970s inertial navigational systems were accurate to 1 nautical mile per hour, meaning that after 1 hour of flying, actual coordinates could be off by as much as 1 nautical mile. So far, none of these methods are accurate enough to steer precision weapons. Weapons need accuracy of 10-40 feet after travelling great distances and at great speeds. Those JDAM bombs dropped from B2 bombers only have limited ability to correct their course as they fall toward their targets. To hit their targets, they not only need the ability to pinpoint their location but to do it many times in a very short period of time — they need almost constant updating. ICBMs and early cruise missiles used stored satelite image maps t read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  Re: And?   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 8:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     If I were an evil dictator, I'd order my scientific minions to come up with ways to somehow nullify the advantages of GPS: The Achilles' heel of all our precision weaponry is that it depends upon a small number of fragile, completely undefended satellites. IMO the military is actually starting to depend on GPS too much. Fifty more years of this and there'll be no one left who can remember what a gyroscope is for. I brought up just this point to a RAND analyst last summer. His response was that the US military is quite aware of the threat and intent on staying one step ahead of potential adversaries. It's worth noting Gen. Myers's boast about destroying one of the fearsome Russian GPS jammers with a GPS-guided weapon. Threats to the satellite constellation are a real possibility, but again that's an area that the US has considered. And I doubt it's an accident that the Chairman is a former CINC U.S. Space Command with a studied interest in space power issues. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: Outdated French Hardware?   by Prexaspes       at Wed 16 Apr 8:53pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 56     OK. Yeah, the Mirage fighters and Roland surface to air missiles systems Iraq has/had are pretty dated. I'm curious even if any of its planes can fly. France has basically been working on a plan since 1996 to create four divisions with high-tech gadgets to the max. They are supposed to be rapidly deployable, etc. The plan is to get rid of the conscripts, go to an all volunteer force, and reduce the army by 1/2, that way they can more money on equipment than men, especially ships. Between 2010-2015 they are supposed to have another carrier to complement the de Gaulle, which was launched in 2000 and as I recall patrolling somewhere near the middle east as part of the operations in Afghanistan. With those two carriers, France will have the most powerful navy in Europe. Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Well..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 9:04pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 56     France and Germany especially have the technical capabilities to create very high tech space-based weapons if they choose to spend the money. There is the small matter of getting them there in one piece, rather than many, however.... stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: And?   by Heywood Yabuzof       at Thu 17 Apr 1:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     It already happened. It's a good point, though. I wonder how much training is dedicated to non-GPS navigation? I know that many of these guided munitions don't actually use real-time GPS communications (some use terrain-matching, laser-guidance, etc.), and it looks like our military has methods to deal with "GPS jamming", but I'd also like to think compass+map navigation is still a fundamental element of current military training!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: And?   by zyxwvutsr       at Thu 17 Apr 5:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 98     I'd also like to think compass+map navigation is still a fundamental element of current military training Not to worry. A quick perusal of the US Army's manual on the topic shows that it devotes very little to GPS. (It's way down there, a single section under chapter 9.) There are several non-obvious reasons for this, among them the fact that actually navigating solely with a GPS unit is next to impossible. Also, plotting a route to a waypoint (a pre-determined location stored in the GPS unit's memory) using only a GPS will give you the shortest distance, a straight line. Good land navigation technique takes terrain into account, i.e., the best route is seldom a straight line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  Re: And?   by Daemonik       at Fri 18 Apr 4:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     I'd be curious to see France's reaction if the US proposed that France relinquish its seat on the Security Council to the EU.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Re: And?   by mad_clown       at Fri 18 Apr 5:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 118     Personally, I think an "EU" seat on the Security Council is not only unfair, but a pipe dream. Like I said above, the Iraq crisis has clearly shown just how divided "united Europe" really is in terms of foreign policy. Much like "Common European Defense," European states are going to have to a) agree on a single position, b) they're going to have to be persuaded to give up their own independent foreign policy in lieu of a greater "EU Foreign Policy" and c) to tie in with Common European Defense, they're going to have to be persuaded to stop allocating their budgets toward national armies and instead paying for a common European army, which will, of course, probably end up benefitting arms-producing states like France, Germany, and the UK far more than it will benefit, say, Poland or Greece. Contracts, and all that. If the EU were to demand a seat on the UNSC, though, I think the Council would need major restructuring. For instance, no EU member should be allowed to hold an independent seat, because that would, in effect, give them a double-vote, especially if states such as France, who can be expected to attempt to steer an EU foreign policy (ex: Chirac to Eastern Europe: "You missed a good chance to remain quiet."), remain on the UNSC with veto power. Even if European states did agree to give up their national seats in lieu of an EU seat, the question remains as to how that seat will be allowed to vote. Will each state represented by that seat have to take a referendum, and seat will vote depending on how the referendum turns out? Or will EU foreign policy at the UN level be determined by the same sort of unelected officials who currently man the helm in Brussels? Will it be dictated by France? Or will the representative be trusted to use his discretion? The way I see it is that Common European Defense itself is a pretty big hurdle to make it over, and common European foreign policy, especially at the UN level, is so rife with embedded problems that will either further erode European national sovereignty (maybe that's the point?) or become a bureaucratic nightmare that's either totally dictated by a few of the larger EU powers or bogged down in red tape in an effort to be representative. Guess that was probably a longer answer than you were expecting, heh. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   121.  