One Superpower?

[Lock&Light]

you even think that I care about you.

Everyone can see who's delusional, nino. And who is obsessed.

 

[nino_savatte]

Everyone can see who's delusional, nino. And who is obsessed.

You're delusional but you're also the one who is obsessed, pal.

Now kindly fuck off.

 

[Lock&Light]

Now kindly fuck off.

I was here first, mate, so take a running jump.

 

[nino_savatte]

I was here first, mate, so take a running jump.

You are obsessed and here you are resorting to an auld kiddie's line in defence of your nonsense.

For someone who claims to be a mature person, you don't half behave like a prepubescent who's had his lolly taken from him.

 

[Jessiedog]

I didn't start this thread, so ignore me at will chaps, but I've asked before if you might be able to do this stuff elswhere - a dedicated thread, or PM's perhaps.

(Or a room. )



Woof

 

[Lock&Light]

I didn't start this thread, so ignore me at will chaps, but I've asked before if you might be able to do this stuff elswhere - a dedicated thread, or PM's perhaps.

(Or a room. )



Woof

If you can help to break nino's obsession with me I would be very grateful.

 

[Rentonite]

Hey At least it is not me this time...

 

[Crispy]

I find the bbest way to end a conversation where there is absolutely zero chance of the other guy changing my mind or impacting on my physical reality is to just shut up and ignore them. Works wonders for me

As for the topic - yes, the US is absolutely undefeatable in conventional combat, but cannot succesfully fight a geurilla war, due to the high human costs of such a war and the high levels of motivation required of the actual soldiers to fight such a war.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think it's worth examining what 'unbeatable in conventional combat' is meant to mean here. I'm not so sure it's a universal rule. The demonstrations we've so far seen are what happens when one particular dictator's highly centralised and distinctly second rate (the first time round) or even third rate (the second time around) military has to deal with US heavy forces in open ground with its communications knocked out from day one and total US air superiority.

I'm not sure that those conditions would always apply or that the US would always do as well even in conventional warfare under different conditions.

For example, what would happen if they found themselves fighting Iran's highly motivated Republican Guard light forces in the Zagros mountains? Their heavy forces wouldn't be much use there. Their air force needs a target to be effective and while it'll zap any radar that is switched on, it's still just as vulnerable to optically-guided ground fire as anyone elses air force if it's flying low enough to find targets by eye.

If you recall, they weren't doing at all well in Afghanistan, ineffectually bombing rocks from 50,000 ft until they bribed a bunch of local warlords over to their side.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hey At least it is not me this time...

You and L&L should get a room, you're cut from the same cloth.

 

[slaar]

Bit bemused as to why there's so much vitriol expended on this thread. Lock & Light's post was relevant to the topic as far as I can see, responding to a point about Chinese imperialism, or lack of, with a reference to their colonial exploits in Tibet, so apart from personal animosity carried over from previous threads I see no reason to challenge it on those terms.

I agree with Bernie on the Iranian issue, and that's why I can't see any Iraq-style adventure unless those in command of US forces have lost all sense of realism and perspective.

Shit.

 

[slaar]

Rentonite - Your macho carrier groups are all very impressive, but if you don't want to turn Iran to glass, which is always an option, how exactly are they going to be used to defeat a mountain-based opposition of Iranian fighters, without ground support?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Shit.

Quite.

I was just using Iran as an example though. History is littered with the wreckage of 'invincible conquerors' who weren't quite as invincible as they thought. It seems to me that the US chronically mistakes technological superiority in specific though admittedly important aspects of warfare, for military superiority over all comers in any circumstances.

It works for them as long as they get to fight the war of their choice, but whever they have to fight someone elses war of choice they seem to come unglued, getting so angry and frustrated that they start randomly slaughtering civilians and committing atrocities, when their high-tech toys don't live up to all the marketing hype and they end up getting blown up or sniped at by a swarm of angry locals who don't stick around to be zapped by super weapons.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think it's worth examining what 'unbeatable in conventional combat' is meant to mean here. I'm not so sure it's a universal rule. The demonstrations we've so far seen are what happens when one particular dictator's highly centralised and distinctly second rate (the first time round) or even third rate (the second time around) military has to deal with US heavy forces in open ground with its communications knocked out from day one and total US air superiority.

I believe we've addressed this one before.
if we are talking about "conventional" combat, of the sort that comprised most European battles in the 2nd world war it's entirely the case that the US's superior numbers of fielded infantry, artillery and aircraft make them likely to win, but numbers only mean something in that kind of "set piece" scenario, and even then there's "many a slip twixt cup and lip". Overwhelming the enemy is good tactics, but only if you're able to put your opponent in a box and keep him there. If he has an ace up his sleeve then all bets are off.

