Quote: (05-31-2016 06:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:
Quote: (05-31-2016 05:09 PM)H1N1 Wrote:
Despite my earlier post extolling the very real wonders of the US military capability, it is important to keep in mind that overwhelming numbers of men of fighting age, and a willingness to sacrifice them on the part of their commanders, is still the most significant factor in any conventional conflict - and why we should be very slow to write off the threat posed by the Russians and Chinese in a land war. These countries have the people and the readiness to sacrifice them that makes for a fearsome enemy that would take a long time and tremendous slaughter to overcome. It is possible, given the Russian's current capabilities and attitude towards the average fighting man that they may just have the edge in a purely land based conflict.
One would bet on the combined virtues of Western strategic superiority, military prowess, and technological excellence to see the US and the rest of The West prevail in such a conflict, but despite the brilliance of the US military, the outcome would not be a forgone conclusion.
First, excellent points about "4th generation" nonsense. The idea that conventional nation-to-nation warfare is dead and that all the conflicts of the future are necessarily "asymmetric" wars against non-governmental actors is an exceedingly dumb one and characteristic of so much of today's web chatter (not just on this subject).
Regarding a hypothetical conflict between the US and either Russia or China: wouldn't the American ability to inflict staggering casualties on the enemy, rapidly and by purely conventional means, be able to pacify even a military ready to bear quite extraordinary losses? The Japanese had a tolerance for loss unmatched by anyone, but they had to surrender in the face of the demonstration of a qualitatively different American nuclear capability. My sense is that US weapons technology is so advanced that it can, if called upon, inflict virtually nuclear-level losses on the enemy through purely conventional means. But I would like to know what you think.
I suspect it is not as clear cut as we'd hope, for a number of reasons.
I don't think US technological superiority can be assumed in many important areas of conventional combat. Russian armour (tanks, armoured artillery, etc) is every bit as good as American armour, and there is an awful lot of it. Russians LOVE tanks, for the excellent reason that their navy is rendered all but useless by geography. Russian planes are as good, more or less, as the US planes, and Russian weapon detection/radar/missle guidance systems are also comparable. Very broadly, The US and the Russians have the same capacity to inflict damage on one another in the important areas of the battle space when it comes to armaments.
America can deploy some of the more devastating nuclear technologies more easily, and therefore more effectively in a combat situation than any other nation. It is in this sort of thing that the real superiority of the US lies. There is not currently any technology held by the US that is different in kind from the technology the Russians have. The difference is in its maturity and its deployability, and whilst these differences are significant, they are not so pronounced that they can simply overwhelm another technically adept nation.
Another significant factor is that whilst conventional state-to-state warfare is not dead, a change in tactics for the deployment of armour and infantry will be required to mitigate the devastating effects that modern weaponry can have against massed units. A significant advantage will go to whoever is first to adapt to this once the conflict starts. In my view, having more men and being willing to expend them gives greater scope for trying new styles of combat, and probably tilts the advantage in this regard slightly in favour of Russia/China.
The US, for all its technological brilliance, also has a significant problem with over spec-ing during procurement. Whereas other countries will mass produce lower spec, but effective armour, the US will take a similar idea, and then through the procurement process turn it into a slow to produce, technically incredibly advanced, weapons system. However, these can only engage one enemy at a time, and could potentially be swarmed by lots of more mobile, lower spec armour. US military procurement and the influence of the Military Industrial Compex is a genuine problem (and then we, in our wisdom, just copy what you do).
The US also has a problem due to its need to project power on land, sea and by air. The Russians are aware that their Navy is more or less useless because of the geography (as illustrated in their lost conflict with Japan in 1905), and consequently they are geared up for a land war in Europe/Russia/China. The focusing of resources into this area has conveyed an advantage. The US also has the logistical headache that this reality poses. Of course, the US has many foreign bases (many along the frontier with Russia, of course), and this is excellent for projecting power and for conducting operations. However, getting enough equipment, resources etc in place, managing the logistics of it, and defending it whilst trying to launch attacks is a very serious problem indeed, and one that even the US would have a tremendous struggle to overcome.
I would still back the US to overcome all of this, but I think it would be a lengthy process marked by huge American losses. No amount of technology currently in existence can mitigate these very practical, logistical issues with waging war half a world away.