Re: And?   by Daemonik       at Fri 18 Apr 7:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 119     Even if European states did agree to give up their national seats in lieu of an EU seat, the question remains as to how that seat will be allowed to vote. Will each state represented by that seat have to take a referendum, and seat will vote depending on how the referendum turns out? Or will EU foreign policy at the UN level be determined by the same sort of unelected officials who currently man the helm in Brussels? Will it be dictated by France? Or will the representative be trusted to use his discretion? Currently EU foreign policy is already filtered through France and the UK as the only permanent members of the UNSC that are in the EU. My feeling is that the EU should act in the UN similarly to the US in that Mississippi doesn't have UN veto powers above any other state in the US. Any full member of the EU should relinquish it's UN seats to the EU representative, who would support the majority position of the EU member states to the UN. I can not see how the EU can create a workable foreign policy where the member states that aren't in the majority can just go off on military adventures or deny military support as they wish. Nor can they create a unified political stand when they are unequally represented in the international body.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: And?   by 0tim0       at Wed 16 Apr 10:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     United States — $276 billion China — Mainland 75 (rough estimate) Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but it's not really fair to compare money spent in dollars. The GDP per capita of China is $4600 (CIA World Factbook) for USA it is $36,000. That means that China can purchase the services of 16 million people, where the US can purchase the services of 8 million. While those estimates are a little flakey, I think it gives a little better characterization of how much the countries respectively spend on defense. --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Chechnya   by perdajz       at Wed 16 Apr 1:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     I'd like to hear more about why you think the Russians failed in Chechnya. The Russians have only one option for victory with the Chechens: get medieval on their ass and wipe them out completely because they will not be pacified anytime soon. That's not going to happen in this day and age. If this is a Russia vs. America pissing contest, your historical analogies don't hold up very well. Why bring up Afghanistan, as if that experience is any different than the one in Vietnam? And you can just as well attribute American success in WWII to sheer numbers, rather than military skill or courage. In the American case, the sheer numbers take the form of industrial production rather than men in uniform. While Stalinist Russia was assuredly hell on earth, I think you skew history when you focus on forced conscriptions (was there some other choice?) and quibble about how the Russians won. Russians fought because the enemy was at the gates and noone was taking prisoners on the Eastern front. Russians destroyed 40 German divisions in one battle, while the Wehrmacht was at its peak. Imagine what the Americans would have faced at Normandy had it not been for Stalingrad and Kursk.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Chechnya   by Goldmund       at Thu 17 Apr 1:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Uh, I mentioned nothing about Soviet Tactics in WWII. Most assuredly, the Allies would not have been able to take Berlin (or France, even) were it not for the Soviet meat grinder on the Eastern Front slowly wiping out the Wehrmacht and Panzer Divisions. The Soviets 'failed' in Afghanistan like we failed in Vietnam. They might have won every battle, but in doing so, they helped create (with US-funding, of course) a new breed of religion-crazed, guerrilla fighters who took over the power vacuum their departure created. Not only that, but they so enraged and demoralized the populace that they were ready to accept the oppression of the Taliban 6 years after the Russians left. Battlefield Success /= Victory. The Soviets' main objective was dominating Afghanistan through a puppet government to further extend their buffer zone in South Central Asia. In doing so, they lost innumerable amounts of hardware, trained-men, and morale to a starving, freezing, zealous bunch of opium farmers. I'm curious as to how you can see that as a success. Chechnya was a failure because it was unable to accomplish anything more than death and destruction on both sides. Pyrric victories don't mean much to me (or other non-military affiliated folks). With millions dead on both sides and an explosion of new terrorism, hatred and general malaise, I would hardly classify Russia's Chechnyan wars as a success. If the Russians were trying to wipe our terrorists by force, the Moscow Theater Bombing proves their tactics don't work. However, if your classification of success is that the Russians were able to so completely demoralize the populace (and kill/arrest/scare off dissidents) that they voted for a new Constitution giving Russia a dominant position in their region, you just might be on to something.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Chechnya   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 17 Apr 1:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     If the Russians were trying to wipe our terrorists by force, the Moscow Theater Bombing proves their tactics don't work. While I'm no fan of the Russian adventure in Chechnya, I think this is being a little harsh. It is equally valid to say that the Moscow Theatre situation proves that the terrorists' tactics don't work, since the Russians haven't left Chechnya in the aftermath. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: Chechnya   by Goldmund       at Thu 17 Apr 2:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 100     Yes, your point is equally valid. How about: "The fact remains that neither side will win the other over with force, the Moscow Theater Bombing Incident proves this as it shows both the failure of Russian incursions into Chechnean territory to halt terrorism and it (again) shows the failure of terrorist tactics to gain anything but animosity and more bloodshed on both sides."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Re: Chechnya   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 17 Apr 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     Unfortunately, it's still a sample size of one. Russia has successfully dealt with "nationality problems" via force in the past. So have the United States. Ask anyone of Native American descent. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Oops...   by Goldmund       at Thu 17 Apr 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     Ok, my bad, I did mention something about WWII Soviet tactics in my first post. Sorry for my inability to read my own posts. Nothing more to see here, carry on.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  New math.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 8:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     As someone noted previously, you should probably take into account the up-to-date numbers. They dramatize the point rather more effectively, seeing as the FY2004 US military budget will equal the combined spending of the next 21 largest military spenders on the planet. