4 ms·
>>USA hasn't "won" a war since 1945. That result was mostly determined by USSR. You seem to have missed the fact that the USSR no longer exists; the cold war w
by toss1 4y ago
>>USA hasn't "won" a war since 1945. That result was mostly determined by USSR.
You seem to have missed the fact that the USSR no longer exists; the cold war was most certainly "won" by the US, primarily by outspending, outdeveloping, and outmaneuvering the Soviets in the 'peace'.
All the other wars since 1945 that you cite the US as "losing" were fought under extreme Rules of Engagement restrictions for political reasons, nothing like the terms of any more all-out war. The Taliban didn't beat us, we got bored and left, and they quickly defeated the Afghan govt which had failed to stand up (and much of which was bought out ahead of time).
You also omit engagements like the Iraq war, where the fifth largest army in the world was taken out in a few weeks, with fewer than 150 US troops KIA. Someone I worked with who'd flown helicopters in-theater, told me in no uncertain terms that the main reason that the US didn't 'finish' and take Baghdad was that they didn't want the world's news to see the Iraqi carnage - literally hundreds of miles of nothing but burned out vehicles and bodies. Not exactly the US 'getting stomped'.
For a current example, just look to Ukraine, where a relatively small force is decimating what was considered to be the 2nd-best military on the planet, using only 3rd-shelf inventory from other democracies. Every time the Russians get behind-the-scenes warned by the US, both on nuclear sabre-rattling and Biden's visit to Kyiv, they back down. Because they know that the half-life of their Mil in Ukr & Black Sea would be measured in double-digit minutes if the US Mil got involved.
If China thought the way you did, and thought they could undermine the US or NATO, they'd have already given serious arms to Russia. They haven't even begun to do so.
The principle here is that if a person or country wants to live a self-determined life with a self-determined government, they need to be better armed, prepared, and allied than any bully or adversary.
The west thought for decades that appeasement would work, but Russia ended that era on 24-Feb-2022. The US mil is still the most lethal fighting force in history, and US and NATO are now rapidly ramping up. You want to challenge that head on? Good luck; you'll need it. Both Putin and Xi already know better.
- euroderf 4y ago> Because they know that the half-life of their Mil in Ukr & Black Sea would be measured in double-digit minutes if the US Mil got involved. Yup, if them pesky Rooskies use a nuke, the US can let rip with a mass of conventionally-armed cruise missiles and other stuff that could probably shred their battlefield C3.
- another2another 4y agoI strongly suspect the Black sea fleet would be the principle target of interest for the Allies if Russia used a nuke in Ukraine. The Kerch bridge might also get a good kicking too. Then any targets of interest in Crimea, and a no-fly policy enforced over Ukraine. Byeloruss might also get the internal coup they so badly need as well.
- euroderf 4y ago> Byeloruss might also get the internal coup they so badly need as well. This is devoutly to be wished for.
- jessaustin 4y agoRemove the mask, and reveal motivations other than "democracy".
- euroderf 4y agoSure. But democracy would be a fine start there, don't you think ?