| Author |
America's plan to invade Canada |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-14 09:53:35, max_wedge wrote:
actually my understanding is that there have been very few successful air campaigns where attack by air alone was responsible for winning a war or battle unless there is a much larger difference in power between combatants (for example Nato on belgrade) than there is between US and China/Russia. Air attack is to soften the target in prelude to a ground attack, sometimes the softening is successful, sometimes not.
|
|
Whether air power alone can achieve one's objectives depends upon what those objectives are. Air power alone cannot take and hold a country, but it can cause enough damage to severely hamper a country's capacity to wage war.
I don't think the US would seek to use air power to weaken China's infrastructure and damge their economy. The goal might be to inflict enough damage to force a resumption of diplomacy or it could be to prepare the way for a ground attack.
Quote:
|
In World War 2, Germany sustained perpetual 24 hour bombing for three years or more before ground troops forced them to capitulate unconditionally. The factories that made german war machines continued production 24 hours a day, underground, and were very well protected against the allied air assault. At the closing stages of the war, when both the US and Britain where hitting Germany with everything they had, the Germans still produced thousands of aircraft a month. (Adolf Garland, Leader of the Luftwaffe, wrote a book which is an excellent account of what the Luftwaffe, and German production ability, achieved in this desperate struggle - he wasn't a Nazi, just a soldier fighting a battle. Very interesting story) All Germany's supply routes had been completely severed.
|
|
Germany's situation in WWII is rathe rinteresting for different reasons. The German economy wasn't in total war mode until the last years of the war and then it was more out of necessity than choice. This is ins contrast with the UK, which fought a more total war from the beginning. The UK in fact arguably fought the most 'total war' of any of the nations involve din WWII with the exception of the U.S.S.R. The Nazis were worried about morale within Germany, which had been a problem during WWI and so production of luxury goods was maintained in the early years of the war.
Getting back on topic though, Allied bombing did in fact have a very serious effect on Germany's ability to fight. The continual bombing of German cities forced Germany to divert aircraft and anti-aircraft batteries from the Eastern Front to protect Germany thus weakening their already beleaguered forces there.
It is true that production of certain goods and resources did rise despite the Allied bombing offensive, however, one could argue that this rise would have been greater wer eit not for the bombing offensive. One should also note that the bombing offensive did have a very serious effect on Germany's oil supplies resulting in chronic shortages of fuel for German military vehicles, which hampered their ability to field mechanised forces.
The rise in German production was not in exclusion, production levels rose in other countries and at a greater rate to that seen in Germany. The rise in German production isn't actually too surprising when one considers the avove point that their economy wasn't on a total war footing to begin with. Women weren't used in war production to the same extent as they were in Britain for example. Such changes would be a relatively simple way for Germany to increase production, overcoming the effects of the widescale bombing would have been a different matter.
It is worth pointing out that senior German figures such as Speer and Donitz credited the Allied bombing offensive with severely damging Germany's capacity to wage war.
One last point to make is that the bombing offensive sof WWII were not precision attacks by modern standards. Where a fleet of bombers could drop a great many bombs and fail to hit their target, modern weaponry has a much better chance of hitting the target and causing the intended damage.
Quote:
|
Even today I would expect the Russians and Chinese could show a tremendous degree of ingenuity in maintaining supply lines and production even under constant bombardment.
|
|
It is certainly possible, but one also has to be realistic. If one is talking about maintaining a huge mechanised force dependent upon various supplies such as food, fuel, ammunition, etc then that becomes more difficult. Doing so over a vast area with difficult geography only adds to the problem. What could be the case is that a guerilla campaign might start, which would liekly be easier to maintain and operate than a massed conventional force.
Quote:
|
The air forces the US mobilised against Baghdad is only a fraction of what they'd need to subdue China/Russia.
|
|
But then the US does have the forces needed. They also have a major advantage in that they can operate from their homeland (or just about anywhere on Earth) in attacking either Russia or China whereas neither Russia or China have the capability to wage an extensive bombing campaign against America from their homelands or from the seas.
What would win an air war for America would be attacking Chinese planes on the ground coupled with inflicting serious economic damage. With facilities and supply line sbeing damaged the Chinese would find it more difficult to operate their airforce, which was simultaneously being targeted on the ground whilst neither hampering factor could be forced upon the US.