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  The tactics that led to that famous victory   by Wolfetone       at Wed 16 Apr 8:13am score of 2 astute     ...were the dogged defense of Stalingrad, where every inch of ground was held to the last man and the meat grinder advance on Germany, which consisted of US Civil War style advances on a large and continuous front. The first is an example of pride and determination, the second is an example of disregard for your comrads and a lack of fundamental military tactics.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: The tactics that led to that famous victory   by semonyenko       at Wed 16 Apr 9:07am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 11     ...were the dogged defense of Stalingrad, where every inch of ground was held to the last man and the meat grinder advance on Germany, which consisted of US Civil War style advances on a large and continuous front. The first is an example of pride and determination, the second is an example of disregard for your comrads and a lack of fundamental military tactics. I imagine that you've been reading Paul Carrell (and no one else, apparently) for your impression of the Red Army in World War II. The "US Civil War style advances" of which you speak were an occasional feature of the Red Army in 1941-42, when there were large numbers of barely-trained conscripts in the ranks, and the officers/NCOs were hardly any better trained. By late 1942 there was a definite improvement in the Red Army's tactics, and they continued to improve throughout the war. Soviet offensive tactics later in the war were based on deception (the Germans hardly ever knew when the Soviets were going to attack), stripping large sectors of the front to concentrate at the crucial point, and then using over-whelming force in the breakthrough sector. While Soviet casualties were generally higher than German in the early phase of the war, the reverse was true in the later part. In fact, accounts by late-war U.S. soldiers mention German attacks that weren't much more advanced than Civil War tactics. Lots of good (and free!) sources on Soviet tactics can be found here. Look particularly for Glantz's work, which incorporates a lot of recently de-classified Soviet documents in addition to the usual German excuse-making. As for the Iraqis, I cannot see them as being representative of Red Army operational or tactical art. The first Gulf War proved that. The Red Army was organized for fast-paced mobile offensive warfare. Attack in overwhelming force to make a break-through, then keep moving to maintain the momentum. What did the Iraqis do? Over-ran Kuwait, then settled down in the open desert and dug in. Soviet military advisors probably buried their faces in their hands when they saw this. The Red Army (given the political will) would have gone straight in to Saudi Arabia, not letting the Coalition have six months to build up forces. This was the essence of Red Army doctrine. Instead, the Iraqis chose to fight their last war, the one against Iran, which was characterized by World War 1 style trench warfare. Armies tend to re-fight their last war, and that's just what the Iraqis did. Why they thought the Most Expensive Military in the World would fight like Iranian Islamic militia is anyone's guess, but using them as an example of 1990s Red Army operational art is mis-leading at best Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: The tactics that led to that famous victory   by mrwarmth       at Wed 16 Apr 9:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Antony Beevor's excellent history of the Soviet conquest of Germany and Berlin ("The Fall of Berlin — 1945") seems to contradict your claims. The books makes a point of how the Red Army pursued tactics that they knew would sustain horrendous and unnecessary casualties because they wanted to reach Berlin by Stalin's birthday. I wish I could remember the number of Red Army casualties in the German campaign, but they were extremely high, and this against an enemy that was largely defeated, and against a military that could muster very little in the way of defense or offense. Anyway, check the book out. It might change your mind. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: The tactics that led to that famous victory   by nicky       at Wed 16 Apr 1:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     The Soviets won the war at Stalingrad and Kursk. Both campaigns had the same strategy: lure the enemy into attacking at a place of your choosing...hold them there, wear them out..gather fresh forces..and then counterattack, encircle, and destroy. there aint no future...in england's dreaming   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: The tactics that led to that famous victory   by semonyenko       at Wed 16 Apr 11:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     No, I've read Beevor's book, and it doesn't change my mind. Berlin was a special case — they were, as you say, trying to "reach Berlin by Stalin's birthday." They were also playing the end-game, knowing that when Berlin fell, the war would be over, and they would stop taking casualties. I guess they reasoned that it was better to take a lot of casualties in the short term rather than make the war longer. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: The tactics that led to that famous victory   by mrwarmth       at Wed 16 Apr 11:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Actually, I think it does prove my point. If you've willing to sacrifice the lives of 10s of thousands of soldiers just to make a dictator's birthday, then I think that shows a general lack of concern for the lives of your soldiers. Cannon fodder, anyone? ANd it's precisely at the "end game" that you can normally afford to wait and use your forces in the most efficient, economical way possible. Particularly in this situation, where victory was assured. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: The tactics that led to that famous victory   by semonyenko       at Wed 16 Apr 12:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Actually, I think it does prove my point. If you've willing to sacrifice the lives of 10s of thousands of soldiers just to make a dictator's birthday, then I think that shows a general lack of concern for the lives of your soldiers. Cannon fodder, anyone? ANd it's precisely at the "end game" that you can normally afford to wait and use your forces in the most efficient, economical way possible. Particularly in this situation, where victory was assured. Well, it was Stalin who said that the death of a single Soviet soldier was a tragedy, while the death of a million was a statistic. I don't think the dictator's birthday was the only factor driving the assault on Berlin. Despite agreements, the Soviets were afraid of the U.S. and British beating them to Berlin (the U.S. had a plan to drop paratroopers on Templehof airport). Military victory over the Germans was assured, but post-war positioning in Europe vis-a-vis the U.S. was not. That, and Stalin had a natural desire to end the war as soon as possible, since it was costly his country more than just lives, and the Soviets were looking at a having to do a lot of re-construction afterwards. While I realize this is news in the West, by 1945 the Soviets didn't have manpower to waste. There was, in fact, a rather severe manpower shortage in the Red Army. This is why Russian Front commanders fought each other to get the newly-formed Polish units, which were up to strength (and full of highly motivated Poles who had come of age during the German occupation). Naturally, these Poles were the first sent into Berlin. