War question?

[Eyeball Chambers]

Just sitting here thinking...

Could any country on Earth actually invade the United States if they gave it everything they had?  Not defeat us, but just get Soldiers on our shore?

 

[AlliedPowers]

nope.  we are the only superpower and we are stealing mid east oil to ensure it stays that way.

[a_joker10]

Just sitting here thinking...

Could any country on Earth actually invade the United States if they gave it everything they had?  Not defeat us, but just get Soldiers on our shore?

 

Sure they could get soldiers on shore.

Sub attacks or sneaking them in container ships, would be easy.
To be a credible force no.

[headhuntersix]

Nope....Ok the 'war' in Iraq is a mess but s far as a conventional war..everybody else even our allies, are children. The Russians know it, the Chinese now it......hence their attempted and eventul economic hegemony over asia. Which i think we're content to allow. We've crushed everybody we have ever fought. Its scary..we are not good with smll wars. Nobody ever is....especially in the age of political correctness.

[AlliedPowers]

Nope....Ok the 'war' in Iraq is a mess but s far as a conventional war..everybody else even our allies, are children. The Russians know it, the Chinese now it......hence their attempted and eventul economic hegemony over asia. Which i think we're content to allow. We've crushed everybody we have ever fought. Its scary..we are not good with smll wars. Nobody ever is....especially in the age of political correctness.

Isn't is obvious to you why we're so good at big wars and so bad at small wars?

[a_joker10]

It's called democracy.

Americans or other democracies will not the military fight with both hands during reparations.

I am sure America could subdue Afghanistan with Rockets and Bombs, but what would be left and how would the home front take it.

[AlliedPowers]

It's called democracy.

Americans or other democracies will not the military fight with both hands during reparations.

I am sure America could subdue Afghanistan with Rockets and Bombs, but what would be left and how would the home front take it.

No, try again.

[a_joker10]

Sure, America could blow the entire world up 10 times over.

They don't.

A few nuclear weapons Aimed into Pushtun Afghanistan and Pakistan would end this quick, but none wants to live with the casualties on their conscience.

[AlliedPowers]

Joker,

Have you noticed that every few years, America enters an elective war, fights to a stalemate, then exits without a resolution, leaving 50,000 troops there?  Sometimes it's smaller - we install a govt with favorable trade policy.  Off top of my head-

42 - Iran.
50s - Korea
60/70s - Cuba, Laos, Brazil, Chile, latin Amer, Vietnam
80s - nicaragua, el sal, iran, afghan
90s and 00s you know the rest.

Eisenhower warned us of it - the war profiteering industry.  THAT is why we don't win wars.  Winning means you stop spending.  Stalemates mean you KEEP spending.

[headhuntersix]

U can look at it like that but small wars don't generate the cash like  big one. u can't operate Armor here..u really don't need ships/subs/etc. We dominated in central and South America..ever talk to anybody who fought down there? Panama ..its just u really can't dow what u need to. We fought a very succesful counter insurgency in the Philippines..no press.

[AlliedPowers]

U can look at it like that but small wars don't generate the cash like  big one. u can't operate Armor here..u really don't need ships/subs/etc. We dominated in central and South America..ever talk to anybody who fought down there? Panama ..its just u really can't dow what u need to. We fought a very succesful counter insurgency in the Philippines..no press.

Not really.  In BIG wars, you incur wars on your own soil, which destroys your own infrastructure.  Very bad.  We don't do those.

We do small wars.  On their soil.  And we always have the same result - we claim victory but logistically keep a large soldier mass there to ensure we always control the region.  It's polite world domination, really.  Funny if you look at it that way. 

Look again - we "dominated" in every country we attacked.  Problem is, we never use enough resources to win.  Why is this?  Can't blame either party - both manage wars the same.  They all spend billions on war machines and support contracts. 

As you get older, you will see this over and over.  Small wars, same result.  Never a clear victory.  This is by design.  Iraq will end just as Vietnam and Korea ended before that.  Large US presence there forever.


So the bottom line is that these wars are exercises done to 1) further US control over the world and 2) spend billions on war materials.  We're spanding $10 million an HOUR in Iraq.  This is by design.

[a_joker10]

U can look at it like that but small wars don't generate the cash like  big one. u can't operate Armor here..u really don't need ships/subs/etc. We dominated in central and South America..ever talk to anybody who fought down there? Panama ..its just u really can't dow what u need to. We fought a very succesful counter insurgency in the Philippines..no press.

Canada put some leopard tanks on the ground in Afghanistan.

Do you think that they will help or hinder them.