I perused it.

American's don't care about much of anything, therefore are highly influenced by the vocal minority.

I understand that the negative connotation that the name Nixon carries will tend to create an immediate barrier to communication, but read this.

Thus, the guerilla reasoning can't be faulted. No one is undefeatable. I imagine that America's vulnerabilities are what could be considered soft targets, but all wars are fought on many fronts.

There's an economic aspect to war, both fiscal (obviously) and strategically/diplomatically. You have to give to get. You have to risk to advance.

So we deploy troops to take military action. Our diplomatic stock suffers. The leaders of the world assume that we flipped a coin and heads said to invade, when in actuality, many courses of action have been tried and worn out or immediately disposed of for being unfeasible.

Wasn't 9/11 proof that we have our Achilles heels? Ok, point taken. (please don't do that again.) Question is, are you capable of weathering the storm you prayed for? This isn't the game of Risk. Whether this war is justified in anyone's mind is fodder for another thread, however, that article is only a representation of our current and potentially future adversaries game books. It fails to address all of our weapons.

Weapons, in this case, encompass far more than ordinance. While I'll be the first to admit that we do very poorly in currying the favor of the American people (you have to admit that making every American happy with policy choices is an impossibility), but you'd better believe that, however slowly, we are learning. I do realize that this war is still a fledgling campaign with respect to comparing it to Viet Nam, as we were there for 15 years, and we've only been in Iraq for 2 or 3. I will just say that the magnitude of protest against Iraq are piddling when viewed aside that of the early '70s.

I seriously doubt I have put my thoughts together very effectively. I don't imagine that I have convinced anyone of anything beyond the fact that I was able to overcome my ADHD enough to type out more than 20 words.

A few points to highlight:
We certainly didn't WIN Viet Nam, but I guarantee you that our losses on the ground were less than 1%.

You aren't going to defeat any gargantuan by turning popular opinion against the actions of the adminstration. Granted, that is a very effective tactic. Sad to say, but we actually don't need a lot of help from the insurgents, taliban, MILF... We do pretty good disenfranchinsing of the American people on our own. (read: Abu Ghiraib)

Lastly, I admit that this could be my perversness and eccentricity showing through, but I've been saying for a long time that we could and should invade China. Not only am I convinced that we could defeat them, but I believe that that is the most effecient and effective option that would cement democracy and human rights throughout the world.

My opinions are mine. They are opinions based on my own potentially deluded decision-making process. It's not necessarily developed enough to be defensible, so I won't even try.

 

if you want to know our own vulns just look at the very computer you are using to read this

all it takes is a 15 year old with to much time on his hands with a bit of knowledge and creativity and he could complete crush an entire market, economy, or even nation state.

I am not joking in the least.

Granted one 15 year old wouldnt be able to down everything.. but all it takes is the seed to be planted..

Put it like this.. it is damn easy to raise a whole helluva alot of hell online now a days..

 

Unfortunately, we would need to use a neutron bomb to accomplish this, because they have nukes, and they'd use 'em. If it came to a ground war, we could kill 100 troops for every one of ours and still be outnumbered... and such a feat is doubtful given their purchases, duplication, and outright theft of our technologies. Rest assured they are studying the way in which our military operates in detail, and they know how to tactically neutralize us (Art of war).

Now, if we did have some secret weapon, it might be part of "the grand conspiracy" to bait China into a war with us, so that we could claim we were justified in the use of such weapon.... thus eventually spreading democracy through China.

I think it's much more likely that we will be invaded, because they stand to benefit much more. The world couldn't stomach the U.S. trying to "spread democracy" via warfare in China, but if china were on the offensive, they wouldn't give a care what popular world opinion is, and justifyably so.....

It's going to eventually come down as a conflict between the U.S.(+ euro allies) and China(+ Russia).... mark my words.

 

Eh, you're right.....






If it were 1950 again. There won't be any 'hordes' anymore.

Again, with regards to your comment about them studying us, you're right but you (nor I) are not equiped to state anything beyond that. They're studying us. They've most likely identified some vulnerabilities, but constructing an effective OPLAN just ain't gonna happen.

I will say this. If we were to confront China like we have Vietnam and Iraq, essentially making the American people into a 'Commanding General', we'll be there for decades and suffer quite a few unnecessary losses.

You can't think solely geographically. You can't think solely geosocially. You can't think solely technologically. Everything must be taken into consideration, to include every minor implication.

It's not like playing chess. "Well, if we infiltrate a corps to attack into the inlets of Shanghai and Beijing, and insert a division via airborne/air assault into the Shandong Province to act as follow and support, then position a flotilla in the Yellow Sea, then station a HQ on the north side of PI, they will buttress their big cities with artillery and light infantry, they'll saturate all of Sandong with VX and Sarin, situate coastal artillery at Dalian, and Nuke PI."

That's just one dimensional thinking. Popular opinion of the entire world still has to be considered. Invisible alliances must be seen beforehand. There technology must identified and hampered. The intelligence agencies need to be realigned, re-trained, and streamlined. The most expert diplomats must be allowed to fully execute their jobs, free from the whims of their civilian bosses. Subsidies must be granted and embargos established. The popular opinion fallout of that must be addressed. Our own military-industrial efforts must be realigned and well managed. Our selective service must be reviewed. Our troops must be prepared by training and logistics for an entirely different battlefield....

Understand, I was giving my personal, perfect-world opinion as well. I'm not even close to being wise enough to fully understand the necessities and repurcussions of invading China.

Also, you're right in that there will most likely be another war and it could very likely be along the alignment that you spoke of. There will be more wars, there's no doubt about that. It's just when and where. It probably wouldn't be too faulty of an assessment in saying that the next major war will be in the next 10 years.