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Err..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 9:14pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 42     I don't think the dictator's birthday was the only factor driving the assault on Berlin. Despite agreements, the Soviets were afraid of the U.S. and British beating them to Berlin (the U.S. had a plan to drop paratroopers on Templehof airport). Military victory over the Germans was assured, but post-war positioning in Europe vis-a-vis the U.S. was not. That, and Stalin had a natural desire to end the war as soon as possible, since it was costly his country more than just lives, and the Soviets were looking at a having to do a lot of re-construction afterwards. Reportedly, there's yet another little element in the story.... stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Iraq: Not Russia   by zyxwvutsr       at Wed 16 Apr 8:24am score of 1.5 compelling     An alternative view is that the Coalition victory was not due to faulty or obsolete Iraqi tactics, but simple incompetence: The Iraqi military did not use Russian/Soviet tactics, they used none at all. A possible explanation for Iraq's unprecedented ineptness at warfare is the Hussein regime. Like all government officials, military officers were promoted not on merit, but for their personal loyalty to Saddam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Re: Iraq: Not Russia   by CaptainLiberal       at Wed 16 Apr 11:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     I also think it's impossible to completely discount the idea that the initial decapitation strike was more effective than many had originally thought. From the moment of the strike, as far as I know, not a single plane of the Iraqi air force was launched. For a couple of days we were seeing reports that indicated no one was giving direction to the Iraqi forces. It will be a long time before we know, if we ever do, but it looked as if the entire armed forces in Iraq were in disarray from the first moment of the war and never really got back on their feet. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  But Ask Yourself   by uncarved block       at Wed 16 Apr 2:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     not a single plane of the Iraqi air force was launched       The question to ponder, though, is whether they would have launched without the strikes anyway. One thing they knew about was American air superiority; over a decade of strikes had shown, IMO, that sending a plane up was likely to equivalent to dropping it off a cliff at the enemy-- you might hurt someone (besides the pilot), but the odds were against it.       Now the ground forces, that's a different story, and you may well be right. Just had to pick that nit, you know? :) Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  The Art of War   by severian       at Wed 16 Apr 9:50am score of 1     Anyone who thinks the American military is invulnerable should go back and read The Art of War. The true strength of a military force is not the sheer size or raw power that's amassed, but by the training, discipline, and motivation of the troops; the speed with which decisions can be made; the quality of the information available to make those decisions; and the willingness of the citizenry to continue supporting the troops during the war. In fact, since Iraq had far more forces on the ground than we did, one could argue that the American forces won in Iraq not because of their overwhelming force but because they applied the above principles. What this means is that countries looking for an advantage would indeed be crazy to match America bullet-for-bullet. But improving their ability to understand and outmaneuver us, and figuring out ways to cause Americans at home to rapidly lose the will to fight can easily force a defeat on an otherwise numerically superior force. For example, Bruce Sterling conveniently forgets about Somalia in his examples of American interventions, in which Aidid applied Sun-Tzu's lessons almost perfectly to drive away a superior force. As another example, what keeps military strategists awake at night now is not fears of some dictator with tanks rolling through terrain, but countries able to wage electronic warfare. What would happen if some country figured out how to disable the GPS system? Or how about hacking the civilian power grid to shut down electricity to every military base, preventing the rapid mobilization of forces for a distant front? Or perhaps taking over CNN broadcast channels and replacing it with Al-Jazeera images of dying Iraqi children and victorious Iraqi soldiers? If Sun-Tzu teaches anything, it's that "asymmetrical warfare" works and victory is not always guaranteed by numbers or firepower.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Tactics Need Soldiers   by mrwarmth       at Wed 16 Apr 9:57am score of 1.5 obnoxious     I think these conclusions are premature. The Iraqi military does not have a history of fighting well or bravely. The war with Iran proved that. During that war, there was an excellent report in The New Yorker about the Iraqi military's performance, and it was pretty clear that the Iraqis were much more intent on getting home alive than defeating their enemy. The strategy the US used in Iraq could only have worked against an enemy that had no real interest in risking itself in real battle against a real enemy. Indeed, against any other kind of enemy, it would have led to total disaster, since we made the normally classic mistake of outrunning our supply lines. If the Iraqis had been defending a government they believed in, and had they had the will to truly fight, they could have done a lot of damage to us. These tactics would absolutely not have worked against the Soviets in the past or even the Russians now. They would, however, work very well against the French. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

83.  Re: Tactics Need Soldiers   by Yohan       at Wed 16 Apr 11:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I think they decided not to engage us in a real battle out in the open because there's no tactical advantage for them there, as was displayed during the desert warfare of Gulf War I. No sizeable units could have survived unnoticed behind our advance and even if they did, they could not hope to do better than one surprise attack before stirring up a hornet's nest of rapid response of air and land forces of unprecedented speed and lethality, thus ensuring their swift destruction. Yes the U.S. gambled that a quick dash and show of force would be all that was needed, and that gamble failed to pan out immediately, but it didn't have to pay off as we had the forces to win the thing no matter how the Iraqis responded. I'm not really an expert, but I think the Iraqis' best chance was to engage the US in the cities using their armor and fanatics in a coordinated effort while negating US air-superiority and much of our armor and high explosive technology. Problem was that the US strategists knew this so they did everything they could to knock out command and control and isolate individual units from each other. Effective urban warfare against superior numbers requires good communications and a high degree of resolve, neither of which the Iraqis had. In the end, I give the US military some credit in tailoring their strategy toward the enemy they face. The tactics used on Iraq might not work elsewhere, but the US high command would not use the same tactics. Our high degree of technological innovation allows our forces a high level of flexibility, which is why they are so effective. When In Rome Do As The Vandals Do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  It's the economy, stupid!   