America's Stunning Victory-(Modern Day Blitzkrieg and the M1-Abrams)

Global Analysis ^ | April 3, 2003 | JR Nyquist

[WOSG]

Well, consider. this article says the military allocated 30 days for this war as an estimate. now 15 days into it, we have routed the enemies divisions, killed a captured enemy by the many thousands, and are about 7 miles from downtown baghdad.

Are we more than 1/2 way done? it seems so!

[WOSG]

The M1A1 tank is a useful component of our military, but if the enemy had M1A1s, we'd be destroying them from the air. without response. Also, T-72 are not bad, and they have been of no effect.

what supercedes M1A1, a bigger tank -- or JDAMs and tomohawks and Apache helicopter gunships?
maybe all of the above.

[WOSG]

Or put another way: the rest of the world is failing to match the U.S. in *any* significant category (e.g. technology, training, integration, et al). And the so-called "great equalizers" are being threatened by our new dominance in ABM interception technology, special forces operations in strategic areas, as well as our electronic eavesdropping capabilities.

Well said. We really are #1 superpower and even armies late cold war era technology are no match for us. France's 1 supercarrier is a leaky bucket, Russia has an army not much different from Iraq's of unmotivated conscripts. etc.

No wonder they were scared about this. WE ALL KNOW that if these other selfish powers had this supremacy they would abuse it. BUT WE WONT.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Strange how this author seems to dwell on what it would take to stop the U.S. It's almost as if he his trying to drive a point home to our enemies, a useful point.

"It is the only logical, strategic response to our military superiority, Captain." (Eyebrow raised.)

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination! };^D)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The U.S. has the world's mightiest military due to an amazing combination of technology, training, and integration.

Not to be too picky, but more fundamentally it results from our much greater freedom to pursue our own interests as individuals that results in the only economy in the world capable of fielding such a military. That and the brave and patriotic souls who understand that "freedom is not free".

[Skywalk]

Actually, instead of relying on robot soldiers' individual program routines, what you could do is have an army of video game players. With this country's wealth of first-person shooters, tactical combat players,etc. each robot vehicle or soldier could be controlled via remote. With that comes the risk that an enemy will learn to disrupt the signals, but perhaps the remote base could be on the battlefield but protected by massive air and armored force.

The robots could be for the more dangerous assignments or advances.

One thing to think about, if humans begin to fight with surrogate forces, civilian casualties will skyrocket, as the means to destroy an enemy's army will lie solely with annihilating his manufacturing and electronics base. Losing a million robots might be tough, but if the capacity is there to make more, a nation could wage war where they might have negotiated for peace because of heavy casualties.

[Erasmus]

Sr.: "Praise the Lord!"

Jr.: "Pass the ammunition!"

[WorkingClassFilth]

Dead Dog,

Thanks! That was well worth the read. If not for the concerns I have that nukes, if they have them, will be used as an endgame, then I would agree with everything this guy said.

In the article, the author says, "It is safe to say that the Iraqi position has deteriorated to such an extent that a coalition victory can only be disrupted if Iraq uses biological, chemical or atomic weapons. Even in that event, it is probable that such attacks would be self-defeating for the Iraqi regime, both morally and militarily."

I believe the big flaw (if, and only if, they possess the nukes) is in this fellow’s optimism. This what leads him to all but declare victory at this time and to think in Western terms of battles won or lost and attribute these motives to the Iraqi (and at a larger scale, that of Islam) mindset. I would remind him that for every trooper on the ground there, it ain't over until he can move about freely without the worry of being hit. In fact, for the men in the combat units, I would wager that the bitterness of death is inversely proportional to the time left until formal cessation of hostilities.

Further, the Islamofascists are not thinking in terms of decisive wins on a single battlefield. The widespread theology of jihad and significance of suicide attacks seem lost on this fellow. Nyquist remarks that “America’s real enemies have learned an important lesson: namely, that U.S. military power can only be effectively opposed by employing mass destruction weapons at the outset of a conflict,” yet he fails to grasp two significant things: 1. The conflict is still in motion in Iraq. And, 2. The use of such weapons might have even greater symbolic power for Islamofascists if used at the very moment of Infidel victories.

I recall reading the remarks of a Russian officer that choppered into the remains of an Afghanistan village as mop-up action was taking place. He spoke to a few survivors and surveyed the miserable conditions they lived under. He noted that most mud huts held only a pot and a copy of the Koran. He asked an old man what they hell was wrong with them that prevented them from wanting a better life. The old man replied that the Russian saw life as something precious and that the Muslim, in fact, embraced death and sought it.

To his credit, the author keeps the significance of NBC weapons front and center - as it should be. In my mind, the real victory here will be if there is not use of WMD's. In fact, I view the operations we undertake in the war in terror to be totally lacking if they do not include the assumed use of NBC weaponry in their core doctrines of battlefield order.

With each regime that is toppled, the treat level will rise for every remaining tyrant, despot and monster. Many killers throughout the world hate this country and have no compunction about killing personally or en mass. The trouble we have in comprehending this threat is that we constantly refer to our Judeo-Christian notions of culture and assume that bullies need to be stood up to and, sometimes, thrashed and they will topple like a house of cards. This has been true for much of our collective Western history, but it is NOT a constant.

