GLOBAL ECONOMIC TRADE WAR!

[Disco Pickle]

I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations. Kind of like the way Israel lost during the First Intifada. You can achieve your goals and half of the planet will still think your asshats if all they see are big bad soldiers vs helpless innocent kids with rocks.

What would my definition of win have been?  After the war broke out, pushed the Chinese and Russian communists out that occupied the north after WWII and actively supported turning the government of North Korea over to the South.  

So, obtaining the objectives set forth by the political body authorizing the war (the UN) wasn't good enough.  We had to turn it into an act of aggression, instead of simply returning things to the status quo ante bellum.

And why couldn't we win a war against China?  I mean, other than your bald, unsupported statement?

The act of aggression was when the North invaded the South.  Returning it to the 1945 agreement did nothing to permanently stabilize the region as it's still in upheaval today.  The superpowers using that country as a means of undermining each other for decades again, does not equal win in my mind.

as to military strength between us and China..  



wallstats.com did this one.  of course statistics are, as always, dependent on who gathers the info.

by land war, I meant invasion and holding of land in the traditional sense.  This precludes the use of nuclear weapons to take out major population dense areas and dramatically lower their potential manpower recruiting abilities should they begin to sustain heavy losses.

I don't claim to know it all you old fucks, and if you have a book to recommend then by all means.

The Pickle is well aware you don't go from being a lowly cucumber to a real Pickle over night.

[Disco Pickle]

Im replying late because I have some work to do, sorry for that.  I'll get out of the way if you guys are moving to other wars.

I've got to get this off my desk anyway.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.

Tojo was more hated in America than Hitler ever was.  Just saying.

Well, I wasn't alive then so I'll have to defer to you ancients   

Yeah, I was alive back then, and stumping my walker through the battle of the bulge. 

Dok,
Talked to WWII-era people once or twice, and has read a book or two.

Dok, we know the truth... every time a body part fails, you replace it with some neferious device and tromp on. There's no way you could have come into existence over just a single lifetime  

[Adios]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

[Disco Pickle]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

but they could keep them coming in wave after wave, long after we had exhausted our manpower.  incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

And massive Jungles are good for breaking up the front lines

Besides, there's not likely to be a 'traditional' war anymore, the number of boots on the ground may end up mattering far less. Though, personally, I wouldn't like our odds vs China in a dust up.

[Adios]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

but they could keep them coming in wave after wave.  incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion? 

No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.

And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are having to send in wave after wave of troops.

Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.

[Disco Pickle]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

but they could keep them coming in wave after wave.  incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion? 

No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.

And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are having to send in wave after wave of troops.

Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.

warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.

Most of my reading has been historical.

[Doktor Howl]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

You beat me to it.

What killed China in Korea is the same problem they have today...Too many useless troops, and no logistics train.

[Doktor Howl]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

And massive Jungles are good for breaking up the front lines

Besides, there's not likely to be a 'traditional' war anymore, the number of boots on the ground may end up mattering far less. Though, personally, I wouldn't like our odds vs China in a dust up.

Yeah, it would suck watching them all starve to death in month 3.

[Doktor Howl]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

but they could keep them coming in wave after wave.  incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion? 

No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.

And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are having to send in wave after wave of troops.

Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.

warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.

Most of my reading has been historical.

On which planet?

Tactics are meaningless as a study.  It's all about supply.

[Doktor Howl]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

but they could keep them coming in wave after wave, long after we had exhausted our manpower.  incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?  

Not if they starve on the way to the battlefield.

Christ.

And if we started a ground war where?  North Korea or China?

[Adios]

Le Sigh Pickle.

At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.

but they could keep them coming in wave after wave.  incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion? 

No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.

And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are having to send in wave after wave of troops.

Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.

warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.

Most of my reading has been historical.

On which planet?

Tactics are meaningless as a study.  It's all about supply.

Exactly. Logistics determine battle plans. Germany outran their supply lines. That didn't work out too good for them. Even though China borders Korea they still couldn't keep adequate supply lines open.

The best battle tactic is and ever will be to disrupt supply lines.

[Doktor Howl]

At this point in time, there isn't a military that could stand up to the states in a conventional war.  Britain would give us a good run for our money, but as good as they are (I put the British Royal Marines at the top of the food chain, as far as conventional forces go), they'd be out of their weight class.  Our entire strength is in our ability to move beans and bullets, which is how conventional wars are won.

Americans, of course, always interpret this to mean we can win ANY kind of war, so we go running off into 4th generation shit, which is like asking a proctologist to do brain surgery.

We're kind of dumb, that way.

[Cain]

Wars also keep people employed. A lot of people.

However, it is not as efficient as other economic activity, for reasons George Orwell outlines rather clearly in one of his essays (cant remember which, but he points out building a bomb, or manufacturing bullets, are essentially "dead investments" which create very little wealth, in comparison to other activities).

In the short term, it would probably help.  That is, help enough to give a ruling political party a boost in the next elections.  But it's not sustainable even in the mid-term.  Total war a la the 20th century would quickly wreck a nation if chosen as a purposeful policy without end.  I mean, hell, even the current attempts at counter-insurgency, in two of the weakest countries on the planet, would be taxing the world's richest nation, if it were not deferring those costs to a future date.