Compared to U.S. military, game over for other nations

The Seattle Times ^ | 04/27/2003 | By Gregg Easterbrook

[isthisnickcool]

I see. Thanks for the clarification. I guess the issue is how many years. That's a number I don't have. From what xkaydet65 posted it could not have been very many.

The gist of what I understood was that the people running the Russian military had been told they they were superior to us on the ground. So when they saw the first gulf war they were shocked by what we could do.

[Monty22]

We probably have another 20 years of advantage militarily, unless a democrat is elected. At which point they'll do their best to pull another clinton and beat the military down

[Tribune7]

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help,
who rely on horses,
who trust in the multitude of their chariots
and in the great strength of their horsemen,
but do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
or seek help from the LORD .

Just to keep things in perspective.

[attiladhun2]

We have more like about 900. However, this tank is about 10x superior than any other.

[attiladhun2]

That is why we must have a policy of pre-emption, and all nations which sponsor, promote, or harbor terrorists are fair game.

[GeorgiaYankee]

"Compared to U.S. military, game over for other nations"

"Game over, man!" Bill Paxton in "Aliens"

"The game is over" Iraqi UN Amb. Mohammed Aldouri in real life.

[ODDITHER]

Now we know why France was so upset about SDI. They would no longer be able to manipulate the US through dirty little dictators.

[xkaydet65]

We have a disagreement over when not what. You said the Russians never had a chance. That's only true after the mid '80's. Prior to Reagan there was every chance that an attack by Warsaw Pact forces could succeed. One of the truly accurate charges made by Republicans was that by 1980 the military was a hollow shell. Reagan changed that and created the military that won the Gulf War I and shocked the Red Army. Additionally the Army developed Air Land Battle Doctrine which turned away from WW2 set piece engagements and began the growth of the idea that maneuver was as important as the Army's commitment to Flexibility and Firepower.From '70 to 86 a conflict on the inter German Border would have been no sure thing.

[Paul Ross]

Now, this can't be true. Remember, just a couple of months ago, the illustrious former x42 gave a speech in which he indicated that the US would soon be on the same level as 3rd world nations.

If he had continued on in office, or even with Gore or Hillary getting back into the White House (effectively putting Bubba back in control) then indeed his prophecy would have been made self-fulfilling. The only reason he had any military left at all, was that the Republican Congress refused to permit the complete destruction of our defenses. So Clinton still did what he could to run it into the ground with over-deployments, dissipation of our ammo without replacement, and mis-spending defense dollars on politically correct social engineering projects.

[dark_lord]

Yes. Sorry, I meant they have about 100 subs. Most are "mini-subs". Here are the details on the N. Korean Navy.

[Steel Wolf]

Their coastal infiltration boats are just that; vehicles to help insert special operations troops past the DMZ. The handful of them that are actually equipped with torpedo tubes are for taking out other coastal defenses.

To send them up against our fast attack boats would be like bringing your ten speed bicycle to a Motocross race. They are cramped, leaky Soviet knockoffs that are marginally seaworthy, and sitting ducks for any of our ASW platforms.

[Seydlitz]

The kind of wild overstatements made by commentators like Easterbrook are really un-nerving. Are we the biggest, baddest kid on the block? Yes. However, the fact that we can beat any single opponent does not mean that we can beat a combination of opponents. Life is not like a James Bond movie, in which the bad guys attack one at a time. Sometimes, they work together. As the fact of US military dominance sinks in, there will be some unlikely alliances between those who hate us to off-set US advantages.

Moreover, historically, revolutions in military affairs are traditionally short-lived. It should be remembered that Iraq, after twelve years of sanctions, was not the most challenging military foe. In addition, the US military is too small for a real global crisis.

Finally, the US victory in Iraq is as much about low-tech dominance as high-tech gizmos. Training, especially with the MILES equipment, made a critical difference. The Abrams, Bradleys and Warthogs (written-off by the worshippers of high-tech for years) were key in the victory.

Let us not forget that we have no technology that China cannot eventually copy.

[JimRed]

Yes, we need SDI. But each strategy produces a counter-strategy, and I suspect the future will involve "componentized" nukes that can be assembled by specialists infiltrated into a country. Put the sucker in some suburban basement in a major metro and you are ready to go.

One of the many reasons to secure our borders.

[JimRed]

And the Soviet Union fell shortly after the Soviet military discovered they would be annihillated in any conflict with the US. Coincidence?

Combined with some higher up Soviet officials finally "getting it". "Hey, the west really is NOT interested in attacking us, just like they always said".