Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

Nice personal attack on the kool aid reference. Can you keep it professional?

I said that Lind was off base when he said that the US military was still thinking in terms of linear battles with traditional battle fronts and was failing in its mission. This new article still does not refute that.

Whether we can solidify the gains made thus far in Iraq is another matter all together and if you prefer a subject for a new thread.

i do agree with Lind on one point. An attack on Iran by the US or Israel would be disastrous. Which is why is has not happened.

For the foreseeable future, we sit across the Gulf from one another. The Sunni Arabs and the western world vs. the shia' Iranians and Russia.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

In regard to the $400 hammers - I can only comment in this way.

I worked in the defense industry at the time of those issues (there was also the $1000 ashtray).

I'm now in the environmental industry....here to save all of you again

We've gone from $400 hammers to $10,000 water samples.

You won't read about it in the media, though....:confused:

[wayiwalk]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

And my own expectations is that we will continue to see cuts in our military during the current administration, regardless of what our "foes" are doing.

I wouldn't be in defense stocks at this time - I'd expect the same losses that you saw in the early 90's.

Russia rearming is just in response to the reality that it must be able to defend it's disputed borders against China, and possibly a few entries into Europe for protection of it's energy interests.

Neither really concerns this country going forward.

Both parties (the dem's in the 60's and 90's, and the repubs in the 00's) have had their forays into foreign wars and have learned it's the wrong way to win control of congress/white house....once BO get's Bin Laden, I'm sure we'll quietly exit Afghanistan no matter what we leave behind.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

An oldie, but goodie. Eerily prescient.

From The Onion, naturally...

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

More...

GRG55's 4,000th post!



Keep'em coming! :cool:

[BlackVoid]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

A few thoughts.
1. Current capabilities are very hard to estimate, especially from the outside. We just do not know what would happen if a conflict of this magnitude breaks out.
2. The US has VERY LONG supply lines to the Middle-East. These would be very hard to protect against bombers equipped with long range missiles.
3. Most great powers in history, finally succumbed to military defeat, often beaten by a smaller and (seemingly) inferior force. The reason is simple. Empires tend to stick to strategies and tactics that were successful the last time. They are preparing for the last war and not the coming war. One example is aircraft carriers. They were great in WW2 and they are great for beating up insignificant backwater countries. But I have a suspicion, that against modern missiles in quantity they would/will prove to be sitting ducks.
4. The United States military has NEVER EVER fought an even fight. And despite this, they managed to lose (Vietnam). Read the military history of WW2 and you will be astonished at the complete incompetence of the western armies. TOTAL INCOMPETENCE. The Italian campaign is a prime example, despite having complete control over the air, having amphibious capability and outnumbering the Germans 10 to 1 (or so), the Allied armies advanced with a snail's pace. Similarly they could have been in Berlin in 1944, but could not do that either. In fact, you could argue that the track record of the US military is abysmal. They can beat up 3rd rate countries who have no outside help, but that's about it.
5. In my opinion the (conventional) weapon of current times is the guided missile. Microchips are cheap, missiles are cheap. Planes, tanks, helicopters and ships are VERY expensive. What if Russia starts to supply the opponents of the US with missiles of all kinds in great quantities?
6. Another issue is 4GW. Wars are fought on many levels: financial, economical, cyber and many other levels. It is very, very complex.

Capabilities on paper does not mean anything in this age. The unexpected rules the battlefield. This has been never more true than today.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

"Russia rearming is just in response to the reality that it must be able to defend it's disputed borders against China, and possibly a few entries into Europe for protection of it's energy interests."

I am sorry, but that is just plain nonsense. The Great Game is between the USA (and allies) and Russia (and allies). China, with their puny nuclear capability are no threat to Russia at all. Europe has no armies, no nukes and no energy. No threat to Russia. At any time Russia could thwart further expansion of NATO (and those silly missile shield plans), they just need to close the oil and gas taps. The reason why they do not do this: they do not want/have to. What they want is a Europe allied to Russia and not to the USA. And guess who will control the Middle-East oil reserves then? Especially if they have China on their side too.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

Future wars will no doubt see theaters of operation in both cyber space and outer space. I agree the days of the super carrier may be past but something more modest may still be a feature of modern navies. Both the Japanese and South Koreans are launching carriers of their own. Will the Chinese be forced to join the carrier arms race or will their subs be fine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokdo_c...s_assault_ship

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/wor...iers/16ddh.htm

Why all this build up? Perhaps various regional powers are sensing a power vacumn as US wealth and influence declines?

As for Russian control of the mideast, I think an ascendant Turkey might have something to say about that.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

One more thing. I am sure most of the great powers have top secret weapons. Who knows what.

And I did not mean in my last post, that the US is weak or could not win in a greater conventional war. It is just that, they are not invincible either.

The current situation is pretty much unprecedented in World History and totally unpredictable as well.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

"As for Russian control of the mideast, I think an ascendant Turkey might have something to say about that."

