4 ms·

US isn't technically drumming up war on China and Russia; they are promoting war to the last Ukrainian against Russia, and probably the last Taiwanese against C

by natded 5y ago

US isn't technically drumming up war on China and Russia; they are promoting war to the last Ukrainian against Russia, and probably the last Taiwanese against China. A difference, but probably enough to help US hitch a long as superpower couple of decades if either of these events take place. Direct confrontation between Russia, China vs. US is not even in the question. US couldn't defeat couple of goat herders and they're going to level up to S-tier opponents? I wouldn't even bet on US against Venezuela or Iran at this point.

systemvoltage 5y ago
> US couldn't defeat couple of goat herders and they're going to level up to S-tier opponents? I wouldn't even bet on US against Venezuela or Iran at this point. Operation Desert Storm was a success and completely overwhelming. The amount of power projected was incalculable. Here is an extremely detailed account of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg
- natded 5y ago
  OTOH, US did just this year lose its longest war and it was against Afghanistan. I rely on this closer event. Granted, admitting the loss there was the first step in road to recovery.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    It wasn't a conventional war. I don't think there is any defense to the massive fuck up in the Afghanistan exit strategy though. But, to say that US military is incapable of doing anything is a pretty lousy argument.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      What is conventional war? Do you think that the Chinese or Russians will play nice and play war ship for ship, plane for plane and tank for tank against the US like the Iraqis did at the beginning? The US military generally has a very "meh" track record.
      - xxpor 5y ago
        Otoh, the us was able to maintain the status quo with the taliban being relegated to the mountains with 3500 troops against ~75000 taliban. The DOD has over 1 million troops at their disposal. If you seriously think Afganistan was more about absolute power vs political willingness.. I just don't know what to say.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        That isn't actually right. Yes there were 3500 actual soldiers on the ground, but they also had tens of thousands of afghans they would use for a lot of the dirty work, and multiple thousands of other support personnel necessary outside of Afghanistan. And that was just during the drawdown, during surges there were even more at various points in time. As for sheer numbers of troops, the US doesn't have the capability to actually outfit, support, and deploy anywhere near a million troops in, for example, the middle east.
        saxonww 5y ago
        I guess it's arguable what the actual whole truth is in Afghanistan, but a lot of writing on it paints the Afghan troops themselves as being unprepared to defend themselves and in many cases unreliable. We were ostensibly trying to help organize and train them, but just being there doesn't mean people will be inspired to take the risks and do the job. It's also not the first time a highly motivated group of rebels won a guerrilla conflict in Afghanistan. The USSR fought a 9 year unsuccessful war in Afghanistan too, if you don't recall, after probably helping destabilize and overthrow the government; the current Taliban leadership grew out of factions of the mujahideen that ousted the Soviets back in the 1980s. I'm no military expert, but it does seem like the US is not geared towards massive troop deployments right now. I've always thought that's because the expectation is that we won't have a massive troop war like WW1/WW2 again.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > after probably helping destabilize and overthrow the government “Probably”? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333

by natded 5y ago

systemvoltage 5y ago

> US couldn't defeat couple of goat herders and they're going to level up to S-tier opponents? I wouldn't even bet on US against Venezuela or Iran at this point. Operation Desert Storm was a success and completely overwhelming. The amount of power projected was incalculable. Here is an extremely detailed account of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg

natded 5y ago
OTOH, US did just this year lose its longest war and it was against Afghanistan. I rely on this closer event. Granted, admitting the loss there was the first step in road to recovery.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  It wasn't a conventional war. I don't think there is any defense to the massive fuck up in the Afghanistan exit strategy though. But, to say that US military is incapable of doing anything is a pretty lousy argument.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    What is conventional war? Do you think that the Chinese or Russians will play nice and play war ship for ship, plane for plane and tank for tank against the US like the Iraqis did at the beginning? The US military generally has a very "meh" track record.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Otoh, the us was able to maintain the status quo with the taliban being relegated to the mountains with 3500 troops against ~75000 taliban. The DOD has over 1 million troops at their disposal. If you seriously think Afganistan was more about absolute power vs political willingness.. I just don't know what to say.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        That isn't actually right. Yes there were 3500 actual soldiers on the ground, but they also had tens of thousands of afghans they would use for a lot of the dirty work, and multiple thousands of other support personnel necessary outside of Afghanistan. And that was just during the drawdown, during surges there were even more at various points in time. As for sheer numbers of troops, the US doesn't have the capability to actually outfit, support, and deploy anywhere near a million troops in, for example, the middle east.
        saxonww 5y ago
        I guess it's arguable what the actual whole truth is in Afghanistan, but a lot of writing on it paints the Afghan troops themselves as being unprepared to defend themselves and in many cases unreliable. We were ostensibly trying to help organize and train them, but just being there doesn't mean people will be inspired to take the risks and do the job. It's also not the first time a highly motivated group of rebels won a guerrilla conflict in Afghanistan. The USSR fought a 9 year unsuccessful war in Afghanistan too, if you don't recall, after probably helping destabilize and overthrow the government; the current Taliban leadership grew out of factions of the mujahideen that ousted the Soviets back in the 1980s. I'm no military expert, but it does seem like the US is not geared towards massive troop deployments right now. I've always thought that's because the expectation is that we won't have a massive troop war like WW1/WW2 again.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > after probably helping destabilize and overthrow the government “Probably”? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333