by halfwit       at Wed 16 Apr 10:15am score of 1     Russia has neither the funds, nor the technology, to keep up with the state of the art military of the US. If the US, at this time, has no intention of invading Russia, and our military is more than sufficiently powerful (excessively so), why should Russia bother? Russia could invest the bulk of their current military budget back into the economy, with tax cuts, infrastructure, education, or whatever. An extra $30 or $35 billion a year devoted to those things should help quite a bit. Once the Russian economy was stable and on par with other world leaders, they could invest in a first class military.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  What they drink.   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 16 Apr 10:56am score of 0.5 helpful     Many Russians drink Vodka. Although vodka began as rye-based liquor, as it became more popular to the masses, the potato became the ingredient of choice. Potatoes are native to Peru. In Inca society they had a place in the religious system. The Spanish conquistadors brought them to Europe in the sixteenth century, and a little later they reached the British Isles after the English adventurers Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh plundered Spanish colonies in America. One of them is supposed to have almost lost his life because the cook, naturally unfamiliar with the vegetable, served not the tuber but the cooked shoots, containing the strong poison solanine. Apparently British potatodom owes more to Raleigh, since it was first grown in Ireland where he was governor for Queen Elizabeth I for a time. Spanish King Philip II made a gift of this overseas delicacy to the pope, who then gave some to the cardinal of Flanders. Soon the country parish priests in the Netherlands were promoting? the new crop from the pulpit, and St. Peter's Monastery near Ghent told its leaseholders to pay their rents in potatoes. In 1588 the papal legate in Flanders ate the Peruvian tubers and praised their taste, declaring that it reminded him of chestnuts made of carrots. From the Netherlands the potato went to Prussia. As in the rest of Europe, its cultivation met stiff resistance from the peasants. They said that eating potatoes caused fever, rheumatism, anemia, gout . . (these misconceptions persisted for a long time — in the late eighteenth century the physician and agronomist Albrecht Thaer was still battling them). Frederick the Great dealt with the problem in a consummately Prussian way: planting was done under the supervision of dragoons, and poor care of the crop could earn a flogging. The French used a different approach. Antoine Augustin Parmentier (pharmacist and agronomist, awarded by the Paris Academy of Sciences for his treatise on potatoes) announced that theft of the precious tubers from the fields would be severely punished. Soldiers guarded the plantations during the day, and at night the guard was lifted. Soon there were potatoes in the peasants' plots. Education through example was also tried: Marie Antoinette adorned her gowns with potato flowers, and Louis XVI ordered potato dishes to be served at court receptions (Benjamin Franklin, visiting the French court at the time, praised their taste). The eminent economist Robert Jacques Turgot, intendant of the province of Limousin, toured the lands under his authority and gave public feasts whose menu featured potato recipes. In Poland the first to savor potatoes was Queen Maria Kazimiera d'Arquien; King Jan III Sobieski sent his beloved Maria some from Vienna. The royal gardener from Wilanow, Pawel Wienczarek, gave a few tubers to his son-in law Luba of Nowolipek, who began to cultivate them under glass and sell them to the magnates, who imitated the royal habits. For at that time potatoes were still the fare of connoisseurs and snobs; during the reign of August II they were offered in the magnates' courts as a desert sprinkled with cinnamon. True, the peasants were already growing these exotic plants, but at first the cows were fed on them. Not until lean years came were they convinced that Princess Anna Jablonowska had been right when she wrote in instructions for her stewards that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Re: What they drink.   by M. Mosher       at Wed 16 Apr 11:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     And Jesus said, 'Take, Eat, This is my potato'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: What they drink.   by Osomatic       at Wed 16 Apr 12:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Thanks, potato guy! If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  We think   by coprolalia       at Wed 16 Apr 6:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     we think you're just a spud boy, looking for that real tomato. My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: What they drink.   by cutta       at Thu 17 Apr 7:24am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 27     Please could you start posting under a user name — I'm researching potato-based technologies at the moment, and it would help if I could find all your extremely informative posts without having to trawl through all these boring comments on the war and stuff. Thanks in anticipation. round here we say birds not bitches   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Wait a sec   by SimpsonsQuoteBot       at Wed 16 Apr 10:59am score of 2 brilliant     Are we planning to fight a war with Russia? Or is Russia looking for a fight? Don't we have Afghanistan and Iraq to finish with, before invading Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Canada and the moon? Does Russia plan on fighting any old-style land wars in the next few years that their military is unprepared for? Or is this just a USA #1!!!! post? And what's wrong with being modern Spain? Good food, beautiful beaches, stable government... WWD4D?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Re: Wait a sec   by chatsubo       at Wed 16 Apr 11:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Or is this just a USA #1!!!! post? 1. The headline was not my idea, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means. 2. I am not American. 3. The post was really born out of the Bruce Sterling article I linked to, which examined how America, unlike any other nation, has began to evolve a fundamentally new military strategy based on (or in) space, which is seemingly making previous methods of warfare increasingly obsolete and futile, and the Red Army seemed to me the best paradigm of that method of warfare. That, and the happy coincidence of finding a relevant CSM article on their (always excellent) website. As a casual observer of international relations, I thought it might be worth an old chin-wag amongst Plasticians. That, and an interest in how the Iraq conflict has effected other nations not immediately involved. I don't think saying that the US is the world's most impressive military power is gung ho, just a simple statement of fact. And I have a major soft spot for Russia and Russians. If it wasn't for them, likely I would be writing this post in German. