Hooked on Huskers Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 9 out of 10 americans don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, that doesn't mean that the Ukrain is irrelevant just that most of the U.S. is ignorant as hell. I don't believe we should be invoved militarily for many reasons. First being that we haven't proven to be very damn good at it, and two we have far to many problems in our own country that are being willfuly ignored. Sorry Hooked on Huskers but the fact that your wife and daughters have never heard of the Ukraine or the Crimea speaks less about their relevance than it does the vacuum that far to many americans are living in today. As usual, I had stretch the truth. Seriously, my wild guess, one-third or perhaps one-half instead of 9 out of 10. However my "United States ..... stay away" statement is legit for my feelings. I had been an outspoken advocate of keeping the U.S. out of the world conflict. We are not prepared for trivial conflicts; our dangers are here at home. Unfortunately our foreign policies described as a big bullies. Who cares about other country feuds? Especially Israel, Iraq, Afghan, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. and now Iran, Russia and Ukraine. Should be reflection for France policy......... leave NATO pact. Yes, I am a non-involvement (pacifistic) beliefs, just like Charles Lindbergh and fictional character named Edith Keeler (The City on the Edge of Forever - my favorite Star Trek episode). For example IMO, all aircraft carriers and warships are ported in U.S. waters plus all military bases inside the U.S. soil. Awaken a sleeping giant if invades our country (very unlikely). Link to comment
tschu Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 First off, I want to apologize profusely for this post. Second off, Link to comment
husker_99 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thank God that this didn't happen while Bush was President. We truly could have ended up in WW3 doubtful. 1 Link to comment
Excel Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thank God that this didn't happen while Bush was President. We truly could have ended up in WW3 Bush had his issues and sure the Iraq war was what it was but he wasn't the completely stupid warmongering shill he often gets accused of being. He had plenty of opportunities to get us into bigger wars and didn't: 2001 Hainan Island Incident 2002 Venezuelan Coup 2006 North Korean Missle Crisis 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thank God that this didn't happen while Bush was President. We truly could have ended up in WW3 Bush had his issues and sure the Iraq war was what it was but he wasn't the completely stupid warmongering shill he often gets accused of being. He had plenty of opportunities to get us into bigger wars and didn't: 2001 Hainan Island Incident 2002 Venezuelan Coup 2006 North Korean Missle Crisis 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict Two major wars is probably enough for any presidency . . . 2 Link to comment
Excel Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thank God that this didn't happen while Bush was President. We truly could have ended up in WW3 Bush had his issues and sure the Iraq war was what it was but he wasn't the completely stupid warmongering shill he often gets accused of being. He had plenty of opportunities to get us into bigger wars and didn't: 2001 Hainan Island Incident 2002 Venezuelan Coup 2006 North Korean Missle Crisis 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict Two major wars is probably enough for any presidency . . . Completely agree with that sentiment but "major" is a relative term. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thank God that this didn't happen while Bush was President. We truly could have ended up in WW3 Bush had his issues and sure the Iraq war was what it was but he wasn't the completely stupid warmongering shill he often gets accused of being. He had plenty of opportunities to get us into bigger wars and didn't: 2001 Hainan Island Incident 2002 Venezuelan Coup 2006 North Korean Missle Crisis 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict Two major wars is probably enough for any presidency . . . Completely agree with that sentiment but "major" is a relative term. Certainly. I'd also entertain a suggestion to replace the word "major" with either "mistaken" or "regrettable." Link to comment
Excel Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thank God that this didn't happen while Bush was President. We truly could have ended up in WW3 Bush had his issues and sure the Iraq war was what it was but he wasn't the completely stupid warmongering shill he often gets accused of being. He had plenty of opportunities to get us into bigger wars and didn't: 2001 Hainan Island Incident 2002 Venezuelan Coup 2006 North Korean Missle Crisis 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict Two major wars is probably enough for any presidency . . . Completely agree with that sentiment but "major" is a relative term. Certainly. I'd also entertain a suggestion to replace the word "major" with either "mistaken" or "regrettable." Yea both of those apply. Link to comment
