6 ms·

>This is unlike, say, any major US campaign of the past 30 years because the US did not face a formidable adversary in the past 75 years in a war somewhat com

>This is unlike, say, any major US campaign of the past 30 years because the US did not face a formidable adversary in the past 75 years in a war somewhat comparable with this one in terms of manpower and tech - the Korean War, the US had suffered heavy casualties and had only narrowly escaped a complete defeat

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
What do you mean by "comparable with this one in terms of manpower and tech"? South Korea and allied powers were significantly outmanned during the Korean War, and the idea that the US had any kind of decisive technology advantage in theatre is belied by the accounts of lack of US preparedness post WWII.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  yes, that's exactly why it's comparable
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    I guess I just have no idea what you're calling comparable. In this analogy, is the US Ukraine? Is North Korea Russia? What is the point you're trying to make?
    - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
      a numerically inferior force (the US / Russia) up against an adversary (North Korea + China / Ukraine) funded, armed with modern tech by a powerful entity (USSR / NATO) and the point I'm trying to make is that it is laughable to compare fighting a modern military to Iraq and Afghanistan
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        Russia is the numerically inferior force vs. Ukraine in this example? Uhm OK.
        throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
        I understand where did you get the impression that Russia is waging a total war, but they only have 200K or so troops deployed in Ukraine
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was launched with 160,000 troops on the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deploymen... Russian forces in the 1st & 2nd Chechen wars (1994--6 and 1999--2009, respectively) were in the 70k -- 80k range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War A force of 200,000 is a very considerable invasion force.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > A force of 200,000 is a very considerable invasion force. Yes, but Ukraine has 900k reservists and a reason to activate them all. Russia, thus far, has hoped to avoid having to do a big manpower increase.
        ivan_gammel 4y ago
        According to Zelensky, Ukraine has now 700 000 on active duty.
        agapon 4y ago
        This includes all the security apparatus. Police (quite numerous), prison guards, military cadets, security services and, of course, National Guard and Armed Forces. But from those many are guarding bases and other important objects, training, staying in reserve, etc. The fighting force is much smaller than those 700 thousand.
      - w7 4y ago
        They're still not totally comparable. US was having to force project across an ocean while Russia seems to be having issues just past its boarders, despite being geared towards land wars, judging by their lack of progress and signs of logistical desperation in abandoned camps. Much of Ukraine's equipment is Soviet era just like Russia's is. USSR was a direct belligerent in the Korean War, not just a supporter like NATO is. Prior to the start of this conflict Russia had superior numbers and pounced before Ukraine mobilized. Russia also has the massive advantage of being able to strike from their own and neighboring territories without retaliation. Constant nuclear-whining is preventing NATO from performing air interventions like the USSR saw fit to do during the Korean and Vietnam war. Too many differences in variables. Russia's incompetence alone does not make this comparable.
  - w7 4y ago
    I still don't understand how it's comparable. US had the handicap of fighting along side South Korea while a full ocean away when the North had direct assistance from 2 massive neighboring land joined countries. China alone had nearly 2 million forces committed, and still couldn't take the entire south.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    That's not what your original comment said. Is the Korean war comparable, or a non-significant adversary of the past 75 years? (The Korean war began 72 years ago, and ended with an armistice 69 years ago.)
dredmorbius 4y ago
There are of course two ways of looking at this. One would be that the US chooses its engagements. Even given that, Korea (1950--53, within your 75 year window), Vietnam, and the Yugoslav war (in which the US was not a major participant but did contribute to the no-fly zone) were reasonably significant, involving Chinese and Russian forces and arms. The Iraq conflicts were not highly symmetric, but did involve threats to US forces, which the US mitigated. On balance, the US seems to treat even highly asymmetric opponents with respect as concerns their ability to inflict harm and damage, and seeks to minimise that. Another is that even where it faces a highly asymmetric adversary, there are: - A long and formidible force build-up. - A preliminary air-superiority campaign in which any possible defences are neutralised. - A concerted effort to maintain superiority. I'd say it's a bit from A, a bit from B. But the clear lessons are that the U.S. values, and achieves, total air superiority. In the present conflict in Ukraine, Russia did not, and has not. Technology has also clearly moved on. The major development of the aughts was in IEDs and remote attacks. To an extent, the US applied countermeasures here again via air and intelligence superiority, with reconnaissance which both detected in advance and replayed after successful attacks the placement and entities engaged in IED emplacements. I've had discussions elsewhere over the characteristics of Switchblade drones, in particular their one-way "kamikazi" modes. I see two principle advantages: - A one-way mission should nearly double range, and increase defended area by the square of the range. - A returning low-speed munition would tend to invite return-fire on the launch point. Since Switchblade and Phoenix Ghost drones are carried into the field by individual troops, increased mass, decreased range, and greater vulnerability of the deploying troops would all be strongly negative characteristics. My counterypart in that discussion was not convinced, though I find the rationale fairly strong.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  >My counterypart in that discussion was not convinced, though I find the rationale fairly strong. I also see drones primarily (and incredibly) useful for recon, but not for combat - we already have cruise missiles and guided artillery for that, and under wartime economy, they could be mass produced much cheaper than they are now
  - 4y ago
stevenwoo 4y ago
Don't forget the United States and a succession of puppet regimes in South Vietnam/Cambodia lost to the North Vietnamese/Vietnamese despite managing to inflict losses of approximately 100x enemy and civilians and other countries residents (the favorite accounting method of measuring success at the time) by 1980.
- ece 4y ago
  Maybe the Vietnamese/Chinese intelligence was better than the US intelligence.
- leereeves 4y ago
  That was a political decision, not a military defeat. Politicians never allowed the military to attack the north. Instead, the military was given a purely defensive mission, which they performed successfully, until politicians ordered them to leave.
  - lazide 4y ago
    It's no less a military defeat than Russia's in Ukraine. When the military is bogged down and draining the nations treasury and making the gov't look bad, the political decision is inevitable.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      The difference is that Russia tried to invade Kiev, but America never tried to invade North Vietnam. As for "draining the nations treasury", US military spending actually increased after the end of the Vietnam War.
      - lazide 4y ago
        The US was bombing Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, etc. all the way up to Hanoi [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2eae918ca40a4bd7a55390bba4735cdb https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2eae918ca40a4bd7a55390b...] It may not have been tanks on the ground, but that is small consolation for those blown to bits - even still today due to unexploded ordnance. It also led to outsized inflation (which contributed to the out of control inflation in the early 80's, along with the increase in other military spending to 'fight the cold war') and cost an inflation adjusted $1 trln dollars. The US wasn't broke, but it contributed to the giant inflation spike that then had to be tamped down with sky high fed fund rates. It wasn't without impact.
JohnBooty 4y ago
because the US did not face a formidable adversary in the past 75 years Clearly not a peer to the US nor close to it, but Iraq's military in the Persian Gulf war was more formidable than many give it credit for. Those were not green troops. They had fought Iran for close to a decade, were well-equipped, and were fighting on their home terrain against a US force that had little to no modern desert warfare experience. I don't think the US-led coalition's brilliant strategy and execution should be confused with a total lack of fighting prowess on Iraq's part.
- wrp 4y ago
  I have done much study of the Iran-Iraq War. Although the Iraqis were not green troops, they had extremely poor tactical leadership. They were completely inept at maneuver and combined arms combat. When you consider also the vast superiority in precision and range of Coalition weapons, the Iraqis really stood no chance. The Russian army, bad as it is, it capable of much better tactical performance. Their intelligence capability is also much superior to Iraq's.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