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Wait a sec   by rEvolution inAction       at Wed 16 Apr 11:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     3. The post was really born out of the Bruce Sterling article I linked to, which examined how America, unlike any other nation, has began to evolve a fundamentally new military strategy based on (or in) space, which is seemingly making previous methods of warfare increasingly obsolete and futile, and the Red Army seemed to me the best paradigm of that method of warfare. That, and the happy coincidence of finding a relevant CSM article on their (always excellent) website. So who's making satellite killers these days? Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: Wait a sec   by mobass       at Thu 17 Apr 6:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     3. The post was really born out of the Bruce Sterling article I linked to, which examined how America, unlike any other nation, has began to evolve a fundamentally new military strategy based on (or in) space, which is seemingly making previous methods of warfare increasingly obsolete and futile, and the Red Army seemed to me the best paradigm of that method of warfare. I'll bite on that- Granted, you're paraphrasing an article, and not necessarily your own opinion, but it's been a topic that has kept me mentally occupied on the commute to and from work. The military analysis of the Russian army is that they still love to fight symmetrical Clausewitian style engagements against an enemy that has a deeper emotional reservoir, essentially staking their future existence on the fight in front of them, willing to use any tactic, and finding that asymmetrical warfare is their only real advantage. A large army will not always win- Obvious to the extreme, but there's still a "get there first with the most" mentality and it's a slow process to get this to sink in. We had Vietnam, and then got to watch and learn as the Soviets sent a large, conventional (under-committed emotionally) force against an enemy that has everything to gain by not going toe-to-toe with an numerically superior adversary. It happened in Chechnya as well, proving that big is not better. Yeah, we got dogs and Valvoline- It's a pretty damn good time.. -Toy Matinee   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  Yugoslavia, Russia   by perdajz       at Wed 16 Apr 3:30pm score of 1.5 helpful     Sterling's read on the Yugoslav campaign is all wrong. Yugoslavia's military was untouched for all practical purposes, save for about 13 obsolete tanks, and the JNA pulled out of Kosovo in fine form, with their middle fingers up in the air and firmly directed at the press from NATO countries. Yeah, Yugoslavia lost some of its air force, but the US lost two stealth fighters (one destroyed over Serbia and the other scrapped later), each worth more than the whole of the Yugoslav air force. Indeed, the first foreign troops to enter Kosovo were Russian, not NATO, as the JNA abided by UN Resolution 1244 to the letter, while Wesley Clark and Michael Short could only fume and scream at the Bulgarians not to allow Russian flights over their airspace. Given the order to intervene and prevent the Russians from reaching the Pristina airport, British General Michael Jackson told Wesley Clark that the he would not start WWIII. NATO's ally on the ground — the KLA (allies with Al Queda as well) — was quickly overrun and returned only after Yugoslav troops withdrew from the province. Yugoslavia signed on to UN Resolution 1244 after the US dropped the Rambouillet, Appendix B diktat. In March of 1999, as a pretext to bomb, the US demanded Yugoslavia surrender unconditionally and hand over a province that had been part of Serbia since the ninth century to a group of narco-terrorist thugs. In the end, the US dropped these demands and settled for UN Resolution 1244. It's easy to find on the Web, and it reads like a negotiated settlement. It mentions the word NATO exactly once. The lesson here is that yes, the US can impose its will anywhere, anytime, but only if it is willing to accept casualties. There was no mandate for casualties in the Yugoslav campaign, so the US kept its planes above 15,000 ft. The US dropped its initial demands, cut a deal with the help of the Russians and declared victory. Not much to brag about, really.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

79.  Yes, but..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 9:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     The US dropped its initial demands, cut a deal with the help of the Russians and declared victory. There's much to be said for your cautionary remarks, but it's worth noting that President Milosevic found himself out of a job in a matter of months. It's conceivable that that might have happened on more or less the same timetable even if his miscalculations (paralleling those of the US and NATO politico-military leadership) had not resulted in the protracted bombing of his country and an imminent threat of invasion--but I can't help wondering if there might not have been some connection there. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

80.  Grozny as paradigm.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 9:34pm score of 1     Indeed, many Russians experts expected that any battle for Baghdad would be much like their own experiences in Grozny, and Russian newspaper Gazeta.ru, reported that Russian experts in street fighting and air defense played key roles in designing the defenses of Baghdad. It's too bad all those street fighting experts weren't around in 1994. Guess they had to learn their lessons the hard way: When the Russians first attempted to seize Grozny (on New Year's Eve 1994), they tried to do it with tanks and personnel carriers but without enough supporting infantry. What infantry was available had just been thrown together and many did not even know the last names of their fellow soldiers. They were told that they were part of a police action. Some did not have weapons. Many were sleeping in the carriers as the columns rolled into Grozny. Tank crews were not issued machine gun ammunition. Lax preparation for this assault reflected the hubris of the Defense Minister, General Pavel Grachev, who had boasted earlier that month that he could seize Grozny in two hours with one parachute regiment. The Russians drove into Grozny expecting to capture the city center and seat of government from the march--a Soviet and Russian technique that is used only when the enemy is not in strength, has not had time to prepare defenses and is completely surprised. None of these conditions applied. Tanks and personnel carriers in the city without preceding dismounted infantry cover were easy targets to antitank gunners firing from the flanks or from above. The initial Russian armored columns were swallowed up in the city streets and destroyed by Chechen gunners. The Russians lost 105 of 120 tanks and personnel carriers and fell back to consolidate for the long, building-by-building battle. Oops. By contrast, the US military, while certainly out of its preferred element in built-up areas, exhibits a dramatically higher degree of professionalism at all levels--that by itself is an enormous advantage, just as in Afghanistan, where American troops have thus far kept to a minimum Soviet conscripts' practice of donating much of the fuel used by the mujihadeen in exchange for food, drugs, and other junk. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

