1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The 2010s

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by aimeeandbeatles, Nov 28, 2019.

  1. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,789
    Consider also, even being the world's most technologized advanced and well-organized military in the world doesn't guarantee any success in invading Russia - quite the reverse. In fact, the then-most technologically advanced and well-organized military in the word at the time attempted such an invasion in June 1941. The biggest asset Russia has always had, and would almost certainly still have, when fighting defensively is geography.
     
  2. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,099
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    True. Which is why the US likely will not invade Russia. We'd likely use our ability to strike from afar to take apart their ability to wage war and force them to come to us, which is a war Russia can't win. Remember: part of the reason the US military has been so successful is because we always put ourselves in situations that are favorable to us and disengage when things aren't favorable.
     
    caketastydelish likes this.
  3. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,789
    Of course, sometimes deciding when the optimal time to disengage would be, and when overstaying in a losing fight, as a judgement call has been an issue in U.S. military doctrine. *cough* Vietnam *cough* Afghanistan *cough*
     
  4. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish By any means necessary

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,436
    Gender:
    Male
    In WW2 the German army severely lacked oil and other resources, partially explaining why they attacked the Soviet Union in the first place. The American military right now would have no such problem. Not saying attacking Russia is a good idea or something we should do, but we would have a far better chance than The Third Reich did.

    That said, the real problem is occupation of the country after it is invaded. Defeating Russia’s conventional army
    and taking her territories are probably doable, occupying the country for an indefinite amount of time is something else.

    The Nazis didn’t want or care about all of
    the Soviet Union, just the strategically important parts such as their oil fields. The only reason why they kept further East is because they wanted to knock out Stalins army so they would be guaranteed to not have to deal with it anymore and thus not have to fight a war on two fronts.

    While I’m no military expert, my gut feeling is America could actually take out a lot of Russia’s ability to wage war, as of right now, without even having that many boots on the grounds. Our bombers, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, navy ships, artillery, tanks, etc are so much better that we could effectively wipe out their factories, army, war machine without a blood bath (on our side) unlike with the Nazis had to deal with.

    Morally speaking there’s no reason for us to do this as far as I can see, but practically speaking it should definitely be doable.
     
  5. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,789
    The Russian Air Force is far better functioning over winter skies than the U.S. Air Force, except for certain units that are a small minority of available aircraft. The only NATO allies whose winter optimization of military aircraft equals or exceeds the Russians there are the Canadians, Norweigans, and Danes - small air forces each.
     
  6. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    55,257
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Besides, the US would just be nuked, so it would be the end of it as well as Russia's.
     
    Imaus likes this.
  7. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish By any means necessary

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,436
    Gender:
    Male
    You were the one who originally specified a scenario where nukes wouldn’t be used. -_- That’s what we were discussing.
     
  8. gangleri2001

    gangleri2001 Garbage day!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Caldes de Montbui, Großkatalonien
    The 2010's? Let's compare them to the rest of decades I've lived:

    1980's: I was born in November 1985 so I barely remember this decade. I can't tell anything significant about it.

    1990's: Best decade I lived thus far. Everything was amazing. I've always thought that maybe I'm biased because it's the decade of my childhood (or at least the bit of childhood people actually remembers) and my early teens but when I ask people who were in other stages of life back then, they almost unanimously reply that we haven't had such a great time since then, so it looks like it's not my bias but rather quite an objective observation.

    2000's: An OK decade. It started off as a mediocre continuation of the 90's but as time went by it developed its own character and you ended up loving it and all its contributions to pop culture.

    2010's: Absolute mediocrity. S**t music, s**t movies, s**t economy at the beginning (though it's the 00's fault and its 2007/2008 meltdown, let's be fair), s**t fashion. Golden age for both muffin-eating no-shave-novemberin' hipsters and motivational coachs (MEGA S**T!). Only trends started in previous decades are great such as videogames (started in the 80's/90's) or TV series (started in the 00's). SJW lunacy arriving from the US and spreading like a wildfire, etc. Overall it has been one gigantic s**t show.
     
  9. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish By any means necessary

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,436
    Gender:
    Male
    I absolutely agree with you.
     
  10. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,099
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    Vietnam, sure. We straight up lost that war. Some would argue it was because of too much meddling in military affairs from politicians and lack of support on the home front, but that doesn't change the fact that we lost there.

    Afghanistan is a different story. There, we won the war, but are losing the occupation. Again though, this can be attributed to politicians changing objectives and asking the military to do things it simply isn't equipped to do (i.e. nation building). So one could argue the issue isn't necessarily our military doctrine, but rather too much interference from politicians that seem to view the military as just another political tool to help them get reelected.
     
  11. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    55,257
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    I didn't, though, as I clarified later on :)
    The SDI defense claim is a different one - certainly if nukes aren't a threat, ww3 can include invasions into superpower countries.
     
  12. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,285
    Is Afghanistan 18 years later favorable? Or s that just the typical delay to conclude that things are not favorable? Vietnam did also take a long time.

    Worse, it doesn't even seem original to me.... it's the 70s all over again isn't it? :vomit: The escape into individualism and phony "motivation". The fashion and design hipsterism. The feeling of economic and social crisis. The never-ending hypocritical wars around the world for the sake of "freedom". The cynicism of politics.
     
    Truthy likes this.
  13. aimeeandbeatles

    aimeeandbeatles watermelon

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    16,171
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    The 2010s was goodbad or maybe it was badgood I dont really know. I do know things but not that.
     
    Truthy likes this.
  14. aimeeandbeatles

    aimeeandbeatles watermelon

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    16,171
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    I dont know if there s aidfference between goodbad and badgood does matter any
     
    Truthy likes this.
  15. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,789
    The U.S.-led NATO invasion in 2001 made the same strategic error and assumption in Afghanistan that the Soviets did in 1979-1989. They both assumed that securing control of the cities and driving enemy elements out of them was the time to declare "victory, and it was ONLY mopping up and occupation duty thereafter." This was a gross miscalculation. It's no wonder the last foreign invading army that won a complete victory invading the soil of Afghanistan was as far back as Alexander the Great. And the Umayyad Caliphate, Mongol Empire, Timurid Empire, Mughal Empire, British Empire, and Tsarist Russian Empire, others who failed to win victory over that nation invading it's own soil, were nor minor players in the world in their day, either. The temptation to underestimate the Afghans when they're on the defensive seems almost unavoidable, despite historical precedent.

    The big problems with this assumption both the Soviets and the U.S.-led NATO coalition made was actually quite profound. First, Afghanistan has a 70% rural population, with very tribal and extended familial rural social organization. In both cases, the majority of Pro-Soviet and Pro-Western (in respective events) civilian population in the nation were in the cities. The Mujahadeen and Taliban (in respective events) had strong rural support and even dominance. And, in Afghanistan, the rural tribes have traditionally been armed to the teeth since AT LEAST the Durrani Empire centred in Kandahar in the 15th Century. So, the fact is, it doesn't really matter who you topple or install in power in Kabul in a nation like Afghanistan, to be honest. Victory was declared to too fast (though, judging by George W. Bush's ridiculously premature "mission accomplished" speech on that aircraft carrier, that type of faux paus was common in American leadership at the time), and it was NOT just "mopping up and occupation duty" thereafter.

    Except for being a bit out old for the age group, and the fact I love to eat meat, I was told I live up to most of the "signature indicators," of being a hipster. I was uncertain how to take such a statement to be honest. And the best music in my opinion was in the '80's and '90's...
     
  16. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,099
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    That depends on how you define victory. You seem to be equating victory with conquest. Conquest was not the US's objective in Afghanistan. Our goal was to dislodge Al'Qaeda and overthrow the government that was supporting them. We achieved both of those objectives. Everything that came after has just been politicians trying to use the situation to score political points. And while the Taliban is certainly going to be part of the new government once we leave, they aren't going to dominate it, so our objective of knocking them out of power still stands.

    Also, Afghanistan's reputation as the "graveyard of superpowers" is greatly overrated in my opinion. Especially since they can hardly claim to be an independent nation. While they may not be conquered militarily, everything that happens in that nation is usually the result of external manipulations of their internal politics. You can hardly claim to be free, independent, and unconquered when outsiders can manipulate your politics seemingly at will.

    EDIT: And a small correction to your post: The "Mission Accomplished" declaration was for Iraq, not Afghanistan. And it wasn't premature. The mission of overthrowing Saddam's regime was, indeed, accomplished.
     
  17. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,789
    Ah, yes. Breaking a country's infrastructure and sending it into civil war and chaos, because al-Qaeda was dislodged (just made to move around a bit with, at the time, most of it's leadership and network influence intact), and the Taliban were "removed from power," despite effectively still controlling 60% of the land area and population of the country. Very strange ways of defining victory. Sounds almost like those Colonial Era botches of infamy in mentality - haven't we all learned from those yet? And, of course, the Western World's governments and military commands have yet to figure out that there is no MILITARY solution to "terrorism," - the "War on Terror," like the "War on Drugs," were effectively pronunciations of inevitable defeat (or, at least, unwinnability) from the moment they were uttered - but so many innocents seem to have to die, so much property and infrastructure destroyed, whole nations' functionality ruined, First World Governments violating the freedoms and rights to due process and their own citizens and becoming enemies of the Constitutional forms of government they are built and of their own people, and ill-will and hatred that did not previously exist being churned in huge amounts, UNNECESSARILY, just to satisfy the doomed crusade and disgusting vanities of governments that have been the source of monstrous and unforgiveable war crimes and illegal wars and great acts of sedition and treason of government toward their own populaces. The BIGGEST criminals here are very clear to see. I'm not saying the terrorist extremist organizations shouldn't be brought to justice - they definitely should - but so should the monstrous criminals on the other side. Justice SHOULD be blind...

    And, I knew that George W. Bush said "Mission Accomplished" for the Iraq War. I was just commenting the U.S. leadership of the time's tendency to prematurely claim "victory" across the board.
     
  18. Truthy

    Truthy Idle

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,849
    I came of age. It was fine
     
    The_J likes this.
  19. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,099
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    And here I thought we were having a discussion about military doctrine. Little did I know that you were more interested in using the discussion to jump on your anti-Western soapbox and start ranting. In which case I have no interest in participating in such a discussion or listening to such rants.
     
  20. aimeeandbeatles

    aimeeandbeatles watermelon

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    16,171
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    I should not post when I am in bad pain. I'm not even sure what I was trying to say here. :sad:
     

Share This Page