I'm not sure that those conditions would always apply or that the US would always do as well even in conventional warfare under different conditions.

For example, what would happen if they found themselves fighting Iran's highly motivated Republican Guard light forces in the Zagros mountains? Their heavy forces wouldn't be much use there. Their air force needs a target to be effective and while it'll zap any radar that is switched on, it's still just as vulnerable to optically-guided ground fire as anyone elses air force if it's flying low enough to find targets by eye.

Uh-huh. Hitler's Germany even pre-'39 the Wehrmacht had a minimum of 3 gebirgsjäger divisions. If they'd been well-trained in small unit tactics they'd have fared far better in the Balkans. As it is, the Iranian forces (army and "Republican Guard") do have that training, and will have the "home team" advantage.
That's the thing with assymetric warfare, it goes from being about who has the best materiel and logistics to who knows the turf and has the tenacity.

If you recall, they weren't doing at all well in Afghanistan, ineffectually bombing rocks from 50,000 ft until they bribed a bunch of local warlords over to their side.

And even then the warlords (as always) have done the minimum necessary to keep the US "onside".

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It occurs to me though, that having one nation be so completely dominant in what has been the main mode of 'conventional warfare' since WW2 leads to a corollary, which is that all the other nations and non-state actors are likely to be considerably more creative, taken as a whole, in finding alternative means of coercion. The likelihood is that we are already witnessing this transition.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It occurs to me though, that having one nation be so completely dominant in what has been the main mode of 'conventional warfare' since WW2 leads to a corollary, which is that all the other nations and non-state actors are likely to be considerably more creative, taken as a whole, in finding alternative means of coercion. The likelihood is that we are already witnessing this transition.

It's certainly true the IED and other "home-made" devices have come into their own, as have the use of "irregular" tactics.

I'd say the last big war that could be said to have been (for the most part) "regular" was Korea, and it's certainly a matter of historical fact that the British army took the small unit tactics it evolved in South-east Asia and used them effectively in many colonial situations (the twist in the tail being the use of similar tactics by those we victimised).

Also, while people talk of "carrier groups" and large scale air assault, it's worth bearing in mind that such resources are only as secure as the weakest link in the chain that protects them. David Stirling taught that one to the Germans and Italians in north Africa when he infiltrated and sabotaged not only the airfields and aircraft, but also the fuel supplies for the aircraft.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Another aspect of that problem is that most of the alternatives tend to drag civilians into the issue. We were talking about this on the air force thread.

Static trench warfare mostly left civilians out, as two armies tried to kill each other in a confined space.

Manouever warfare of the type that came to prominence during WW2, I guess tries to disrupt and disorganise the enemy rather than slaughtering him to the last man, but by manouvering over wide areas, tends to affect civilians more often, as also does other main innovation of WW2, the use of air power to destroy the infrastructure that supports mechanised armies.

Both methods still mostly take the opponents army as their focus though, and hurt civilians only as a by-product of attacking the opposing military. (although it's fair to say I think that terror bombing against civilians was also a factor in WW2)

Asymmetric warfare covers a lot of different things, from straightforward guerilla war through to economic and propaganda warfare, but in general it seems to me to more often actually focus on civilians and the infrastructure and economy that supports them as it looks for the weakest points in the support systems of a much stronger opponent.

It often starts off by directly attacking civilians in an attempt to destroy the enemy's will to fight, or to perhaps provoke them into doing something counterproductive, rather than doing so as a by-product of attacking military formations and when, as in the intermediate case of 'classical' guerilla warfare, it directly attacks the opposing military, it still does so from within the population, and draws military retaliation down onto that population by its very nature.

 

[Lock&Light]

Bit bemused as to why there's so much vitriol expended on this thread. Lock & Light's post was relevant to the topic as far as I can see, responding to a point about Chinese imperialism, or lack of, with a reference to their colonial exploits in Tibet, so apart from personal animosity carried over from previous threads I see no reason to challenge it on those terms.

It's personal animosity carried into an obsession on the part of nino.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's an interesting quote from that interesting Chinese paper "Unrestricted Warfare" (p209)

"World's number one," an ideology corresponding to "isolationism," always makes the Americans tend to pursue unlimited objectives as they expand their national power. But this is a tendency which in the end will lead to tragedy. A company which has limited resources but which is nevertheless keen to take on unlimited responsibilities is headed for only one possible outcome, and that is bankruptcy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

 

[nino_savatte]

It's personal animosity carried into an obsession on the part of nino.

You continue to persist with this notion that I am "obsessed" with you. Like I told you before, no one could be obsessed with you: you aren't interesting, clever or intelligent. In fact, you're a depply unpleasant individual who gets his jollies by sniping at other people with whom you have taken a dislike.

