Posted on 02/21/2020 10:39:59 AM PST by Freeport
365 Months a year
That would be a long year!
;>)
Depends on who was EMP’ed first.
“365 Months a year”
Strange my last post came up blank...
Anyway, that would be a long year!
;>)
It must be done! For greatest security! ;-)
The discussion of deterrence was interesting...
Is it not possible that our potential adversaries study us just as much (if not more) than we study them?
I would think so. If they do, the potential enemy would have had to take note of our reluctance to take the restraints off of our air force. In every conflict that the US has been in since WW2, we have pulled our punches. We freak out over a few jihadis getting offed at the same time a couple of dozen other “innocent” guests at the wedding got smoked. We incinerated entire cities in Japan and Germany, with the aircrews getting smiles and back pats for jobs well done by everyone in the country by the time 1945 rolled around. We keep trying to fight “humane” and “legal” wars... bullfeathers. If you ever get your hate on hard enough to want a war, you go balls to the wall from jump and don’t quit until the enemies are all gone or they are begging you for unconditional surrender. But we don’t do that anymore...
Saddam felt confident because he watched us bomb the crap out of Vietnam (but leave the dyke system in the Red River Delta alone), but never go total war bombing like we did in WW2. He knew if he waited, by the time the next US election rolled around he would be OK.
The Air Force is not a deterrent because we put a lot of padding around what would be an awesome sledge hammer, if it was used to its full potential.
Now THAT is interesting.
There it is.
It’ll be a laugh riot when we get working AI and make our war fighting drones autonomous...
Or they make themselves autonomous...
Mmmm not buying it. Sure tanks present the occupational threat. But there’s a lot that goes into getting our tanks into your country. Stealth bombers let us reach out and touch someone with them not having any idea until things start going boom. That’s a hell of a deterrent.
Enjoy!
Slaughterbots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg
It really is only a matter of time. And not much time.
I’ve been listening to Red Storm Rising lately. It’s still one of my favorite Clancy books. There is a lot of that sort of thing in it. :)
Yeah. And we’ve played that up. Remember the start of the Iraq war, they were very open (the next day of course) about the fact that we launched stealth bombers from middle America, flew them all the way to Baghdad, blew some crap up, and then landed them in some allied country so the pilots could sleep. There was a strong message there, we were daring all the countries we flew over to check the tape and see if they spotted the bombers. The actually quantity of damage done on those runs was immaterial. The point was we can fly halfway around the world undetected and blow up your presidential palace if we want.
I caught that one too. Essentially, airlift, sealift, and combined arms would be a better deterrent than our B-2’s, F-22’s, special forces, and CVBG’s (if the conclusion reached based on the observed results is correct).
I would be careful about “cheaper” on that one. Expensive weapons systems get the headlines and the budget arguments, but most of the DoD budget goes to personnel and that is not discussed often. More personnel would be expensive too.
That requires boots on the ground. Personally, I am not of the mindset to hold ground. I also do not want to rebuild our enemies.
Vanquishing our enemies is deterrence. I don't buy into the notion of proportionate retaliation. If we must use a military option, it should be swift, brutal, safe to our servicemen, and economically inexpensive. I don't give a damn about collateral damage. Thus carpet bombing with dumb bombs from B-52's will suffice. Take out all infrastructure - power grid, dams, water supply, bridges, railroads, ports and salt their fields. Do it cheaply. That is deterrence, and no one will mess with us again. The only reason I don't advocate the use of nukes is that conventional weapons give civilians the chance to shelter.
Maybe, but do Chinese and Russian air defense systems stand a chance against cruise missiles?
Why do you call them that?
Yep... You also need airframes that can effectively support these ground forces... The A-10, for example (Now, apparently, on the chopping block)...
Hell... I'm old enough to remember the A-10's WWII beloved grandfather... The P-47...
You got that right. Different rules for Russia and China if we have to attack their territory. Air defenses need to be neutralized before any action. Use the right tool for the job at hand.
After the last Iraq incursion, a story circulating around the Armor School was of a captured Iraq Armor Battalion Commander who said, "you bombed my tanks for 30 days and I lost 2 tanks. I met your armor and in 30 minutes I lost 50." I don't know if that story is totally true but the numbers coming out of that conflict suggest the substantial veracity of the claim.
Both are junk. The B2 had no problem with Iraq’s air defense systems were easily interdicted.
Taliban........18 years and they are still there.............they don’t even have so much as a biplane................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.