Hooked on Huskers Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Just pretend all-out mock war between U.S. and Russia without nuclear bombs. Who's the winner? BTW, nuclear weapons stockpiles: Russia - 8500 (more mobile i.e. RT-2PM Topol trucks) U.S. - 7700 (mostly silos and aircraft bombers) France - 300 China - 250 U.K. - 225 Pakistan - 100 to 120 India - 90 to 110 Israel - 80 N.Korea - supposedly 6 to 8 Iran - ??? I was surprised Pakistan inventory. Link to comment
Excel Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Just pretend all-out mock war between U.S. and Russia without nuclear bombs. Who's the winner? BTW, nuclear weapons stockpiles: Russia - 8500 (more mobile i.e. RT-2PM Topol trucks) U.S. - 7700 (mostly silos and aircraft bombers) France - 300 China - 250 U.K. - 225 Pakistan - 100 to 120 India - 90 to 110 Israel - 80 N.Korea - supposedly 6 to 8 Iran - ??? I was surprised Pakistan inventory. Without? It would be tough but we would win. We have a higher population but a large portion is not fit to serve. We also, even now with our depleted industry, have a larger base to draw from as far as logistics. While some Russian weapons systems get close to rivaling their American counterparts I believe we field more current generation systems, train more on them and maintain them much better. Our militaries are very different and I believe ours is organized better. While militaries can be judged on their raw manpower and equipment as much can be said for leadership and we have an edge. Much of what made the German Army so formidable in the World Wars was their retention and dispersal of institutional knowledge and their training and use of operational and tactical leaders. They had better staffs, officer schools, reserves and so on. Much of our military is based on the concepts that made the Germans so successful, from the use of combined arms to our cadre system of mobilization and the establishment of ROTC programs. I think we do that better than anyone else in the world and that our Field and Company Grade Officers and especially our NCOs...the people that really win wars...are definitely the best. As far as experience and training we win that. While Iraq and Afghanistan were not force-on-force fights like you're imagining there is still something to be said for thirteen years. Then we can look at other things. Oil and energy which the Russians have more of or at least better access. Our Navy is unquestionably better. I know little about Air Forces but the retirement of the A-10, an aircraft designed to mow down soviet tank columns in the Fulda Gap, is disconcerting because it shows our Air Force's shift in philosophy. Still think we win that too though. You say full out war but what do you mean? Is it to the death as in...destroy the other's military, control his territory, capture his capital etc? Or are we fighting for a specific area or goal? Do we have allies? What? 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 I say we conquer Australia first, then move up to New Guinea and Indonesia - it's easiest to defend, and you get the continent bonus every round. 2 Link to comment
Excel Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 +1 for Risk. That bottleneck is dangerous though. We could get creative. West-East doesn't seem to work when invading Russia but the Mongols had a lot of success going the other direction or we could innovate, hit 'em from the North across the Arctic. They'd never see it coming. Could probably annex Canada in the same swoop. Link to comment
knapplc Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 That's why we're melting the ice cap. Easier access. Link to comment
Hooked on Huskers Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Just pretend all-out mock war between U.S. and Russia without nuclear bombs. Who's the winner? BTW, nuclear weapons stockpiles: Russia - 8500 (more mobile i.e. RT-2PM Topol trucks) U.S. - 7700 (mostly silos and aircraft bombers) France - 300 China - 250 U.K. - 225 Pakistan - 100 to 120 India - 90 to 110 Israel - 80 N.Korea - supposedly 6 to 8 Iran - ??? I was surprised Pakistan inventory. .........You say full out war but what do you mean? Is it to the death as in...destroy the other's military, control his territory, capture his capital etc? Or are we fighting for a specific area or goal? Do we have allies? What? No allies, both sides. Again, just pretend. And mock war will be done when unconditional surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. You remember "Amerika" B-film (or something like that) in Lincoln location just after Terms of Endearment? Russia won. Whole bunch of helicopters and one scene filmed in lite prison or rehab hospital on Pioneer Park area. ADDEM: The UNSSU compound raided in the movie was at an abandoned building outside of Lincoln, Nebraska. It stood on the grounds of a Nebraska state surplus site and remained in its "UNSSU" scheme (including large red lettering, white paint and burn marks) for many years until its demolition in August 2007. The attack helicopters seen during the "Lincoln Week" parade were originally created for use in Blue Thunder (1983) see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092316/ . I was wrong......... TV series instead of B-movie. Link to comment
Recommended Posts