The US could also conduct long range missile attacks against China in addition to using combat aircraft. China's air defence resources would almost certainly come under heavy strain responding to both.
Quote:
|
I don't think it will necessary be a surrender but a withdrawal of US forces unable to completely break the enemy. In other words I believe China and Russia could sustain their soverenty against a sustained attack by the US, and a mutual truce would be called.
|
|
I disagree, but not because I don't think your scenario is feasible. I don't think the US would be looking to completely conquer either country, I think the aims of such a war would involve either regime change or containment. The US would really only have to do enough damage to achieve its goals rather than a complete invasion and assumption of soveriegnty. I think both sides in such a conflict would be wary of escalting it to the point where nuclear weapons might be used. If the US pushed too hard then China or Russia might feel that they were about to loose everything and use nuclear weapons, equally if China or Russia were to seek to involve other countries or widen the scope of the war or appear unwilling to negotiate then the US may feel that nuclear weapons were necessary to prevent the war from engulfing the globe.
Quote:
|
But of course as you say, what would be the point of such a war? We are really only discussing hypothetical situations unlikely to occur in the current economic climate.
|
|
I think there are only really two viable source sof a possible conflict between China and the US; Taiwan or some sort of major economic dispute. I discount North Korea because I don't think China would risk everything for a war which would almost certainly cause a lot of damage and which it would be unlikely to win.
Quote:
|
I do agree with one thing you say, China could certainly never mount an attack against the US. The don't have the Naval power, it's something that they simply could not do. |
|
There are really only three nations who currently have the means to project military force on a truly global scale, the US, UK and France. The altetr two don't have the resources to mount much more than expiditionary forces, but they do still have a global capability. Most countries are more concerned about defending their borders against more immediate conerns.
Quote:
|
Thanks for the Project Evil link, sounds very interesting, I'll check it out 
|
|
You're welcome. If you join then I think it might be a good idea to continue this discussion there.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-09-26 06:17 ] | |
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-14 12:01:59, absinthebri wrote:
Yes. As I said, they lost. Period.
|
|
Yes and no. The actual military defeat which eventually ended the Vietnam war was that of the South Vietnamese forces who were by then fighting on their own after the US had withdrawn its troops following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. As far as I am aware the US military won most of the major engagements it had been involved in during the Vietnam War. The reason that the US lost in Vietnam is because they lost the political war, which was in no small part due to increasingly strong opposition to the war by the American public.
Crucial to US victory is public opinion within America itself, as demonstrated by the Vietnam War and arguably the current war in Iraq.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-14 20:55 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
hehe agreed to continue elsewhere scots! Will only say this, my point about Germany was not to compare against modern methods or equipment, but to exemplify what can be achieved when the chips are down. But I completely agree with all your points about their gasoline shortages etc.
It is truly an amazing thing to see, whether the defendent is "right" or "wrong" morally. Two examples from the Allied side would be the RAF fighter corp defence of Britain which was truly phenomenol, or the Rats of Tobruk fighting drastically overwhelming odds against the Afrika Corps, including intensive dive bombing attacks.
"In their fortress of dust and death, they had carried the fight to the German flank, defying the most intensive dive-bombing barrages in martial history."
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/tobruk.htm
Go the Aussies!
|
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-14 21:37:39, scotsboyuk wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-14 12:01:59, absinthebri wrote:
Yes. As I said, they lost. Period.
|
|
Yes and no. The actual military defeat which eventually ended the Vietnam war was that of the South Vietnamese forces who were by then fighting on their own after the US had withdrawn its troops following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.
|
|
And how many years after theeir 'withdrawal' did they actually withdraw?
Quote:
|
As far as I am aware the US military won most of the major engagements it had been involved in during the Vietnam War. The reason that the US lost in Vietnam is because they lost the political war, which was in no small part due to increasingly strong opposition to the war by the American public.
|
|
Certainly. The US has massive firepower at its disposal and could certainly wipe any country off the face of the earth (but at what cost?). But, as you say, there's more to winning wars than military battles.
Quote:
|
Crucial to US victory is public opinion within America itself, as demonstrated by the Vietnam War and arguably the current war in Iraq.
|
|
Certainly. War is but politics with force.
