3 ms·

USA is not capable of lunching another regional war. Let’s see how long Israel and Ukraine last if USA has to repel a serious threat.

by f6v 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago
> USA is not capable of lunching another regional war. "Another"? The US has neither launched nor is it fighting a major regional war now.
- loeg 3y ago
  Probably a reference to Afghanistan or Iraq? "Another" works in this context, I think, even though those are in the past.
EA-3167 3y ago
I'm not sure what you're basing this on? The US' overarching military strategy for decades now has been to prepare for a two-front war with both China and Russia. I'm not seeing how a rounding error on the US defense budget, mostly in the form of mothballed munitions, is materially reducing readiness. Never mind the capacity of the US to switch to wartime munition production. If you have some sources talking about how how the US can't launch a regional conflict I'd love to see them.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The US' overarching military strategy for decades now has been to prepare for a two-front war with both China and Russia. The two major regional contingency capability (which was not a strategy, but a principal notionally underlying national security strategies for a couple decades) was concocted in 1993 as, basically, political cover for massive defense cuts -- that is, it was saying "despite the cuts, we will retain this capacity" -- and was very quickly recognized as a largely fictitious capability [0] especially as the US fought major regional contingencies after that point and it was clear that it could at most prosecute one effectively and be prepared to engage in a holding action elsewhere [1], even when "major" was much smaller scale than war with Russia or China, and was formally abandoned in 2012. [0] Part of why this recognition was because the formal documents outlining the concept and how the capacity would be met had caveats which indicated that it wasn't really a capacity to fight two MRCs effectively and simultaneously. [1] "Win one, hold one" was described as the likely best-case actual capacity years before the overlap of Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts concretely demonstrated the lack of genuine two-MRC capability against much less capable foes than Russia/China.
- vGPU 3y ago
  Considering how well Afghanistan went, somehow I don’t think it’s working very well.

USA is not capable of lunching another regional war. Let’s see how long Israel and Ukraine last if USA has to repel a serious threat.

by f6v 3y ago

USA is not capable of lunching another regional war. Let’s see how long Israel and Ukraine last if USA has to repel a serious threat.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> USA is not capable of lunching another regional war. "Another"? The US has neither launched nor is it fighting a major regional war now.

loeg 3y ago
Probably a reference to Afghanistan or Iraq? "Another" works in this context, I think, even though those are in the past.

EA-3167 3y ago

I'm not sure what you're basing this on? The US' overarching military strategy for decades now has been to prepare for a two-front war with both China and Russia. I'm not seeing how a rounding error on the US defense budget, mostly in the form of mothballed munitions, is materially reducing readiness. Never mind the capacity of the US to switch to wartime munition production. If you have some sources talking about how how the US can't launch a regional conflict I'd love to see them.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The US' overarching military strategy for decades now has been to prepare for a two-front war with both China and Russia. The two major regional contingency capability (which was not a strategy, but a principal notionally underlying national security strategies for a couple decades) was concocted in 1993 as, basically, political cover for massive defense cuts -- that is, it was saying "despite the cuts, we will retain this capacity" -- and was very quickly recognized as a largely fictitious capability [0] especially as the US fought major regional contingencies after that point and it was clear that it could at most prosecute one effectively and be prepared to engage in a holding action elsewhere [1], even when "major" was much smaller scale than war with Russia or China, and was formally abandoned in 2012. [0] Part of why this recognition was because the formal documents outlining the concept and how the capacity would be met had caveats which indicated that it wasn't really a capacity to fight two MRCs effectively and simultaneously. [1] "Win one, hold one" was described as the likely best-case actual capacity years before the overlap of Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts concretely demonstrated the lack of genuine two-MRC capability against much less capable foes than Russia/China.
vGPU 3y ago
Considering how well Afghanistan went, somehow I don’t think it’s working very well.