2 ms·
The change you are referencing is an unwelcome and short-sighted change. After the Vietnam War, the US military focused on confronting a possible armada of Sov
by rawgabbit 5y ago
The change you are referencing is an unwelcome and short-sighted change. After the Vietnam War, the US military focused on confronting a possible armada of Soviet tanks flooding Europe. During the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the US military had to relearn how to fight insurgencies and perform nation building. The top military brass have to obey the President of the USA. But I would argue, the US military will readily admit we suck at insurgencies and nation building and would argue against the wisdom of doing so. The US military wants to deter aggression from the likes of Putin and other conventional armies. Having nothing but Special Forces and urban warfare specialists is not going to deter Putin from attacking Poland or Kim Jung Un from attacking South Korea.
- pmoriarty 5y agoI honestly don't understand what the point of having large conventional forces is. We know a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia will lead to nuclear war, and all those conventional forces will be wiped out along with the countries they're supposed to protect. It just wastes money and deludes trigger happy people in to believing a war between nuclear powers can be "won".
- rawgabbit 5y agoIt is not about “us”. The aggressor thinks about what he can get away with. Putin knows the US will push the button if the mainland is about to be lost. What about a piece of Poland? Especially if there is no conventional army to counter Putin’s. In his mind, he may think he can get away with it.