[addsig] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
It's true that the US won all the major battles they were a part of. However what is forgotten is that just as much as the NVA hoped to win these battles, and tried damn hard, they also new that if they could draw out the conflict long enough, then the will of the American people would disipitate. The NVA never gave up in the face of superior American forces. They protacted the war until the US no longer had the public will to fight.
They won the war fair and square, just as surely as any beseiged city might be said to have won when the attacker leaves, with the attacker not beaten in a direct fight, but having lost the war of attrition they hoped to win against the city.
It's a true victory, and a moral one. If the American public truly believed in their righteousness to be there, they would have allowed their government to do whatever necessary to win. But in end, no one really believed that prevention of Vietnam becoming communist was relevent to US security or economic prosperity. If the NVA hadn't fought so hard, this would never have been realised. The domino affect would have been in reverse, until the US was on the doorstep of China. What would have come next? In some ways, the end of the cold war started with the US pulling out of Vietnam.
Just my humble view
|
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
So u guys think they gonna attack Iran??? |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-15 08:55:47, 786KBR wrote:
So u guys think they gonna attack Iran???
|
|
Nope.
[addsig] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I think they have too much to lose and not enough to gain at this stage so I think it's very unlikely. I'm sure it's something the Bush administration would like to have a good enough excuse for, but they are pragmatic enough to realise it would be a mistake politically, and militarily they would get bogged down in another Vietnam.
Compared to Iraq, which was a walk in the park, Iran is much better prepared, has more will to resist than the Iraqi's, and has a much bigger and better disciplined army than Iraq had prior to either of the Gulf wars.
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-15 04:44:46, absinthebri wrote:
And how many years after theeir 'withdrawal' did they actually withdraw?
|
|
As I said before, by the time Saigon fell in 1975, the military defeat was that of the South Vietnamese army.
Quote:
|
Certainly. The US has massive firepower at its disposal and could certainly wipe any country off the face of the earth (but at what cost?). But, as you say, there's more to winning wars than military battles.
|
|
I think that's the key point here. Whilst America had the ability to win the war, the political climate of the time can be argued to have constrained that ability.
Quote:
|
Certainly. War is but politics with force.
|
|
Clausewitz?
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-15 23:56 ] |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-15 08:57:47, absinthebri wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-15 08:55:47, 786KBR wrote:
So u guys think they gonna attack Iran???
|
|
Nope.
|
|
I don't think so mate . . . if the US have attacked:
1. Vietnam
2. Iraq
3. Afghanistan
+ their VAST experience during the 2nd WW, then there's JUST NO reason why they won't be attacking - IRAN ! If they will be given the chance to attack the planet MARS, I think they will . . .
[addsig] |
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
Yip I also think so, they not that stupid, but its all over the news that they might coz Irans not disclosing their Nuclear weapons projects and whatever WMD they got, similer to what happened with Iraq... |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
I believe time is the best option - wait for the current leader to be voted out. He is said to be deeply unpopular and the youth of todays Iran are far more modern in both their thinking and attitude towards the West.
Like has been said before the World needs Iran more than Iran needs the world as it is the worlds 4th biggest oil producer, but ask yourself this question - If Iran has such massive oil reserves then why would it need to develop Nuclear Power when it has all the energy producing capability it needs.?
|
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-16 14:57:53, goldenface wrote:
...but ask yourself this question - If Iran has such massive oil reserves then why would it need to develop Nuclear Power when it has all the energy producing capability it needs.?
|
|
It doesn't NEED nuclear power. Neither does the UK or the USA. It may well wish to develop nuclear weaponry, as it has every right to do.
And to think, the Big Five had 50 years to uphold the UN Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but they chose not to. As always, we reap what we sow.
[addsig] |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
Well if Iran has the right to do so then every country in the world also has the right - is that not your opinion?
Is that not a bit worrying to you at all?
They estimate that Iran will have nuclear weapons building capability in about 6 years. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a leader who has said publicly that he would like to "wipe another country off the map" !!!! 
Lets hope he isn't in power for much longer because with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia and Iraq on its border things look pretty grim to me.
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
I think every sovereign country in the world has the absolute to right to have nuclear weapons,and why not?..If the U.S and Isreal can have then why not other countrys aswell?..If the U.S has such an issue with Iran and and any other country from having a nuclear arsenal then they should set an example and get rid of their own ones first and make Israel do the same...Its such hypocracy on the part of the U.S.
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-01-14 21:10