Contempt is what you deserve.

 

[slaar]

Another aspect of that problem is that most of the alternatives tend to drag civilians into the issue. We were talking about this on the air force thread.

Static trench warfare mostly left civilians out, as two armies tried to kill each other in a confined space.

Manouever warfare of the type that came to prominence during WW2, I guess tries to disrupt and disorganise the enemy rather than slaughtering him to the last man, but by manouvering over wide areas, tends to affect civilians more often, as also does other main innovation of WW2, the use of air power to destroy the infrastructure that supports mechanised armies.

Both methods still mostly take the opponents army as their focus though, and hurt civilians only as a by-product of attacking the opposing military. (although it's fair to say I think that terror bombing against civilians was also a factor in WW2)

Asymmetric warfare covers a lot of different things, from straightforward guerilla war through to economic and propaganda warfare, but in general it seems to me to more often actually focus on civilians and the infrastructure and economy that supports them as it looks for the weakest points in the support systems of a much stronger opponent.

It often starts off by directly attacking civilians in an attempt to destroy the enemy's will to fight, or to perhaps provoke them into doing something counterproductive, rather than doing so as a by-product of attacking military formations and when, as in the intermediate case of 'classical' guerilla warfare, it directly attacks the opposing military, it still does so from within the population, and draws military retaliation down onto that population by its very nature.

This is true, but it's interesting how these forms of combat actually, in my view, look back towards how wars are fought in very low-tech environments. The West African civil wars of the 1990s for example had very few set-piece combats of the convetional kind, and was much more about various factions attacking villages along a fluid front line and committing all sorts of atrocities in revenge for perceived connivance with "the other".

The "glory days" of nation states' armies attacking each other in set-piece battles are behind us, but that doesn't make war any less brutal, quite the reverse in fact as far as civilians are concerned (although the use of conscripts in those horrendous set-piece battles makes things slightly more ambiguous) it looks to be somewhat worse.

 

[Crispy]

You continue to persist with this notion that I am "obsessed" with you. Like I told you before, no one could be obsessed with you: you aren't interesting, clever or intelligent. In fact, you're a depply unpleasant individual who gets his jollies by sniping at other people with whom you have taken a dislike.

Contempt is what you deserve.

Why the hell do you keep getting in massive handbag fights with him then? put the guy on ignore if he winds you up so much.

 

[nino_savatte]

Why the hell do you keep getting in massive handbag fights with him then? put the guy on ignore if he winds you up so much.

Why should I have to put him on "ignore"? He's a nasty wee fucker who should have been banned ages ago. I only wish those in charge could see him for what he is: a disruptive shitstirring wee fucker whose raison d'etre is to derail threads.

 

[Jessiedog]

Why should I have to put him on "ignore"?

There's always PM's nino.

I've asked the same of L&L.



Woof

 

[nino_savatte]

There's always PM's nino.

I've asked the same of L&L.



Woof

I don't want to encourage him; entering into a correspondence with L&L is the wrong thing to do as he would see it as a vindication of his 'abilities'.

I'll pass on that, thanks.

 

[Jessiedog]

*sigh*

No need to "correspond". Just type what you were going to type here and then C&P it into a PM and send that instead of posting.







Anyway......

Here's an interesting quote from that interesting Chinese paper "Unrestricted Warfare" (p209)

"World's number one," an ideology corresponding to "isolationism," always makes the Americans tend to pursue unlimited objectives as they expand their national power. But this is a tendency which in the end will lead to tragedy. A company which has limited resources but which is nevertheless keen to take on unlimited responsibilities is headed for only one possible outcome, and that is bankruptcy.

I've read some of that and it certainly seems that China's strategy is not ill-thought through - and the country may well be capable of implementing much of it with quite some aplomb, given the time.



Woof

 

[nino_savatte]

*sigh*

No need to "correspond". Just type what you were going to type here and then C&P it into a PM and send that instead of posting.

Sorry, I can't see that working. He will see it as something other than it actually is.

 

[Lock&Light]

Sorry, I can't see that working. He will see it as something other than it actually is.

Your sick obsession with me is intrusive enough just on the boards. I have no wish to have it spread into PM's as well. Just get over it, nino.

 

[nino_savatte]

Your sick obsession with me is intrusive enough just on the boards. I have no wish to have it spread into PM's as well. Just get over it, nino.

Fuck off and die, you self-absorbed wee shite. No one is obsessed with you.

In fact, even the voices in your head ignore you.

As Mark E Smith once said and it sums you up nicely

His mind is like a tape loop

 

[Lock&Light]

No one is obsessed with you.

Anyone reading this thread, and any other where you have jumped in to attack me with some of the most nasty, depraved and childish insults ever seen on these boards, will be able to judge the truth of your statement.