What do you mean by "comparable with this one in terms of manpower and tech"? South Korea and allied powers were significantly outmanned during the Korean War, and the idea that the US had any kind of decisive technology advantage in theatre is belied by the accounts of lack of US preparedness post WWII.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
yes, that's exactly why it's comparable
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  I guess I just have no idea what you're calling comparable. In this analogy, is the US Ukraine? Is North Korea Russia? What is the point you're trying to make?
  - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
    a numerically inferior force (the US / Russia) up against an adversary (North Korea + China / Ukraine) funded, armed with modern tech by a powerful entity (USSR / NATO) and the point I'm trying to make is that it is laughable to compare fighting a modern military to Iraq and Afghanistan
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      Russia is the numerically inferior force vs. Ukraine in this example? Uhm OK.
      - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
        I understand where did you get the impression that Russia is waging a total war, but they only have 200K or so troops deployed in Ukraine
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was launched with 160,000 troops on the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deploymen... Russian forces in the 1st & 2nd Chechen wars (1994--6 and 1999--2009, respectively) were in the 70k -- 80k range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War A force of 200,000 is a very considerable invasion force.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > A force of 200,000 is a very considerable invasion force. Yes, but Ukraine has 900k reservists and a reason to activate them all. Russia, thus far, has hoped to avoid having to do a big manpower increase.
        ivan_gammel 4y ago
        According to Zelensky, Ukraine has now 700 000 on active duty.
        agapon 4y ago
        This includes all the security apparatus. Police (quite numerous), prison guards, military cadets, security services and, of course, National Guard and Armed Forces. But from those many are guarding bases and other important objects, training, staying in reserve, etc. The fighting force is much smaller than those 700 thousand.
    - w7 4y ago
      They're still not totally comparable. US was having to force project across an ocean while Russia seems to be having issues just past its boarders, despite being geared towards land wars, judging by their lack of progress and signs of logistical desperation in abandoned camps. Much of Ukraine's equipment is Soviet era just like Russia's is. USSR was a direct belligerent in the Korean War, not just a supporter like NATO is. Prior to the start of this conflict Russia had superior numbers and pounced before Ukraine mobilized. Russia also has the massive advantage of being able to strike from their own and neighboring territories without retaliation. Constant nuclear-whining is preventing NATO from performing air interventions like the USSR saw fit to do during the Korean and Vietnam war. Too many differences in variables. Russia's incompetence alone does not make this comparable.
- w7 4y ago
  I still don't understand how it's comparable. US had the handicap of fighting along side South Korea while a full ocean away when the North had direct assistance from 2 massive neighboring land joined countries. China alone had nearly 2 million forces committed, and still couldn't take the entire south.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  That's not what your original comment said. Is the Korean war comparable, or a non-significant adversary of the past 75 years? (The Korean war began 72 years ago, and ended with an armistice 69 years ago.)