81.  In short, no.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Wed 16 Apr 9:42pm score of 1     Can Russia regain its superpower status, or is it destined to be relegated to the Third Division of nations, squeezed between the hyperpower of the U.S. and the sheer weight of numbers of the Chinese? Maybe Russia can avoid falling behind China, but the super-power of the Soviet era was obtained only at the expense of an unsustainable economic mobilization. Without enormous economic growth, Russia will not even approach having the ability to field military forces to equal those of the Cold War. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  These aren't real wars.   by irritating environme       at Thu 17 Apr 1:12am score of 1.5 astute     The premise of communist conscript armies is interesting, but the genesis of this story seems flawed at its root. In open battlefield it is probably correct, but it hasn't been tested against an enemy with an air force yet. I would say this argument is tantamount to analyzing a fight between a 300-pound NFL lineman that knows black-belt level karate and a 105-pound woman. The Karate is very impressive looking (shock and awe), but the fact that he's 300 pounds and benchs 500 pounds is probably more important. We pick fights with whimps. Afghanistan was fought by mercenaries: we bought the warlords, who happily fought to regain control of the country, and control of the lucrative poppy fields. For the sake of argument, can we call this essentially a popular revolution against an oppressive regime. Yugoslavia I admittedly know little of, beyond the fact it ended up in a popular revolution against an oppressive despot. Iraq didn't immediately crumble because of what we did in the past, not what we did in the early stages. Because we had royally fucked the Kurds and the Shiites so badly in the past, they didn't exactly help the resistance. It wasn't until we sacked Baghdad that they saw we were serious, and then the oppressive regime fell apart. In none of these cases did the resident population feel motivated to fight use, as opposed to, say, Vietnam. Conscripted armies in each of those three enemies were either not large enough (the taliban) , or not motivated enough (Iraq) to actually fight. Since Saddam's brutality, terror, and torture extended all the way up the ranks to the senior leadership, things fell apart very very quickly. We essentially didn't have to fight an urban war. The privledged will risk complete destruction over surrender of any material advantage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

93.  Don't hold your breath.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Thu 17 Apr 8:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 86     The premise of communist conscript armies is interesting, but the genesis of this story seems flawed at its root. In open battlefield it is probably correct, but it hasn't been tested against an enemy with an air force yet. I would say this argument is tantamount to analyzing a fight between a 300-pound NFL lineman that knows black-belt level karate and a 105-pound woman. The Karate is very impressive looking (shock and awe), but the fact that he's 300 pounds and benchs 500 pounds is probably more important. We pick fights with whimps. The whole point is that the US has no peer competitor any more. You can certainly argue with the morality of picking on the Sisters of the Poor, but that's the reality. There are circumstances that could be considerably more troubling for the US military than its recent engagements, but those [North Korea, for instance] are the situations that the US would be reluctant to employ military force. Rarely do states go to war when they don't perceive the benefits to outweigh the costs. So in short, the conflicts you mention are wars, the kind that actually get fought, as opposed to "fair" fights, which are a lot less common. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  Re: Don't hold your breath.   by irritating environme       at Thu 17 Apr 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 93     I think we have two "near-far" term enemies of capable strength, as in within 10 years. The European Union is rapidly assimilating into a fully unified soveriegn power with a unified military. Steps are slowly being taken, and it only takes proper motivation (as in, the US throwing around its weight, as it is now) to hasten this process. The EU has more people, equivalent technology, and is probably closer to more raw resources (africa and russia) that it can defend securely than the US does. And they have fully capable nuclear ICBMs. The second is China, with its massive population, and is rapidly closing on ICBM-capable nuclear arms, and explosive economic growth using its state-controlled capitalism. China is also very close to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, so it could quickly conquer not only extremely high tech societies, but simultaneously take away a great deal of the US's sources for technology manufacturing. To say we have no conventional peer is true with reservations. The fundamental fact is that the US is still subject to Soviet-era (how ironic) mutually assured destruction rules, and missle "defense", simply a hugely expensive pork project, will not change this equation one bit. I would laugh off the fact that Americans (I am one) are slowly getting bloodthirsty and flush with success, except for the fact that it will inevitably cause us to overextend. I would contend that we are in fact providing the motivation to inspire capable enemies into equalizing their abilities, especially the EU and the popular mutual contempt its populations have with one another. The privledged will risk complete destruction over surrender of any material advantage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: Don't hold your breath.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Thu 17 Apr 8:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 104     Re Europe: not that unified, not really hostile to the US, which for all the worry over American unilateralism is still basically doing Europe's dirty work for them and paying the bills to boot, all out of an odd youthful machismo. There are major demographic pressures limiting Western European military spending--comprehensive welfare states cost money, and aging populations with low birthrates are not ideal for paying the bills. The issue with Europe becomes more interesting in the long term with the growing de-Europeanization of Europe. The influx of "guest workers" is one day going to result in a distinctly different Continent, unless population trends shift significantly. In that case, the long, close relationship between the US and Europe may change significantly. Re China: firstly, China has had ICBM's for years. Less than a hundred, but a sufficient force for deterrent purposes (take a note, Pentagon geniuses). Secondly, responding to your broader point--China certainly was the bogeyman of most strategic futurists prior to 9/11. [ Oh for those quaint days of the Hainan Island crisis.] But all the teeth-gnashing over China's military potential frequently fails to take into account the fragility of the Chinese economy and state, let alone the impotence of its military forces--recall that this is a country which was chastised in open combat by Vietnam (yes, I'm aware of the outcome of the Second Indochina War). Chinese officers were greatly alarmed by the ease of US victory in the first Gulf War and sought desperately to reform the woeful People's Liberation Army--they can hardly be encouraged by the accelerating gains made by US military technologists in the years since. None of this presumes that there is no such thing as overstretch for the US--but the situation at present is one of gross inequality. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

