FridgeMagnet
Administrator
It's all a bit irrelevant given "asymmetrical warfare" - two countries with comparable air forces are really unlikely to ever fight each other nowadays.
my air force is better than yours
- Thread starter s.norbury
- Start date
He who controls the air controls destiny
the nazis got over stretched in russia and lost control of the skies, the russians built loads of planes in siberia and took over, it was different then because the planes couldn't fly so far but still...., I reckon all the missile talk is rubbish? sort of psychological warfare, it's the planes that count. Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems true to me
the nazis got over stretched in russia and lost control of the skies, the russians built loads of planes in siberia and took over, it was different then because the planes couldn't fly so far but still...., I reckon all the missile talk is rubbish? sort of psychological warfare, it's the planes that count. Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems true to me
The US are so far ahead of any other country in terms of quality of aircraft and training.
But, unless something really bizarre happens in the world, I cannot see a conflict occurring in which the Air Forces of the US and any other large nation come into serious conflict. It's all asymmetric warfare (which means: roadside bombs, terrorism, guerilla conflict, etc).
Giles..
But, unless something really bizarre happens in the world, I cannot see a conflict occurring in which the Air Forces of the US and any other large nation come into serious conflict. It's all asymmetric warfare (which means: roadside bombs, terrorism, guerilla conflict, etc).
Giles..
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
Maybe India and Pakistan.
The Russians undoubtedly have some pretty impressive aircraft in the SU-30 and Mig-35 but if anyone doubts that the US would whup anyone in any theatre and any type of symmetrical warfare then they're deluded.
Current estimations are that while The British Empire at its height had the same military capability as the next 3 nations combined, the current US military has the same capability as the next 20 nations combined. No one on earth can hold a flame to them.
I recommend Kagan's famous neo-con essay 'Of Paradise and Power'. It's very provocative stuff and a lot of its premises and conclusions are barmy but it's central thrust, that Europeans have no idea whatsover how powerful the US is, remains compelling.
Current estimations are that while The British Empire at its height had the same military capability as the next 3 nations combined, the current US military has the same capability as the next 20 nations combined. No one on earth can hold a flame to them.
I recommend Kagan's famous neo-con essay 'Of Paradise and Power'. It's very provocative stuff and a lot of its premises and conclusions are barmy but it's central thrust, that Europeans have no idea whatsover how powerful the US is, remains compelling.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
The problem of course being that nobody else can stand up to the USAF by conventional means, and as the US has a disturbing propensity to impose its will on other nations by force, that means nations who think they might get attacked have only two feasible ways to defend themselves.
Acquiring nuclear weapons and/or planning to fight an asymmetrical war from the start.
Both are likely to be harder on civilians than a conventional conflict, because both methods inherently rely on putting civilians in the line of fire.
Acquiring nuclear weapons and/or planning to fight an asymmetrical war from the start.
Both are likely to be harder on civilians than a conventional conflict, because both methods inherently rely on putting civilians in the line of fire.
Bernie Gunther said:
I disagree. Conventional, total war is just as hard, if not harder on civilians than aysemmetrical war. Just look at what's happened in Central Africa where a low-level symmetrical war between several nations has resulted in the deaths of millions of displaced people.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Conventional war is not necessarily as hard on civilians, whereas guerilla war by its very nature is going to put them in the firing line.
It's fair enough to say that conventional war 'can be' just as hard on civilians, but not that it always is.
Guerilla war always is.
It's fair enough to say that conventional war 'can be' just as hard on civilians, but not that it always is.
Guerilla war always is.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
AnnO'Neemus said:erm, see above re: spy plane incident, about four years agho...
didn't you see the sat images of the chinese grease monkey bimbling across the tarmac with a wrench in hand after the americamns had said hands off it's sovereign territory, onlyb to be ignored?
Can you think of any model of aircraft designed and manufactured in China?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
you know, i can't answer this because i honestly don't have a clue. sad innit.
Bernie Gunther said:
To be honest it's all pretty awful isn't it.
Conventional warfare you get mass displacement and subsequent deaths from disease, starvation etc... not nice
Asymmetrical warfare you get 'collateral damage' of fighting in and among the civilians.
There probably hasn't been a war that has avoided hurting citizens since Napoleonic times. Scorched Earth strategies and total mechanised warfare marked the beginning of the end.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well, the trench warfare of WW1 while horrendous for soldiers, was relatively light on civilians and kept the fighting relatively localised. Mechanised warfare is always worse for civilians because by its nature it spreads destruction over a much wider area.
Guerilla war is awful for civilians by its very nature though. If they aren't getting executed for collaborating with the US they're getting blown to bits by the US as 'collateral damage'.
It's been proven to be the only effective response to the US miltary though, so you can figure that many nations are now seriously considering it as their primary means of defence, at least until they can acquire their own nukes.
Guerilla war is awful for civilians by its very nature though. If they aren't getting executed for collaborating with the US they're getting blown to bits by the US as 'collateral damage'.