dredmorbius 4y ago

There are of course two ways of looking at this. One would be that the US chooses its engagements. Even given that, Korea (1950--53, within your 75 year window), Vietnam, and the Yugoslav war (in which the US was not a major participant but did contribute to the no-fly zone) were reasonably significant, involving Chinese and Russian forces and arms. The Iraq conflicts were not highly symmetric, but did involve threats to US forces, which the US mitigated. On balance, the US seems to treat even highly asymmetric opponents with respect as concerns their ability to inflict harm and damage, and seeks to minimise that. Another is that even where it faces a highly asymmetric adversary, there are: - A long and formidible force build-up. - A preliminary air-superiority campaign in which any possible defences are neutralised. - A concerted effort to maintain superiority. I'd say it's a bit from A, a bit from B. But the clear lessons are that the U.S. values, and achieves, total air superiority. In the present conflict in Ukraine, Russia did not, and has not. Technology has also clearly moved on. The major development of the aughts was in IEDs and remote attacks. To an extent, the US applied countermeasures here again via air and intelligence superiority, with reconnaissance which both detected in advance and replayed after successful attacks the placement and entities engaged in IED emplacements. I've had discussions elsewhere over the characteristics of Switchblade drones, in particular their one-way "kamikazi" modes. I see two principle advantages: - A one-way mission should nearly double range, and increase defended area by the square of the range. - A returning low-speed munition would tend to invite return-fire on the launch point. Since Switchblade and Phoenix Ghost drones are carried into the field by individual troops, increased mass, decreased range, and greater vulnerability of the deploying troops would all be strongly negative characteristics. My counterypart in that discussion was not convinced, though I find the rationale fairly strong.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
>My counterypart in that discussion was not convinced, though I find the rationale fairly strong. I also see drones primarily (and incredibly) useful for recon, but not for combat - we already have cruise missiles and guided artillery for that, and under wartime economy, they could be mass produced much cheaper than they are now
- 4y ago

stevenwoo 4y ago

Don't forget the United States and a succession of puppet regimes in South Vietnam/Cambodia lost to the North Vietnamese/Vietnamese despite managing to inflict losses of approximately 100x enemy and civilians and other countries residents (the favorite accounting method of measuring success at the time) by 1980.

ece 4y ago
Maybe the Vietnamese/Chinese intelligence was better than the US intelligence.
leereeves 4y ago
That was a political decision, not a military defeat. Politicians never allowed the military to attack the north. Instead, the military was given a purely defensive mission, which they performed successfully, until politicians ordered them to leave.
- lazide 4y ago
  It's no less a military defeat than Russia's in Ukraine. When the military is bogged down and draining the nations treasury and making the gov't look bad, the political decision is inevitable.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    The difference is that Russia tried to invade Kiev, but America never tried to invade North Vietnam. As for "draining the nations treasury", US military spending actually increased after the end of the Vietnam War.
    - lazide 4y ago
      The US was bombing Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, etc. all the way up to Hanoi [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2eae918ca40a4bd7a55390bba4735cdb https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2eae918ca40a4bd7a55390b...] It may not have been tanks on the ground, but that is small consolation for those blown to bits - even still today due to unexploded ordnance. It also led to outsized inflation (which contributed to the out of control inflation in the early 80's, along with the increase in other military spending to 'fight the cold war') and cost an inflation adjusted $1 trln dollars. The US wasn't broke, but it contributed to the giant inflation spike that then had to be tamped down with sky high fed fund rates. It wasn't without impact.

JohnBooty 4y ago

because the US did not face a formidable adversary in the past 75 years Clearly not a peer to the US nor close to it, but Iraq's military in the Persian Gulf war was more formidable than many give it credit for. Those were not green troops. They had fought Iran for close to a decade, were well-equipped, and were fighting on their home terrain against a US force that had little to no modern desert warfare experience. I don't think the US-led coalition's brilliant strategy and execution should be confused with a total lack of fighting prowess on Iraq's part.

wrp 4y ago
I have done much study of the Iran-Iraq War. Although the Iraqis were not green troops, they had extremely poor tactical leadership. They were completely inept at maneuver and combined arms combat. When you consider also the vast superiority in precision and range of Coalition weapons, the Iraqis really stood no chance. The Russian army, bad as it is, it capable of much better tactical performance. Their intelligence capability is also much superior to Iraq's.