Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ChildOfThe60s

It comes down to how many missiles (naval and air force weapons, not army ammo) are in stock vs how many targets need to be destroyed.

And that comes down to what US goals are in such a war. If the US limits itself to, say, destroying the Chinese Navy, there probably is plenty of ammo for that. If the goal is to destroy and keep suppressed invasion ports oriented to Taiwan, more; airfields in range, even more; missile launchers, industrial sites, transport targets, and on and on... Certainly not.


23 posted on 02/15/2023 7:14:57 AM PST by buwaya (Strategic imperatives )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: buwaya; All

What a foolish post. Nations cannot choose what sort of war they want. Attack another sovereign nation’s navy means general war. Whether the US could do more than some damage is also problematic. Once a war begins the nations involved are in the domain of the unknown and unpredictable. There are so many just plain foolish and stupid remarks on this forum by people who do not have the slightist idea what they are writing about vis a vis armed conflict. One thing is obvious, the number of barca lounger warriors here is great, those who have seen the elephant are few. Pretty much like the US as a whole.


24 posted on 02/15/2023 7:30:51 AM PST by robowombat ( ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson