Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
Which one of those did we "lose"?
All of them, obviously. Duh! What, are you one of those "WE WON IN VIETNAM!!" dreamers?
But... but.... but... gun control advocates keep saying that a ragtag group of civilians would get wiped out in 30 seconds against the all powerful US military. How is this possible?
We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
Which one of those did we "lose"?
We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
Which one of those did we "lose"?
All of them, obviously. Duh! What, are you one of those "WE WON IN VIETNAM!!" dreamers?
We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
Which one of those did we "lose"?
You were forced to a standstill in Korea..
You lost thousands of troops in Iraq for absolutely no gain, after starting an illegal war based on lies...
Afghanistan is yet another serious defeat...
China has voiced similar sentiments before and backed away when the chips were down. They'll likely do the same this time.
The situation right now makes me think of the Balkans at the beginning of WWI. A few radical hotheads pulled the whole world into a war nobody wanted, a war which offered "victory" to nobody...yet it happened all the same because events spiraled out of control after the assassination of the Arch Duke.
Vietnam. OldGuy can tell ya', he was there.We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
Which one of those did we "lose"?
[Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations. We dont really want the land.
I don't agree with any of this.
You think humans are in a "War No More" mode? And that no one will ever use nukes?
Consider that the major international issue for years has been Iran and NK trying to nuke up; that suggests to me that someone is afraid of these weapons spreading and being used.
We go over and invade aggressively lots of places. The fact that we don't bother to conquer them and defeat them is ineffectiveness -- it has nothing to do with the land. We DO want colonization, we just want security colonization with many, many foreign bases rather than economic colonization like the British Empire did.
We are failing because we don't defeat anyone anymore and so we can't even get bases we can keep. Pax Americana has had a long run, but there was a period of no big wars in the "long 19th century," too, from 1815 to 1914, if you don't count the French-Prussian war, which wasn't a world war.
This long peace is purely down to us, but we are declining, apparently, and nothing lasts forever. NK and Iran smell this and are nuking up for big power in the new conditions ahead.
And that's a problem for China. In the mid 20th century North Korea was a part of the communist trade pack. Almost all China's trade was between other communist countries. In those days, North Korea produced goods that China really needed. Today they produce almost nothing that China needs. As a result NK has become a burden to China. Without China, NK would starve and carrying on an extended war would be impossible. Now NK is threatening a war that puts China in a very difficult position.What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?
What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?" Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?
Did you even bother to read what I typed in?
No where did I EVER state that we are in a war no more mode.
Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.
We dont fight wars AT ALL with other major nations though. We fight them through smaller nations and that is just a fact. For decades we have been in a CONSTANT state of war without any reprieve, all with minor nations. Thats how we do it now because open conflict with a major nation could end the plant so instead we make little nations pay for the larger nations conflicts.
There is a big difference in our relationship with South Korea and China's relationship with North Korea. South Korea buys arms from the US and exports hundreds of billions of dollars in consumer goods to US markets. South Korean relations with the US is more of a partnership where North Korean relations with China is more of a dependency.Military wise.
They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.
Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.
In the same manner that we own SK.
That is just the reality of it. Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations. We dont really want the land.
Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations. NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm. In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor. If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved. It is simple as that.
The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely. Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator. IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
Not that worried about North Korea. Sure, they can do some damage, just like a suicide bomber can. And they'll wind up the same way. Doesn't do much good to fret over it and it doesn't do any good to try to appease them either.
We'll just have to respond as best we can when and if they take complete leave of their senses.
Your either very ignorant or naïve.
In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.
"They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.
"They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
"In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.
And then, in the next sentence, I typed:Did you even bother to read what I typed in?
No where did I EVER state that we are in a war no more mode.
[Sigh] Why yes, obviously I did read what you wrote since I replied to it point by point. Perhaps you didn't say what you wanted to say, but you certainly said what you said.
You said:Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.
See? WAR NO MORE! WAR NO MORE!! Ohhhhh, the destruction, destroying everyone, world learned its lesson, won't use the bad bad nukes, etc.
Thats what happens when you cut out key lines and ignore them. You come out looking like a liar.Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.
Never said that it will last forever. At some point things WILL change. I dont see that happening right at the moment though and I believe it is unlikely. You, apparently, believe differently but I really do not see the evidence of that yet. For the moment, it does not look like anything is going to change soon.We dont fight wars AT ALL with other major nations though. We fight them through smaller nations and that is just a fact. For decades we have been in a CONSTANT state of war without any reprieve, all with minor nations. Thats how we do it now because open conflict with a major nation could end the plant so instead we make little nations pay for the larger nations conflicts.
Whatever. Hope on, hope ever. Time passes, things change. Were you supposing this would last forever?
In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.
"They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.
"They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
"In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.
"That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