We have had hints of this in the past. In WWII, there was a distinct difference in combat operations between the Pacific and the European theaters. To revisionists, the distinction has been alluded to as racism, but the veteran and tactician, the difference was that the Nazis would come again to fight another day in addition to being suffused at the trooper level with common ethical beliefs. Even thought they represented a bigger immediate threat and needed to be dealt with first, there were essential commonalties between the combatants. In the Pacific, however, the common cultural threads (however tenuous) were absent. The fighting was on another level entirely.

In my view, the Western heritage of compassion and forgiveness that flows from our deepest Judeo-Christian values are the very stumbling blocks that blind us from comprehending the operational doctrines of Islamofascism and, too often, block the correct analysis that must underlay a successful campaign that will destroy the threat and secure some reliable level of peace for the next generation or two. The characteristic altruism of America and its inability to truly see the danger until it is upon us is the primary threat to American survival.

In the war on terror, in particular, this is of the greatest importance because these wars must be continued from this point forward until some level of secure global dominance is achieved. Like President Bush said, this is going to be a long, long process. A single war against a developing country, or two, will not settle the issue. In fact, if Bush wins a second term and pursues this policy, it will still be far from settled. The need (and cost) to extinguish the amorphous nature of terror in its current embodiment of Islamofascism is, unfortunately, lost on most Americans and even more horrible, on many of our “leaders.” The failure of GB I to finish Saddam in GW I is evidence of this failure. At the time, I was foaming at the mouth because our 'leadership’ could not, or would not, pursue the needed cure to its logical conclusions. Today’s conflict is directly due to that lack of political will.

If the immediacy of Islamic nuclear retaliation is lost on the body politic at large, then the will and popular imperative to establishing global empire and American domination is even farther removed from the public consciousness. At some level, this idea is active in the politics of our Leftist enemies already; the issue is that they see the need for America to submit to global governance. Middle-Americans and those of casual politics need to be informed and on-board for the new realities of American hegemony. This is the major second threat to American survival.

As the author notes, “Killing 3,000 persons and destroying two large buildings only served to stir the sleeping giant into action.” Admiral Yamamoto correctly made this observation of an America that was resolved and unified against Japan. Americans put down their hammers, plows and pencils for the rifle and set out to finish the job the Japanese had started. Today, against the Islamofascists, I have grave reservations whether or not we truly understand the scope of our enemies, the depth of their evil or the duration that victory in such a conflict will entail.

[RobFromGa]

Re: new tanks for future warfare. Remember that not all of America's enemies are as incompetent as Iraq. Unfortunately.

[Aric2000]

If you mean in the front, under the turret, then yes, more then enough, unless it gets hit while it's pointing front, then the poor drivers ears are gonna be ringing for a while.

Otherwise, it's pretty impenatrable.

The back of turret is another matter all together, the armour is pretty weak back there, for reasons of crew safety, if the ammo cooks off somehow, they want it to go out through it, and pop the blow hatches, which you can see on the back of the turret if you look closely, instead of having that ammo bouncing around in the crew area.

The only tanks we have lost so far are from those Korset missiles, and I think one drove off the side of a bridge, but in tank to tank combat, we have never lost an M-1.

The T-72's are outclassed and don't have a chance, the T55's, like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Reeses]

each robot vehicle or soldier could be controlled via remote.

I think initially robots will be remote control, a stepping stone until computers are smart enough to act mostly on their own. We may even see this for home use robots, for example a maid robot controlled remotely by someone sitting in China making 10 cents per hour. Just about any manual labor job in this country could be done that way. Future "immigrants" won't leave their home country, won't be getting US socialist benefits, and won't be voting for Democrats. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Aric2000]

Thank you, that was great!! LOL

And quite true.

[snooker]

>>>It's scares me when media outlets are declaring this war a VICTORY

Especially when these very same media types had defeated "the plan" only 5 days ago.

[Just another Joe]

Anything short of this merely invites destruction in turn.

Anything LONG of that GUARANTEES destruction post haste.

[ctdonath2]

Not necessarily. By dwelling on the point, I'd guess he's trying to impress on the reader that we must not fall into a common trap: basking in our victory without noting that remaining enemies are studying our weaknesses. The point was dwelt upon far more by Tom Clancy in "Executive Orders". The point was exercised on 9/11: if a dozen maniacs with boxcutters could do that much damage, how much more a dozen with backpack-sized WMDs. Even the ultimate reason for this war is to address the point: to disarm our enemies of WMDs before they can use them (as Saddam knew, the only thing standing between him and ruler of the Middle East is the USA, and WMDs would provide the disabling capability he needed).

Our enemies already know this. It is us who need to understand the gravity of this point.

[ctdonath2]

The US must change the rules of the game such that nuclear weapons become not a guarantee against attack, but rather a guarantee that the regime will be attacked.

Seems that's Bush's point. Would that more sheeple understood it.

[bribriagain]

Has the Spectre been used in this campaign?

[Aric2000]

The rules have been changed, it's called the Bush Doctrine.

The US reserves the right to a preemptive strike if our security is threatened.

To me this would be a Rogue regime acquiring Nuclear weapons, or attempting to.

[Aric2000]

Spectre was used during the raid to rescue our POW from the Hospital.

It never fired a shot from what I understand, but it was there and ready to assist.