It's been proven to be the only effective response to the US miltary though, so you can figure that many nations are now seriously considering it as their primary means of defence, at least until they can acquire their own nukes.
Bernie Gunther said:
Yeah I was just thinking about WW1 after I posted that but the war was only really a stalemate on the Western Front and in Gallipoli. Having said that the Eastern front probably still wasn't a shade on what was to follow 20 odd years later.
There's also the question of whether you link the Russian civil war to the first world war or treat it as a relatively seperate conflict.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think the main thing about the western front in WW1 was that it was static. Soldiers fought soldiers in a fairly confined area. In Russia, whether it was the civil war or WW1, things were much more fluid and so lots more civilians were killed or displaced.
Modern warfare is generally very fluid, whether it's some shitty little ethnic cleansing campaign, or the US juggernaut sitting down in Iraq and being chewed to death by swarms of angry locals. So civilians are in the firing line.
The only modern war I can think of without major civilian casualties was the Falklands.
That was mainly because they have more penguins than civilians and because the defenders weren't all mixed up with the local population as they generally are when the US is invading someplace.
Modern warfare is generally very fluid, whether it's some shitty little ethnic cleansing campaign, or the US juggernaut sitting down in Iraq and being chewed to death by swarms of angry locals. So civilians are in the firing line.
The only modern war I can think of without major civilian casualties was the Falklands.
That was mainly because they have more penguins than civilians and because the defenders weren't all mixed up with the local population as they generally are when the US is invading someplace.
mauvais
on reddit or something
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-10Johnny Canuck2 said:
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
i guess there's one or two replicas of the US spy plane in production as ew speak!Johnny Canuck2 said:
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
I just spent 20 minutes crafting a hilarious post on the relative merits of the world's leading air force unforms, chock full of witty socio-political observations set against a fashion show spoof. It really made me laugh. Then I tried to post it, and apparently I wasn't logged in and it has now disappeared. Sadly, so tired am I through laughing I have to go to bed, and you'll have to imagine just how great it was. I've given you the bare bones.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Which countries are seriously considering it has their "primary means of defence"? Most countries are more worried about getting into fights with their immediate neighbours or about internal rebellions and their 'primary defence' consists of conventional troops (infantry, armour, artillery, air power, naval power). Almost all (if not all?) combat going on agaist US troops is not being conducted by a nation state but by insurgent or terrorist groups. Are you simply arguying that Iran is "sponsoring terrorism" or something? In fact can you give some actual examples of what you are talking about?Bernie Gunther said:
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Diamond said:
The USA has nine or more battle groups. See here for a definition of the term.
So, scary stuff, indeed. But check the source for the quoted passage; note the date of the article; then read it and weep for the ignorance (or dishonesty) and hubris of the author. One small quote:
"(USA) power is so vast that we can go seven thousand miles around the world and conduct a war against the most powerful government in the Arab world, surround its capital within two weeks and suffer fewer than fifty casualties."
The Empire can indeed sieze whatever it pleases. But the world has seen it cannot then hold onto its conquest even of just one small and devasted country.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Jonti said:
A US carrier battle group isn't larger than any other navy. The British, Russians, even India, have substantial navies. Not as big as the US navy, but bigger than a battle group.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
North Korea has nukes.
Venezuela and Iran have more reason than most other nations to worry about a visit from the US military, which is why it's no surprise that they're looking at the mess the US has gotten into in Iraq and are thinking along those lines.
Venezuela and Iran have more reason than most other nations to worry about a visit from the US military, which is why it's no surprise that they're looking at the mess the US has gotten into in Iraq and are thinking along those lines.
I still say that your "examples" are the exceptions globally.
The vast majority of countries have a conventional military geared up to deal with their neighbours and with internal rebellions, insurgency, organised crime, territorial/coastal protection and dealing with emergencies and natural disaters. People often have their own political, social and business reasons for having military forces as well, along with buying various hardware and technology from the relevant 'big powers'.
The vast majority of countries work within an existing hegemony - they except the overwhealming power of any relevant 'big powers' and work within these parametres - they don't try and gear up with some irrelevant theoretical "war with america" (or china, russia, NATO, ANZAC or whomever).
The vast majority of countries have a conventional military geared up to deal with their neighbours and with internal rebellions, insurgency, organised crime, territorial/coastal protection and dealing with emergencies and natural disaters. People often have their own political, social and business reasons for having military forces as well, along with buying various hardware and technology from the relevant 'big powers'.
The vast majority of countries work within an existing hegemony - they except the overwhealming power of any relevant 'big powers' and work within these parametres - they don't try and gear up with some irrelevant theoretical "war with america" (or china, russia, NATO, ANZAC or whomever).
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
They are supposed to be exceptions, insofar as the main military threat that those particular nations have to be concerned about is the overwhelming power of the US military.
That was precisely my point ...
That was precisely my point ...
Similar threads
