5 ms·
You don't need massive air and naval power to be very tough to attack. All you have to do is see the Afghan wars, both Russian and American, for great examples
by DamnYuppie 10y ago
You don't need massive air and naval power to be very tough to attack. All you have to do is see the Afghan wars, both Russian and American, for great examples. They had no airforce and no need for naval forces.
A large armed and mobile force is very able to put up solid resistance to pretty much anything you can throw at it save for nukes which will likely never be used.
- muninn_ 10y agoWhatever military force was in Afghanistan never posed any sort of credible threat or resistance against the US military. The "resistance" that the US military faced came in terms of the US military wanting to try and recreate the society there, and having troops attacked while just driving around or facing resistance while conducting raids. If the US military wanted to, they could have easily destroyed every single living being and human structure in Afghanistan without much effort, they just didn't because they don't do that kind of stuff as a matter of policy.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pm90 10y agoYou could basically say the same thing about any post WW2 engagement, but it means nothing. To wipe out all humans/buildings is an empty threat. Theoretically, the US could get rid of any country it didn't want by nuking them.
- muninn_ 10y agoRight, but that makes the parent comment to mine meaningless as well. The United States allowed a resistance only so much as it was tolerable versus something they cared about more.
- eveningcoffee 10y agoThis is what Russians did in the Second Chechen War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%932000) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%9...
- ocschwar 10y agoRussia isn't going to utterly destroy Sweden either. What they want is to disintegrate the European economy so they can have better access to it. Leveling Sweden would be both expensive and unprofitable. Bullying Sweden is much more up Putin's alley.
- Spooky23 10y agoHuh? Who is in control there? Hint: not the US.
- muninn_ 10y agoControl in what sense?
- BurningFrog 10y agoAfghanistan was easily conquered by both the USSR and the US.
- crystalmeph 10y agoFor certain values of "conquered." The "bad guys" never seem to be completely conquered, and still enjoy significant freedom of movement and access to supply lines.
- RobertoG 10y agothe conquered are the "bad guys"?
- crystalmeph 10y agoI don't know why you're getting downvoted, and I'm the one who put "bad guys" in quotes! I put it in quotes not because I believe in moral relativism, but because in the conflict against the USSR, official US policy was that the mujahideen were "good guys, or at least not-as-bad-as-the-other-guys," while in our own invasion, they were bad guys, an assessment I share due to their harboring of terrorists who intentionally murdered thousands of civilians.
- mikeash 10y agoBut not easily held. Both nations would probably think twice before trying it again.
- BurningFrog 10y agoTrue. But the cost to Afghanistan has been enormous. Four decades of constant war, millions dead, and near the lowest lifespan and living standard in the world. Is that really the defense strategy a country should aim for ? Will a modern latte sipping atheist nation really execute it? Also, there are many other reasons to invade countries than to hold them long term.
- rocky1138 10y ago> save for nukes which will likely never be used. save for nukes which will likely never be used, again.