'Eroded' U.S. Military Could Lose War Against Russia Or China

Aug 2018
1,365
2,167
Vancouver
#21
You know - If I was offered a night of unbridled 3-way passion with a willing Jennifer Lawrence and Princess Katherine - or a night playing Fortress America with some other nerds and a nice fruity merlot - I’m at the stage in life where I’d probably take the latter.
 

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,410
29,813
Toronto
#22
You’re right. You know, that never occurred to me.

This was the only of the 80s classic boardgames of this series that I didn’t own.

I still own two axis and allies games, and my cousin has my Shogun one. Im ready to play them any time. But it’s been 25 years since someone took me up on that offer.
Can't say I really knew "board games" in childhood.

When I was a kid back in Russia, when I just came to Moscow (late 90s/early 2000s) everyone there was playing these things "Chips"/"Caps"/"Pogs" call em what you want...


The winner of a game got the other guy's "caps". I used to have a pretty big collection, especially the Pokemon ones lol
 
Oct 2014
28,405
4,796
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#23
Spending ain't everything. Spending so much, to me, just means that the US military is getting overcharged like crazy for everything by their MIC...

But, as far as winning or losing a war with Russia... I would say it depends what sort of war.

Again, Russia could never effectively fight an offensive campaign against NATO.

But a defensive one, on own land, that would be a very, very different story.

It's not about the technology or the money. It's about the people.

Agreed, spending requires that the funds be spent effectively.

The thing is; stealth bombers, that's 1940's technology. Hitler had started building them, but by then it was too late to build enough to have an effect.

So, with the trillions of dollars "lost" over the decades, it's almost one of those where they better have some Star Trek level technology.

In terms of an actual military conflict; there simply is no winning... Either side. Short of just mass destruction.
 
Likes: The Man
Jul 2011
3,414
4,966
UK/Australia
#24
Australia and the UK have the luxury of deciding for themselves whether or not to ally with an embattled US against a “real” threat.

In Canada there’s no such option.

Whether China and/or Russia confront the US by air, land, sea, cruise missile, cyber or space - ALL those paths lead right through us.

And 80% of our population is in the blast zone.
The scenario put by The Man, wherein an aggressive US launches a pre-emptive attack upon either Russia or China - does not qualify as an 'embattled US', and it was to that which I responded. Neither an aerial, naval, or ground attack need use Canada as a conduit, and Canada has eschewed US military adventures in the past. Both the UK and Australia have as close civil and military ties to the USA, and no one is obligated to join a pre-emptive strike with which one does not agree, simply because of geographic or sociological proximity.

In the case of the USA being the victim of unprovoked attack, no such considerations apply, and you would find that the rest of the civilised world would ally against the attacker - as was the case when the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked. However, the scenario presented, and which we are discussing, was the USA as the aggressor who perpetrated a pre-emptive strike upon a nation with which they were not in a state of war.
 
Aug 2018
1,365
2,167
Vancouver
#25
The scenario put by The Man, wherein an aggressive US launches a pre-emptive attack upon either Russia or China - does not qualify as an 'embattled US', and it was to that which I responded. Neither an aerial, naval, or ground attack need use Canada as a conduit, and Canada has eschewed US military adventures in the past. Both the UK and Australia have as close civil and military ties to the USA, and no one is obligated to join a pre-emptive strike with which one does not agree, simply because of geographic or sociological proximity.

In the case of the USA being the victim of unprovoked attack, no such considerations apply, and you would find that the rest of the civilised world would ally against the attacker - as was the case when the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked. However, the scenario presented, and which we are discussing, was the USA as the aggressor who perpetrated a pre-emptive strike upon a nation with which they were not in a state of war.
You’ve just described the Iraq War - which the UK participated wholeheartedly in for no reason other than to preserve a “special relationship” with the US
 
Jul 2011
3,414
4,966
UK/Australia
#27
You’ve just described the Iraq War - which the UK participated wholeheartedly in for no reason other than to preserve a “special relationship” with the US
Whilst that is factually so, the UK was under no moral obligation to assist in that illegal invasion (in which Australia also participated) and both did so for distinctly suss reasons.

I was about 6 years of age when that invasion occurred - so not particularly politically aware - but I can remember how unpopular the war was in Britain. Literally millions of people marched against it - so no; the UK did not participate wholeheartedly. I suspect 'reluctantly ' is the adjective you seek.

The UK government was under the premiership of a somewhat insane man who had found religion at the time, and Australia was under the premiership of a similar conservative nutter who was 'all the way with LBJ' and happened to be in New York on the day of the attacks. Neither was a typical circumstance for either nation, and it is one thing joining in an attack upon a Middle Eastern tin-pot dictatorship, wherein the balance of power is overwhelmingly in one's favour, and quite another joining a war against nations which are capable of shooting back effectively (not to mention wiping one off the face of the earth with a nuclear arsenal).
 
Aug 2018
1,365
2,167
Vancouver
#28
Whilst that is factually so, the UK was under no moral obligation to assist in that illegal invasion (in which Australia also participated) and both did so for distinctly suss reasons.

I was about 6 years of age when that invasion occurred - so not particularly politically aware - but I can remember how unpopular the war was in Britain. Literally millions of people marched against it - so no; the UK did not participate wholeheartedly. I suspect 'reluctantly ' is the adjective you seek.

The UK government was under the premiership of a somewhat insane man who had found religion at the time, and Australia was under the premiership of a similar conservative nutter who was 'all the way with LBJ' and happened to be in New York on the day of the attacks. Neither was a typical circumstance for either nation, and it is one thing joining in an attack upon a Middle Eastern tin-pot dictatorship, wherein the balance of power is overwhelmingly in one's favour, and quite another joining a war against nations which are capable of shooting back effectively (not to mention wiping one off the face of the earth with a nuclear arsenal).
Neither Mr Blair nor Mr Howard were tyrants. They were subject to maintaining leadership of their ruling parties and maintaining the confidence of Parliament. Our own involvement here was only avoided by our having a worldly Quebecer in office - Had Harper been in power a few years earlier we’d have had boots in Baghdad.

My point is - when push comes to shove, the US (maybe uniquely) does indeed have a sort of “Carte Blanche” among a wide array of allies that are willing to overlook the morality or even sensibility of a particular mission.

Canada has a few hundred troops in Latvia right this minute and they’re mostly there because Obama buttered us up.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,228
40,318
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#29
You know - If I was offered a night of unbridled 3-way passion with a willing Jennifer Lawrence and Princess Katherine - or a night playing Fortress America with some other nerds and a nice fruity merlot - I’m at the stage in life where I’d probably take the latter.
Damn, you're old! ;)
 
Likes: BigLeRoy