The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central 21st century warfare

21st century warfare

I personally think that boots on the ground days are over - it is too expensive and is not that effective. Afghanistan and Iraq showed that simple insurgency can stop any army, then it is just a matter of sitting them out.

Wars now fought in following ways - a) financially via trade wars, currency debasing and open and not so open government takeovers b) drones and cruise missiles. While we seeing early stages of this phase and all-around stalemate, just like WW1 trench warfare methods will get refined and someone will emerge dominant with optimal strategy.

I see traditional "big hardware" such as carriers as pointless and not at all cost effective way to fight wars as napoleon-era formations marching against trenches and machine guns.

So question is, why are we keep building these mega-expensive toys when even backwards Iran can effectively defeat them with soviet-era supersonic cruise missiles with costs of cents to thousands of dollars?

You sir are wrong.

First, it wasn't a war we were involved in for the last 9 years and 10 months, it was a Nation Building political agenda. The actual "War" was over inside of the first 2 months.

Secondly, you don't control squat until you have boots on the ground. You need a standing Army in order to be able to exert your will over your enemy in the form of taking ground and holding it and denying your enemy the resources and strategic value of said land.

Thirdly, if there wasn't such a pack of pansy ass Corp. ass clowns in Govt. today and we actually had a "War" that we had defined objectives, a defined outline of what a "win" is, and an actual exit strategy, and then combined that with the willingness to fucking bring it with everything we had you would see what a modern day "War" actually is.

I have served in the Army. I have been an NCO. I have shot in anger at the enemy.

I know what a War is and isn't. You do not.

What you described are "policies" which serve as sanctions. Even the use of a Cruise Missile here and there as a strategic policy strike is not a "War".

You really don't have any concept of projection of force over the horizon, or you are just really confused about it.

Beyond that, I am not even going to entertain your statement with actual fact based conversation.

BRAVO Tas, Bravo!

Now get ready for the delusional BS he's about to spew!

What war 'is' or 'is not' is not what I am trying to discuss here.

For the record I mostly agree with Ron Paul's point of view. US shouldn't be in business of invading other countries, and shouldn't be in business of trying to do nation building after said invasions. Anything else can be covered by sanctions, drone strikes or precision cruise missile strikes.

Don't you have anything better to do than stalking me over forums lashing at everything I post? If you don't have anything to say, at least have a decency to keep your mouth shut.

 

Wars now fought in following ways - a) financially via trade wars, currency debasing and open and not so open government takeovers b) drones and cruise missiles. While we seeing early stages of this phase and all-around stalemate, just like WW1 trench warfare methods will get refined and someone will emerge dominant with optimal strategy.

When was the last time a country took over another one by process A or B?

Tas is right, the "war" was over in each country in a few weeks. What was lacking was the will to win. Compare the "occupations" of Japan or Germany with the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan; the latter can scarcely be called occupations.
In order to achieve victory, the enemy must know and accept that he has lost, and be willing to give up. That didn't happen in Korea, Vietnam, or any of the middle eastern wars. The enemy was allowed to remain and hide. Did you know that military-age Germans were held in POW camps until 1948? Not hard to find terrorists when everyone else is locked up.

This century will be twice as bloody as the last; watch what happens when you get your way and the US has the same global status as Belgium. Unparalleled bloodshed in every corner of the globe, and nuclear weapons.

When was the last time a first world country took over another first world country? That would be WW2.

Unless you are kind of person that thinks we should annex Mexico and Canada, US does not need an army it has right now for any kind of reason. You could justify it only if we put it to a good use - conquering and annexing other countries. Then you need boots on the ground.

I didn't say first world, I said ANY, that makes it easier for you to prove. However, you can't because it's never happened. Thanks for proving my point with yet another evasive, dishonest answer.

The last time a country took over another one according to Sinij's Methods A or B = never.

The last time a country was taken over using conventional military force = 2008 (Russia vs Georgia)

First world countries don't fight each other because of nuclear weapons. The only reason there was any insurgency of any kind in our wars are because our enemies know that we have morals, while they, being primitive, filthy barbarians, have none. They rely on OUR morals to prevent their own destruction. It's fucking laughable.