Allying Russia is a MUCH better strategic move for Turkey than to oppose them. Already they are getting closer.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

"As for Russian control of the mideast, I think an ascendant Turkey might have something to say about that."

Allying Russia is a MUCH better strategic move for Turkey than to oppose them. Already they are getting closer.

In the short term, it may be best to say "nice doggie" to Russia.

However, the long term strategy with Russia, no matter who you are, is to play a waiting game for another 20-50 years. Russia is dying demographically, and those dismal numbers are being aggravated by a heroin and HIV epidemic.
Then, when Russia is an even more miserable shell than it already is, just nibble away at the edges and a helpless Russia will ultimately pull back to its medieval frontiers.

Putin knows this which is why he is pushing so hard now. Also note, the emphasis of their economic development isn't large scale production, which requires lots of manpower. Their emphasis is now on production of natural resources which is less manpower intensive.

[Sharky]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

Read the military history of WW2 and you will be astonished at the complete incompetence of the western armies. TOTAL INCOMPETENCE.

+1. In spite of all of the wartime propaganda to the contrary, the US won WW II by way of massive production of wartime materials, not by fighting or tactical skill. In fact, Germans were much better fighters than Americans. IIRC, by a factor of 5 or 6.

The situation is probably worse today than it was back then. In spite of Vietnam and the conflicts since then, the US military still seems to be stuck in the failed tactics of WW II. When combined with modern politics you get things like selective targeting and crippling rules of engagement. It's a joke.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

I agree that in war American leadership, both military and political, tends to lurch from one disaster to the next until figuring out proper prosecution of the war. However, once they do, success comes swiftly and surely.


To say that the US military has "NEVER EVER" fought an even fight is incorrect. Really, what is your definition of NEVER EVER? Here is a rough rundown of wars where the US was seriously outgunned or at least evenly matched.

The American revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, WW I, WW II, Korea.

Again, I agree during those wars, the commanders made some truly awful decisions and risked losing the whole war but not only did the US win with sheer industrial might but also with grim determination to win.

I still don't get this idea that you think the US military is stuck in the failed tactics of WW 2. Just a quick review of action since then reminds me of the Inchon Landings in Korea, the development of Air Cavalry, development of Green Beret and other Special Forces, use of air assault, Shock & Awe, driving straight into Baghdad with an overextended supply line, development of tactics around UAV's.

Now, you may disagree on the efficacy or execution of those strategies
but don't tell me we are stuck with failed tactics of WW2 because those examples I mentioned above are all highly innovative.

Speaking of which, you say the tactics of WW 2 failed but the allies won. What do you mean the tactics failed?

[BlackVoid]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

"the US military has "NEVER EVER" fought an even fight is incorrect"

Yes it is. I should have said: NEVER EVER WON an even fight.
The American Revolution - The French Navy won it.
War of 1812 - US lost
Civil War - not an outside enemy. And it was not even, the North had much more resources.
WWI - not even close to being even. The Allies had superiority in numbers and resources by a large margin.
WWII - like the above, industrial production of the USA was about the equal of the rest of the world combined. How is that an even fight?
Korea - A draw at best.

And you are right, the US military now employs successfully the Blitzktrieg tactics of WW2 Germany: initiative at lower levels of command, good cooperation of the different arms of the military, the empasis on quick decisive action, the employment of overwhelming force at the critical point, etc. But it is still WW2 tactics and strategy. Apart from North Korea, it has never been tested against a strong power.

Look what happened with Israel in Lebanon a few years ago. A modern army encountered a determined enemy equipped with cheap missiles in great numbers. They lost, despite their superiority in just about everything. Tanks, big ships and planes are not cost effective in the age of cheap missiles.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

It is very dangerous to project current trends for 20-50 years. Trends continue until at some point they stop or reverse. See the stock markets as a good example.

[flintlock]

Re: Russia Is Planning a ‘Large-Scale Rearming’ - ny times

+1. In spite of all of the wartime propaganda to the contrary, the US won WW II by way of massive production of wartime materials, not by fighting or tactical skill. In fact, Germans were much better fighters than Americans. IIRC, by a factor of 5 or 6.

The situation is probably worse today than it was back then. In spite of Vietnam and the conflicts since then, the US military still seems to be stuck in the failed tactics of WW II. When combined with modern politics you get things like selective targeting and crippling rules of engagement. It's a joke.

While I agree US production was the primary reason the allies won WWII, to say Germans were "much better fighters by a factor of 5 or 6" is just plain wrong. Where do you get this? Were some veteran German units better than the greenest American units? Certainly, but contrary to what is portrayed on the History Channel, not all German units the US faced were elite Waffen SS or even veterans . At the end of the war most Germans units were of rather poor quality and still dragging around artillery and equipment primarily with horses. The Wehrmacht America faced was a mere shell of what it was at its peak, but at no time in its history was it 5-6 times as effective as the American Army.:rolleyes: