3 ms·
> Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over.
by openasocket 3y ago
> Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over.
I’m certainly tempted by this line of thinking. However, it’s important to bear in mind that the Japanese thought the exact same thing during WW2 when they initiated Pearl Harbor. It’s very difficult to predict how the public will react to war.
- jncfhnb 3y agoPerhaps. I think the context is different though. A series of stupid wars has greatly lowered Americans trust in the military.
- pstuart 3y agoThey seem to do great on the shock and awe, not so much on the occupation part.
- monocasa 3y agoThe populace in the 90s was pretty well primed with the remnants of anti-vietnam, anti-war messaging. 9/11 changed things very quick.
- openasocket 3y agoVery true. But trust was even lower in the military in 1941. Isolationism was the political orthodoxy, and had been for decades. That changed overnight. And the sacrifices the US made during WW2 was astounding. For the duration of the war, the US literally stopped making civilian cars. The military grew ten fold in a matter in months. I question the resolve of the American people to put up with those kinds of hardships, sure, but given recent history I think we discount it at our peril.