107.  the premise of this story is lame   by joyful immolation       at Thu 17 Apr 7:18pm score of 1     Realistically, the Soviet Union/Russia abandoned whatever semblance of conventional parity it ever achieved with the US by 1994, when only a quarter of their divisions had shelter, fuel and spare parts and less than that were getting paid. It didn't completely disintegrate — they were at least able to retain the capacity to plow troops and equipment into the Chechnyan meat grinder — but they lost at least 50% of their effectiveness from, say, 1979. However, none of that matters worth a damn, because they have enough nuclear weapons to nuke us into a smoking pit, and many of those still work. Since the 1970's direct warfare between the US and Russia is mental masturbation and nothing else (possibly earlier). It's just not a relevant concept, because it would esclatate to nuclear and than no one has much of an army. You can make a case that this might not happen in a limited war...but that doesn't eliminate my point, because nobody really knows for sure. However, Russian military techonology is still quite useful and relevant. Not the 1970's stuff that Iraq had, but the more recent things are still closer to techonological parity than any fight we've seen since WWII. Admittedly, the soviets stopped new RD and development by 92' or so, but we haven't gained enormous advantages in that time. before y'all go on about JDAM's and RMA and so on, the reason i say this is that the US and soviet tech trees are designed to counter each other. You don't hear much about US surface-to-air missiles, do you? That's because we assume air dominance. We've never had the chance to go up against an SA-20 network. Maybe we never will. They're expensive. No one really knows how we'd do. Similarly, the Russians had fighters that we're at least up to par with the F-16 and a never -finished project on an F-22 level. China is already a rich enough society to be able to afford them. NATO/EU is based on the American tech tree, and that's not likely to change, nor are you ever likely to see us fighting anyone equipped with NATO hardware. We're never going to go to war with the EU. Even the idea of the EU actively supplying a proxy is hard to imagine. Russia is too broke and messed up to be able to make US parity. However, China has the latent economic capacity to afford to match US defense spending (and remember, that's kind of illusory — how well it's spent is also important). What I've never understood is why China can't seem to gather the extent of techincal know-how and military infrastructure and production capacity that Russia possesses. China's finances + Russian tech tree = potential miltary parity. Not right now, but in 10 years. It's possible. Or course, it's not guaranteed. Meanwhile, before I forget about my main point: two points for imagination, but this story is a stretch. The US winning in Iraq doesn't really say anything directly about Russian conventional capabillities, which are below the US's and have been for at least 1.5 decades. Iraq fought like Iraq, not like Russia. Russia also has sattelites, fighter jets, etc, though it can't really afford to keep them up at the moment, and probably would not fight the US in 2003 like it did Germany in 1944. this city's dance/makes you feel so cold, it's got/so many people, but it's got no soul-   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

108.  Re: the premise of this story is lame   by irritating environme       at Thu 17 Apr 8:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 107     I disagree that we will "never go to war with the EU". In two years, no. In five years, things can sour enough. In ten years, that's a lot of time. All it takes is economic head-butting, or a succession of diplomatically stupid and ignorant presidents (this one we'll probably have another six years, probably followed by Jeb Bush). I contended that the EU is a near-far (10 years) potential parity because it could switch over so fast. There must be european contractors for all the advanced weapons like fighter jets, like the Mirage. The British make modern naval ships. The French have full nuclear capability. They have their own space program for satellite launch. They have their own carriers. And besides, they could just admit Russia for additional technology. Just because the EU is based on the American tech tree doesn't mean they are dependent upon us for that technology. They have COPIED it. The european union may surpass the Americans in economic power in the next ten years, especially if they continue to successfully construct common institutions that exploit economies of scale. The US army may have complained about the european armies being scattershot, but just because they don't right now (why, when the US can be the goon to do the dirty work and waste trillions on defense), doesn't mean they can't, and quickly. The privledged will risk complete destruction over surrender of any material advantage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: the premise of this story is lame   by joyful immolation       at Fri 18 Apr 11:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 108     most of what you've said is debatably true, but nevertheless it's almost unimaginable that we could go to war with the EU, be it now or 10 years from now. Neither of the two are ever going to be percieved as a security threat by the other. And the benefits and costs of war have changed in the 21'st century so that neither country would realistically expect to gain more than it lost in such a war. One of the two governments would have to become a totalitarian state again for this to be a credible scenario. I'm no fan of George Bush either, but let's not completely lose touch with what real totalitarianism is. this city's dance/makes you feel so cold, it's got/so many people, but it's got no soul-   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: the premise of this story is lame   by rEvolution inAction       at Fri 18 Apr 2:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 108     I contended that the EU is a near-far (10 years) potential parity because it could switch over so fast. There must be european contractors for all the advanced weapons like fighter jets, like the Mirage. The British make modern naval ships. The French have full nuclear capability. They have their own space program for satellite launch. They have their own carriers. Somehow I don't think their going to be using the Mirage, when they already have the Joint Strike Fighter in design. This fighter is designed to offer the most variants so that any country that refit it for whatever use they want (Fighter-Bomber, Long Range Patrol, Short-Range Intercept, VTOL) and is presently being built jointly by the US, UK, France, Canada, Israel, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Signapore, Turkey and Italy. This fighter will replace F-16, A-10, AV-8, F/A-18, Sea Harriers, and GR.7. Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]